I'm quite sure if there is any credence to the rumour then Squidge will have the good grace to inform us all in due course. Meantime it will remain no more than a rumour.Quote:
Originally Posted by golach
I'm quite sure if there is any credence to the rumour then Squidge will have the good grace to inform us all in due course. Meantime it will remain no more than a rumour.Quote:
Originally Posted by golach
I am not all that interested in the viability of the oil industry except that it is a huge asset and not a curse as you would have us believe. Frankly we are not falling for it so save your breath. Your argument basically goes along the lines that the futureof the oil industry is pants then so must be an independent Scotland. It is as ludicrous as it is bogus and fallacious.Quote:
Originally Posted by rob murray
All industries have their upside downs.
It would be like saying in the 1950s that the coal and steel industry will collapse in 30 years time therefore we must hand over the sovereignty of the UK to the USA.
What matters is that Scotland is capable of looking after its own affairs better than anyone else because nobody really wants to. You only have to look at EVEL to work that one out. Scotland is being made to feel like a pariah state within the UK. Not a good strategy for happy families, is it?
[QUOTE=Rheghead;1123475]I am not all that interested in the viability of the oil industry except that it is a huge asset and not a curse as you would have us believe. Frankly we are not falling for it so save your breath.
Surprisingly that is exactly what I said to a certain Mr Salmond when he told me that every man,woman & child in Scotland would have £300,000 from our oil reserves.
As the richest country in the world why would we need a few paltry £s or Euros in oil reserves anyway ?
"I am not all that interested in the viability of the oil industry except that it is a huge asset and not a curse as you would have us believe".........
Absolutly unbelievable...I never said it was a curse. thank god we have it, I posed the low Oil price and the issue of lost jobs direct and indirectsupply chain as a fact its not a scare tactic its happening : thats all, some people think that this is seroius ( everyone dependant on Oil for a livelihood I would imagine ) I am really glad that you are convinced that we dont need oil and are your not interested in the viability of the oil industry ( scotland top three employer )...or that your not interested in the thousands of Scots who have lost their Oil related jobs. You must know something more than the rest of us in terms of where the replacement jobs will come from ? If so let us into the secret. Thankfully the SNP scottish government are concerned....you seem out of step with them ?
Can you provide one clear and shining example of how Scotland can look after its own affairs better than anyone else, it certainly wouldn't be the NHS, Fire Service,Police, Education or any other number of issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rheghead
You obviously don't see the hypocrisy of your statement on EVEL on one hand you want and have issue devolved so only Scottish MSPs can vote on Scottish issues but want to deny the English MPs the same ability to vote on only English issues.
There are no feelings of living in a pariah state except maybe from the constantly moaning SNP MSPs they sow nothing but discontentment and grievance. So far I have seen little or nothing of them running this country for the betterment of everyone living here.
Would getting rid of Trident from Scottish soil and using the cost of that more usefully,like investing more in some of the issues yu mention.do as an example of how Scotland can look after its own affairs better than the Union........or maybe not illegally invading, at great cost, foreign countries to make profits for big business?Quote:
Originally Posted by BetterTogether
Nobody has any problem with England having exactly the same rights as Scotland, Wales and NI, ie....their own ability to decide how to deal with devolved competencies, their own dedicated Parliament building, their own dedicated civil servants, their own dedicated ME(nglish)Ps all paid for by themselves out of their own Consolidated Fund using income calculated on the same basis as the incomes of the other devolved Parliaments. Nobody at all is trying to deny English MPs the same rights as Scottish MPs. Scottish MPs in Westminster can't vote on matters which are reserved to the Scottish government,and the same goes for NI and Welsh MPs, and this is because we have a separate Parliament, which is fully funded by the Block Grant, as, incidentally, is the cost of the Scottish Office, which we could very happily live without.
What England wants is not the same thing at all.......England wants to "have the best of both worlds" they want to usurp the UK parliament building, facilities and administration to have their "own" Parliament, which will, as a result, cost them not a single penny more from their "block grant". In fact, they don't even intend to have a "block grant" they want access, for English needs and wants, to every penny left in the consolidated fund after the Scotland/Wales/NI block grants have been paid, and the ability to rack up budget deficits/national debt without having to consider the effects on the other three parts of the UK...and that is unacceptable if, as they claim Westminster is the UK Parliament and not simply the English Parliament writ large with inconvenient additions. The hypocrisy is that of England which thinks they cannot be devolved because it is their inalienable right to do the devolving for every other part of the UK, because all the rest of us are little more than a region of England.
The UK is a Union....don't make me laugh!
Well said Oddquine. We never have been 'equal' partners in this so called union and I defy anyone to convince me otherwise. Just as an aside. Why are finances controlled by the Bank of England and not by the United Kingdom Bank ?
Cant argue with your points, when it comes down to it we were never equal partners from day one of the unification of parliaments 1707 , in 2015 the questions are : are we "better off" as unequal partners or are we better off with full powers and still remain as part of UK or go the whole hog and be independant ? The Bank of England, was established in 1694, it is the second oldest central bank in the world, It was established to act as the English Government's banker and with the union of parliaments 1707 creating the UK, the bank of england became the UK bank.... remember why the parliaments were joined..... predominate reason was to enable Scotland to recover from the financial disaster wrought by the Darien scheme which was backed by 25–50% of all the money circulating in Scotland, its failure left the entire Lowlands almost completely ruined...so hobsons choice then...go bust or be rescued and thats what happened hence the Banl=k of England was the UK bank from day 1 as we ( Scotland ) couldnt act as UJ bank for finanical reasons...we wiz broke !Quote:
Originally Posted by Murdo
I wouldn't have an issue with EVEL if the people of England have voted for their own devolution. But they haven't and they have shown no will for it. I say they should go for it. But having English devolution shoved down their necks whether they like it or not is the wrong way to go about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by BetterTogether
If the current powers to be are to be lauded then,
1.Why don't the trains run?
2. Why is The NHS in chaos?
3. Why is education failing?
4. Why is everything blamed on Westminster even when it is devolved?
5. Why are councils not allowed to raise local taxes so services can be provided?
Come on folk take a look at reality.
I would agree we were the weaker partners from day 1 : For various reasons, the parliaments of Scotland / England were unified in 1707, the Bank of England founded in 1694 and the second oldest bank in the world was as it says, Englands bank, but why did the parliaments united ? STraight to the point here, Scotland in the years leading upto 1707 was a busted flush, the failed Darein Project was backed by 25–50% of all the money circulating in Scotland, lets repeat that...all the money...... its failure left the entire Lowlands almost completely ruined and was an important factor in weakening any resistance to the act of union 1707. So Scotlands lowland powerhouse was broke, a united kingdom ( crowns unified a century before ) obviously had to have a central bank, we couldnt handle this, we wuz broke, we couldnt even handle our own countrys finances, we needed a cash injection, if it hadnt been for the failure and loss of money ( the money of the great and good in Scotland who were also according to some records bribed as well, to support the union which helped pay of their debts ) the parliaments would not have united, or put simply, the Scots needed financial support from England, England called the shots, Scottish banks did not have the liquidity required, the Bank of England did.....thats why finances have been controlled by the Bank of England ever since and not by any United Kingdom BankQuote:
Originally Posted by Murdo
You appear to have bought in wholeheartedly to the rewriting of the Darien Scheme as promulgated by Unionists, and pretty much as I was taught at school. Darien was not so much a story of incompetence and failure by the Scots, but one of betrayal, power,and military and political might used against Scotland to the benefit of England. I won't go into all the background of the events which led from the "Union of the Crowns" until the Treaty of Union, but do want to talk about "the busted flush".Quote:
Originally Posted by rob murray
The Bank of Scotland (Governor and Company of the Bank of Scotland) was established by special Acts of Parliament, and founded the year after the Bank of England, but was not founded to deal with Scotland's debt, which did not exist until it joined the Union in 1707. In fact, it was specifically forbidden from lending to or otherwise financially assisting the Crown, except where "a Credit of Loan shall happen to be granted by Act of Parliament allenarly." which never happened. The Bank of England, (Governor and Company of the Bank of England), was, on the other hand set up specifically, by William Paterson and Charles Montagu to loan money (at profit) in an effort to provide a solution to England's debt crisis, which did exist.
Darien hit the wealth of individuals not that of the country as a whole. Individuals in Scotland, after Darien, were poorer, particularly in the Lowlands, but Scotland itself was not "a busted flush", unless you are going to apply the rules of a modern economy in which everything is measured by the money washing around in it, to a time in which the norm was for countries to live within their means, because banks and the printing and manipulation of money was not then the main, even the only, point of existence, as it has become today.
As Darien was a privately funded enterprise, Scotland had no National Debt to pay interest on and no need to have one, as it didn't, on its own behalf, undertake foreign wars which had to be funded by people paying taxes. However by 1704, around the time of the Battle of Blenheim, so much bullion had been abstracted from the Scottish economy, in order to help fund the English wars against the French, that it resulted in a scarcity of coin, and the rumour that the Privy Council was about to raise the face value of the coinage, caused a run on the bank at the end of 1704....but it was the private stockholders who bore the cost of refinancing.....not the Scottish people..... and there was still no National Debt.
.
So how can a country be "a busted flush" when it does not owe anybody anything? If the Scots people were so desperate to get the "strength and money of the Union around them", and thought they needed financial support from England........how was it that even staunch supporters of the Union in the negotiating team said that the treaty was “contrary to the inclinations of at least three-fourths of the Kingdom”. The one anti-Union member of the negotiating team, went further saying “The whole nation appears against the Union”.
How come there were petitions against the Union from the Convention of Royal Burghs, the shires, burghs, presbyteries and parishes...and not one single petition in favour of it? How come, if the people were so enthusiastic, the Act of Union was signed in secret for fear of reprisals because the ordinary people of Scotland were rioting in the streets in protest. How come, if Scotland was so keen on the Union, that it took the effects/threats of the English Alien Act to force the Parliament, most of whom were being financially damaged by it, to appoint commissioners to discuss a Treaty.
Scotland, in those days, can only be considered a "busted flush" by looking at the situation from this point, three hundred plus years in the future, when National Debt has become the norm to create private profit for the few at the expense of the many, and balancing budgets has become very much the exception rather than the rule it once was. That is almost as ridiculous an assertion as the referendum claim that Scotland cannot manage to be independent because, using the figures drawn from the spending in Scotland as part of the Union, 70% of which is done by Westminster as a share of Westminster priorities, not by Scotland on Scottish priorities, unionists blithely assume that an independent Scottish Government would change nothing at all.... but continue emulating the profligacy of Westminster and wasting money hand over fist. There is a difference which few people on the Unionist side appear to get...that it isn't how much money you have which is important, it is how you use that money to best effect.
Let's face it, regardless of whether you think that the Union was a good or a bad thing for Scotland, and whether it is a good thing or a bad thing for Scotland today, the fact remains that Scotland’s nobles were bullied and bribed into signing the treaty.....and when they did, it certainly wasn’t for the benefit of the people of Scotland, but for the benefit of their own pockets and lifestyles. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
Very nice post Oddquine it reads eerily similar to a post on the same subject on wingsoverscotland website.
Which happens to be the only website that supports that particular version of history.
Which ever way you wish to slice it at the time of the act of Union Scotland was by no means a wealthy country and the vast majority of Historians would say it was becoming impoverished.
Why you think prior to the Act England owed any kind of preference in trading deals or rights is quite odd.
The countries where at the time rivals why would or should England have given any special treatment to Scotland.
Back in those times it was very much a dog eat dog world with England frequently at war with the French or Spanish as the larger more prosperous country it was duty bound to protect its population and until the Act of Union, Scotland was no more than a some what impoverished trading partner without the military or naval might to impose its will on the English.
Which no doubt if the boot had been on the other foot it would of done equally ruthlessly.
To try and impose modern morality on historical events is pointless.
Meanwhile back to Oil the new negotiations with Iran look likely to introduce more Oil into the global supply which experts are claiming will keep Oil prices at current levels or depress them even more than they are currently another blow to the Scottish Oil Industry.
ABsolutely agree with your last sentence, the "nobles / the great and the good looked after themselves"..and the mass outrage over the union, I wont bother quoting Burns here ( just " a parcel of rogues"as you will be familiar with it surely ? ) ....) .Yes Darien hit the wealth of individuals and not the BOS and you k ow or should know that the individuals concerned were men of means / the nobility the great and the good....the rest of your post well thats the whole point of history eh....a subjective subject open to interpretation and I wasnt expressing my personal take on the situation merely re iterating why, from the history Ive read that Scotland was hit badly financially by the Darien scheme..liquidity crisis etc. When I say Scotland I mean the low lands as there was no real wealth in the Highlands. I am not inferring any modern day comparisons either which you stray into, ( you cant help but get the referendum stuff in here...people voted no for a complexity of reasons not on a single issue ) my post was simply an attempt to answer a posters question : why there was no UK bank, its cos the Bank of England was there in place and solvent from day 1 of the union, Scotland couldnt act as UK bank it didnt have liquidity required to manage the nations finances ( even without the Darien scheme )...... I didnt say that the union was welcome with open arms anything but....and we have always been an unequal partner from day 1. Your point "regardless of whether you think that the Union was a good or a bad thing for Scotland, and whether it is a good thing or a bad thing for Scotland today, the fact remains that Scotland’s nobles were bullied and bribed into signing the treaty.....and when they did, it certainly wasn’t for the benefit of the people of Scotland, but for the benefit of their own pockets and lifestyles"....... is 100% accurate....they were the parcel of rogues sold the country out for their own gain...but as they say we are where are are, and Scotland, over the course, certainly gained overall being in the union !!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Oddquine
PS a wee thing called religion came into the union equation as well...heres a clue... deposed line...Stuarts...catholics.....shut the door .....keep them out....need to ensure Scotland falls into line...............whats your thought on that ?
Yes Odd Quines post does mirror wingsoverscotland post and I agree with your point, To try and impose modern morality on historical events is pointless we are where we are as they say. The Iran situation....yep will lead to over supply of oil forcing prices down or at best keeping them at 60/65 dollars a barrel with knock on effect on oil revenues ( our bonus )Quote:
Originally Posted by BetterTogether
From the BBC Website - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-33469379 This is in regard to the NHS. One quote from the article -Quote:
Originally Posted by LIZZ
"Scottish Labour called it a "crisis" and claimed the number of patients registered at an "understaffed" GP practice was at least two million.
The Scottish government said there was no crisis in healthcare."
Could that be because the Scottish Government is based in the safe confines of a City? They need to live with the NHS we deal with here.
Interesting, some on here would say that the stats are "unionist" lies and anti scottish government propoganda ! Your point of the Scottish government being based within a city..........spot on ......divorced from the realities of rural life ....swap Edinburgh for London eh and all will be well.....not !!
Another thing people say on here is we live in a rural area so cannot expect all the services they have in a city, which I suppose is fair enough, however do we pay less National Insurance contributions than those in a City? I do'nt think we do !
Good point, maybe in an independant Scotalnd we will be able to pay less NI and tax....after all as you say we dont have the services readily available in a city so why should we contribute as much but somehow I cant see that happening eh ?Quote:
Originally Posted by cptdodger
No, that will never happen. If I thought it would fund the services we need here, I would happily pay for prescriptions. Something as basic as hematology, is a 220 mile round trip. Caithness has an ageing population, surely they should'nt have to be made to endure that trip for the most basic of procedures.