View Full Version : The Org Poll on Independence
Have you got any evidence of Yes voters are rigging the vote? The poll is for the readership of the Daily Record, a traditional Pro-union paper.One newspaper, that's not a good example of a poll Rheg, what had the Scottish Sun have to say about the gap between the two sides?
Experts are claiming a potential of 8 billion barrels of oil.
Show me a quote from ONE "expert" that says there's 8 billion barrels of RECOVERABLE oil.
There is an estimated TOTAL oil volume of 8 billion barrels. Most North Sea fields yield somewhere in the region of 30% of total oil. Even using modern technologies. Clair Ridge will have a lower than average yield because it is a very complicated resevoir, full of fractures and difficult geology.
Now, regardless of recovery rate, and regardless of new technologies, the Clair Ridge platform will only be able to deliver somewhere in the region of 700m barrels over 40 years. And that's a more generous figure than BP are aiming for.
I've come across those sort of statistics when I have spoke about wind farms, eg Renewable incentives putting x amount on top of bills. Once you dig into the details then most are folly or unsound.
Look into the figures of north sea production over the last few years and compare them with the figures of government cash generated. That way you'll get a price per barrel.
I chose 2012 because those were the figures I found most easily.
Multiply that cost per barrel by what Clair Ridge platform can produce.
Feel free to dig into the detail, then tell me if you find them folly or unsound.
Look into the figures of north sea production over the last few years and compare them with the figures of government cash generated. That way you'll get a price per barrel.I chose 2012 because those were the figures I found most easily.Multiply that cost per barrel by what Clair Ridge platform can produce.Feel free to dig into the detail, then tell me if you find them folly or unsound.The one, your figures will be dismissed as untruths by Rheg and his yesnp cronies, they do not compute with the facts as they see them
Look into the figures of north sea production over the last few years and compare them with the figures of government cash generated. That way you'll get a price per barrel.
I chose 2012 because those were the figures I found most easily.
Multiply that cost per barrel by what Clair Ridge platform can produce.
Feel free to dig into the detail, then tell me if you find them folly or unsound.
It is not about just x times Y. For every £ reaped from the oil, you have real people earning money and spending wages. For every man on a platform, you may have 3 more in supporting industries.
The one, your figures will be dismissed as untruths by Rheg and his yesnp cronies, they do not compute with the facts as they see them
well I am not the one (pardon pun) who constantly putting down Scotland's potential in the world. You seem to repeat the UK government's mantra that Scotland isn't big enough or smart enough to be an independent country.
Question for you golach, nothing too hard.
"Do you think Scotland can be a prosperous independent country?"
It is not about just x times Y. For every £ reaped from the oil, you have real people earning money and spending wages. For every man on a platform, you may have 3 more in supporting industries.
Indeed.
But how much money in wages, and the income from taxes and expenditure would be required to make Scotland "insanely rich"?
Because EVEN if 30% of the money Clair Ridge makes is spent on wages, and EVEN if every penny of that remains in Scotland (it won't - a significant proportion of north sea workers live elsewhere), it would amount to less than £100 per head of population per year.
Insanely rich?
Indeed.
But how much money in wages, and the income from taxes and expenditure would be required to make Scotland "insanely rich"?
Because EVEN if 30% of the money Clair Ridge makes is spent on wages, and EVEN if every penny of that remains in Scotland (it won't - a significant proportion of north sea workers live elsewhere), it would amount to less than £100 per head of population per year.
Insanely rich?
Well I've seen reports of 250,000 barrels per day from just the Clair Ridge, that is high expectation. You say £17 per bbl? By my maths that amounts to £310 per person going to an independent Scotland treasury per year. Realistic expectation is 125,000 bbl per day, £155 per person. Add to that the tax gained from everybody that is employed and works in Scotland that works Clair Ridge. In an iScotland, I believe the HQ will be moved to Scotland thus improving benefits to Scotland. Yes, that is indicative of an insanely wealthy nation just from one oilfield.
Well I've seen reports of 250,000 barrels per day from just the Clair Ridge, that is high expectation. You say £17 per bbl? By my maths that amounts to £310 per person going to an independent Scotland treasury per year. Realistic expectation is 125,000 bbl per day, £155 per person. Add to that the tax gained from everybody that is employed and works in Scotland that works Clair Ridge. In an iScotland, I believe the HQ will be moved to Scotland thus improving benefits to Scotland. Yes, that is indicative of an insanely wealthy nation just from one oilfield.
Whatever reports you have seen about 250000bpd are wrong. The Clair Ridge platform is physically incapable of producing that amount. FACT.
125000 barrels a day is close to the design MAXIMUM operating rate.
But platforms have to shutdown due to unplanned trips and for planned maintenance. Ops efficiency for a typical platform in the north sea is somewhere around 65%.
BP believe they will develop less than 700 million barrels over 40 years. That averages less than 50,000 barrels per day. 5.5 million people - £50 odd quid a year each.
You believe BP, a company that operates in 80 countries worldwide, producing 3.2 million barrels of oil a day is going to move its headquarters for the sake of one oil field producing 50,000 barrels a day?????
Whatever reports you have seen about 250000bpd are wrong. The Clair Ridge platform is physically incapable of producing that amount. FACT.
I don't know where you get your info from but even David Cameron says Clair ridge is a MASSIVE boost for jobs and growth.
This report says 200-250 thousand barrels per day from CR. It isn't a SNP source or pro YES. :roll: :lol:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JhqTVZDCnw
I don't know where you get your info from but even David Cameron says Clair ridge is a MASSIVE boost for jobs and growth.
This report says 200-250 thousand barrels per day from CR. It isn't a SNP source or pro YES. :roll: :lol:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JhqTVZDCnw
The link you've posted was from original project sanction, before the design work was done. Now that work has been done, maximum production figures are roughly half that.
It CANNOT produce 250,000 barrels of oil a day.
Of course it's a massive boost. Any new fields and platforms getting built in a region where production has been declining for 10 yeas is a massive boost.
And yes, it's a "game changer" in that it's a new development west of Shetland using new technologies.
But I'm sorry, it's won't make Scotland "insanely rich".
The link you've posted was from original project sanction, before the design work was done. Now that work has been done, maximum production figures are roughly half that.
It CANNOT produce 250,000 barrels of oil a day.
Of course it's a massive boost. Any new fields and platforms getting built in a region where production has been declining for 10 yeas is a massive boost.
And yes, it's a "game changer" in that it's a new development west of Shetland using new technologies.
But I'm sorry, it's won't make Scotland "insanely rich".
I have tried to produce credible resources for my claims. I cannot discredit maths. You have produced none to back up yours. You only have opinion, yours. The latest info that describes the Clair Ridge oilfield is that it is a game-changer from ETFDaily. It isn't a pro indy website, it is a website that promotes up to date info for investors.
How do you equate MASSIVE boost for jobs and growth with 'not much really'? Still waiting...
I have tried to produce credible resources for my claims. I cannot discredit maths. You have produced none to back up yours. You only have opinion, yours. The latest info that describes the Clair Ridge oilfield is that it is a game-changer from ETFDaily. It isn't a pro indy website, it is a website that promotes up to date info for investors.
What maths would you like me to produce resources for? Ask and I will try.
The ETFDaily may indeed call it a game-changer. But you've got to define game-changer and what it means.
It could mean many things, I'll give a few examples:
The majority of oil production will change from north sea to atlantic ocean. Game changer.
The majority of oil production will rely on EOR techniques. Game changer.
Oil production from traditional extraction methods will be overtaken by that of EOR. Game changer.
UKCS oil recover will rise for the first time in 10 years. Game changer.
Game changer can mean a lot of things. And yes, Clair Ridge is a game changer in terms of UKCS exploration and exploitation strategy.
But it is not a field that will make Scotland "insanely rich". Unless you regard insane richness as a 3 course meal in the upper deck.
Sorry it is an impasse. You say that, I say this. I say to anyone, do the proper research. Make your own mind up. There's plenty of info that supports that david cameron tried to stop the Clair ridge oilfield being a referendum issue. And why would he?
Sorry it is an impasse. You say that, I say this. I say to anyone, do the proper research. Make your own mind up.
No, it's not an impasse.
You made the claim here that the new Clair Ridge platform would/will make Scotland "insanely rich". I believe I have shown it won't. If you need any further clarification/info/resources, let me know - I will try to provide them.
You tried to promote a reason for independence, hoping it would help your cause, no doubt influencing voters. I believe I have shown that reason to be false.
I will not pick faults in genuine/valid arguments for independence but quoting Clair Ridge as something that will make us "insanely rich" is absolutely untrue, and therefore I had to challenge it.
There's plenty of info that supports that david cameron tried to stop the Clair ridge oilfield being a referendum issue. And why wouldn't he?
Can you expand on that? Clair Ridge was sanctioned as a project several years ago (before the referendum was decided). Contacts were open to tender and the platforms are being built in Korea. BP has recently announced it is 1 year behind schedule.
I don't see how anything about the project is being kept secret, or how Davis Camerson could stop it becoming and issue in the debate. Please enlighten me.
an impasse
It’s like asking me how I’m getting to work
“I’ll take the car”
- But what if you can’t
- but I can it’s the best option
- but what if it’s broken and you can’t use it? What’s your plan B?
I don’t need one I will take the car but I can take the other car, I could take one of three buses, I could take a taxi, I could walk”
So which other method will you choose.
I won’t I’ll take the car
But what is your plan B?
Well any one of a range of options
So what transport will you use
I’ll take the car
But what if it’s broke
It isn’t
What’s plan b?
Well there are a range of options
So how are you getting to work?
I’ll take the car
What if you can’t?
But I can
What’s plan b?
Well there are a range of options but I’ll be taking the car!!
No.
An impasse is when two sides can't agree once all the evidence has been presented.
I believe I have given enough evidence to prove your assertions are completely wrong. But you deny it even though you know you understand little of the subject. If you genuinely require further evidence, I am willing to present it. I only need you to request it.
I believe you have been disingenuous with your posts on this subject, I believe you have deliberately tried to mislead people and I believe you know you were wrong, but you're now trying to shy away from that with a "let's agree to disagree" approach.
Poor show. As one of the more respected poster on this message board it's disappointing that you disgrace yourself with such underhand behaviours.
Fail.
As long as we remain in the UK, we are vulnerable to having more powers being taken away from Scotland and brought back under Westminster control like with the Energy Bill.
http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-politics/8428-fury-after-unelected-peers-strip-power-from-scotland
As long as we remain in the UK, we are vulnerable to having more powers being taken away from Scotland and brought back under Westminster control like with the Energy Bill.
http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-politics/8428-fury-after-unelected-peers-strip-power-from-scotland
Scaremongering!!!!
Scaremongering!!!!
It is only scaremongering if I couldn't cite an example. I am just merely pointing out a fact that holyrood is vulnerable to having its powers removed if we stay in the union.
orkneycadian
07-Aug-14, 18:08
Clair Ridge oilfield contains 8 billion barrels of oil. This is the big league. This will make Scotland insanely rich as an independent country. If we stay in UK then it will be squandered on policies that Scotland didn't vote for.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-23681061
Is this the Clair oilfield west of Shetland, or the one in the Firth of Forth?
orkneycadian
07-Aug-14, 18:10
Clair Ridge is being described as the next oil boom for Scotland. If we vote Yes then it will be used for Scotland's priorities and not squandered on David Cameron's priorities.
Clair Ridge is being described as the next oil boom for Scohetland. If we vote Yes then it will be used for Scohetland's priorities and not squandered on David CameronAlex Salmond's priorities.
orkneycadian
07-Aug-14, 18:12
All the money goes south.
Just like the SNP are proposing.....
orkneycadian
07-Aug-14, 19:12
I started watching this clip and actually thought for a moment that there was someone in the yes campaign with some credibility!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28691840
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28691840)At the start, he agrees that the currency issue is a problem for the Yes campaign. That seemed quite refreshing, rather than Alex's blanket denial. I thought for a moment that this chap might actually be someone who would be able to work through some of the issues associated with independence.
It goes a bit pear shaped at 0:57 when he suggests the problem can simply be overcome by pegging the Scottish pound, 1 to 1 with the rUK pound, but it really falls apart at 1:26 when he says that a key strength of an independent Scotland will be its ability to bring in foreign currency reserves in the form of Euros, Sterling, Deutschemarks....
Hang on - I thought we were keeping Sterling under Jim's plan and Deutschemarks? Well, I thought that they went out in 1998 when Germany adopted the Euro....
And he started off so well.....
Does anyone know where we can buy the "What's Plan B Alex?" T Shirts that were mentioned in some of the reviews of Alex's drubbing the other night?
and where can I find the Deutschemark to Scottish Pound exchange rate?
WhiteSettler
07-Aug-14, 21:46
I am just merely pointing out a fact that holyrood is vulnerable to having its powers removed if we stay in the union.
Alex Salmond cited a few examples the other evening about food banks in Scotland yada yada and essentially claimed that these would disappear under an independent Scotland. Hold on a moment, this is the first minister for Scotland who is currently in power in Scotland and, as far as I am aware, these food banks have only started cropping up under his period of running the country. I presume he will be blaming this on Westminster and it has nothing to do with his leadership? I believe that Scotland was a far better run place before the Holyrood crowd got their fingers in the pie and I would like to see that building demolished and all decisions made in one place, for ALL. The Houses Of Parliament seem a good meeting place for all the politicians, it's large, it's instantly recognisable (so they won't get lost trying to find it), it has nice leather benches for them to sleep on and they can get a damned good lunch within walking distance for under £200 per head.
Holyrood is an eyesore and the politicians look so common, as if they have just strolled in from the local housing scheme, I hope that their powers are removed when the sensible people of Scotland vote no to breaking up our wonderful union. All this referendum is about is more power for a few people, namely the politicians, and has nothing to do with the welfare of the 5 million Scots living in this part of the United Kingdom. To even think that the oil is "ours" is absolutely stupid, it belongs to corporate giants such as BP, Esso, shell, to name but a few and whether Scotland is independent or not one thing is certain..... the 5 million Scots will never benefit from the oil revenue. It's big hitting, global, ruthless people who run the oil industry and you will never see a penny from it in your pocket, whoever is in power "onshore".
Scotland is so good with oil and oil refining that we, in Caithness, pay the highest price for fuel in the entire UK. If it is so plentiful up here then why don't they refine it here and then ship it south? Simple answer is that the major refineries are in England and they are not refining Scottish oil as Scottish oil wouldn't even keep all the cars in Scotland running for one day, let alone a week. Ask yourself the same question, if there is so much Scottish oil then why can't we fill up at Scrabster, with cheap petrol, why can't we buy a litre of paraffin in town (at sensible prices)..... why is it, when there's a fuel shortage, the only place in Scotland that refines oil is Grangemouth?
You would think with all this talk of oil that Scotland would have it on tap, available for all, but the truth is that Scottish oil plays a miniscule part in the global "tank" of oil..... it's much like a bloke urinating into a bath full of water to top it up, that is Scotland's contribution on a worldwide scale and zilch to get excited about.
Has anybody yet figured out what Plan B could be? I felt a tad sorry for that poor man, he was totally out of his depth (and up against a lightweight like Alistair Darling too) I would have improvised and just shouted out:
"Plan B is the Thistle"
"Plan C is the Haggis"
"Plan D is the Kilt"
"Plan E is totally mess it up and do a runner"
It would have been a lot more interesting than no reply and I would have spent my ten minutes with Alastair discussing Plan B "The Thistle".
I cannot believe this so called "debate" was actually aired on television, let alone viewed by so many, what a cheap and nasty airing of a couple of boring people that was.
Stroll on September and bring on winter fast!
WhiteSettler
07-Aug-14, 22:21
Just awaiting the ban stick for stating my opinion..... this seems to be a very pro (YES!) biased joint with a few ENGLISH weirdos fuelling the flames..........
wavy davy
07-Aug-14, 22:58
Just awaiting the ban stick for stating my opinion..... this seems to be a very pro (YES!) biased joint with a few ENGLISH weirdos fuelling the flames..........
Your original post was sound. Your views. No direct insults, no incitement to violence, no swearing. No basis for a ban there.
But, oh, the bit about ENGLISH weirdos, now that's downright RACISM and I suspect THAT might get you into a bit of trouble.
Well Moira, I would really like to know the result of this org poll if we had all the No voting sock puppets removed from the tally who keep repeatedly getting banned for trolling and joining under another login.
Then, direct your concerns to the admin. I've only ever had one user registration
Then, direct your concerns to the admin. I've only ever had one user registration
Do you think an independent Scotland can be a successful country?
erniesspeedshop
08-Aug-14, 07:41
Do you think an independent Scotland can be a successful country? I don't know, And I think it is too risky to try to find out. That is what Alistair Darling should have said.
Do you think an independent Scotland can be a successful country?
I don't think so after Tuesdays fiasco by our first haggis, [lol]
Alex Salmond cited a few examples the other evening about food banks in Scotland yada yada and essentially claimed that these would disappear under an independent Scotland. Hold on a moment, this is the first minister for Scotland who is currently in power in Scotland and, as far as I am aware, these food banks have only started cropping up under his period of running the country. I presume he will be blaming this on Westminster and it has nothing to do with his leadership? I believe that Scotland was a far better run place before the Holyrood crowd got their fingers in the pie and I would like to see that building demolished and all decisions made in one place, for ALL. The Houses Of Parliament seem a good meeting place for all the politicians, it's large, it's instantly recognisable (so they won't get lost trying to find it), it has nice leather benches for them to sleep on and they can get a damned good lunch within walking distance for under £200 per head.
Holyrood is an eyesore and the politicians look so common, as if they have just strolled in from the local housing scheme, I hope that their powers are removed when the sensible people of Scotland vote no to breaking up our wonderful union. All this referendum is about is more power for a few people, namely the politicians, and has nothing to do with the welfare of the 5 million Scots living in this part of the United Kingdom. To even think that the oil is "ours" is absolutely stupid, it belongs to corporate giants such as BP, Esso, shell, to name but a few and whether Scotland is independent or not one thing is certain..... the 5 million Scots will never benefit from the oil revenue. It's big hitting, global, ruthless people who run the oil industry and you will never see a penny from it in your pocket, whoever is in power "onshore".
Scotland is so good with oil and oil refining that we, in Caithness, pay the highest price for fuel in the entire UK. If it is so plentiful up here then why don't they refine it here and then ship it south? Simple answer is that the major refineries are in England and they are not refining Scottish oil as Scottish oil wouldn't even keep all the cars in Scotland running for one day, let alone a week. Ask yourself the same question, if there is so much Scottish oil then why can't we fill up at Scrabster, with cheap petrol, why can't we buy a litre of paraffin in town (at sensible prices)..... why is it, when there's a fuel shortage, the only place in Scotland that refines oil is Grangemouth?
You would think with all this talk of oil that Scotland would have it on tap, available for all, but the truth is that Scottish oil plays a miniscule part in the global "tank" of oil..... it's much like a bloke urinating into a bath full of water to top it up, that is Scotland's contribution on a worldwide scale and zilch to get excited about.
Has anybody yet figured out what Plan B could be? I felt a tad sorry for that poor man, he was totally out of his depth (and up against a lightweight like Alistair Darling too) I would have improvised and just shouted out:
"Plan B is the Thistle"
"Plan C is the Haggis"
"Plan D is the Kilt"
"Plan E is totally mess it up and do a runner"
It would have been a lot more interesting than no reply and I would have spent my ten minutes with Alastair discussing Plan B "The Thistle".
I cannot believe this so called "debate" was actually aired on television, let alone viewed by so many, what a cheap and nasty airing of a couple of boring people that was.
Stroll on September and bring on winter fast!
I can't make up my mind if you are being ironic and satirising the willful obtuseness of those on here who make much very much the same kind of anti-independence/Scottish Government/Salmond comments, genuinely believe what you have written, or are just bored and want a debate/argument.
If it's the first.......:lol:.
If the last - Benefit levels and benefit sanctions etc are a Westminster construct, therefore the foodbanks which are a result of those policies and their implementation is not down to the Scottish Government;
the Westminster politicians chose and contracted for the building of Holyrood. The common people would have been quite happy with the old Royal High, which had already been prepared at great expense by Westminster in case we voted YES to devolution in 1979;
the oil isn't Scotland's, any more than the oil belongs to the UK......but the licence/taxes etc from the oil is, or should be Scotland's. The clue is in the expression "Scottish Territorial Waters";
Westminster sets petrol duty, and they get added to the delivery costs of companies which have to use petrol to deliver petrol to Caithness, hence the petrol/diesel prices in the North generally. It's much the same with electricity prices....since privatisation, even with the growing numbers of windmills up here, the transmission costs mean we pay one of the highest prices for that in the UK as well;
Plan A is the pound with a Currency Union. Why would you think anyone would go into negotiations with all the options laid out for the negotiators on the other side to pick over? Plan B will logically be the pound, though perhaps not in a currency Union, and possibly only in the short/medium term....but that's just my opinion. Anyway, for anyone who can read, there is set out in various places, Plans A,B,C,D and E in no order of preference after Plan A.
I'd prefer our own currency, and to use Sterling, one way or another in the meantime, without a Currency Union, as Ireland did......because we will have to balance the books without a Lender of Last Resort. The UK has shown that having a Lender of Last Resort is just a licence to rack up debt, print money and waste billions on paying interest to those who buy gilts..billions which, in their turn, have to be borrowed. It's a bit like taking out more and more credit cards to pay off the credit card you took out donkey's years ago to pay off a bank loan, because you couldn't afford the monthly repayments on that when your circumstances changed.
I don't thinks so after Tuesdays fiasco by our first haggis, [lol]
You and Alistair darling may be prepared to do Scotland down but I won't and neither will David Cameron.
neilsermk1
08-Aug-14, 12:22
Do you think an independent Scotland can be a successful country?
Are you suggesting Scotland is not a successful country already ?
Ach It'll all be fine. As our much loved PM Maggie said ' We the English, who are a marvelous people , are very generous to Scotland'
Or as General Wolfe famously said ' We will send the Scotchmen in first. They are fearless and brave, but if they fall it will be no great mischief'.
Are you suggesting Scotland is not a successful country already ?
It hasn't succeeded in getting its independence.
It hasn't succeeded in getting its independence.And I doubt it ever will.
And I doubt it ever will.
Is it the natural state of a nation to have its decisions made by another?
I asked a few days ago what benefits would come Scotland's way if it was to be a NO vote. The No campaigners have been very quiet to answer that one. Alistair Darling was very reserved with his answer on Tuesday night also.
A better together leaflet came through the door recently with very little to offer if we vote NO, most of what was promised should already be available in Scotland.
I feel the carrots are going stale and what should we do? Perhaps its time for a change as i'm fed up of years of nothing but lies and empty promises from Westminster.
orkneycadian
08-Aug-14, 17:35
I asked a few days ago what benefits would come Scotland's way if it was to be a NO vote.
We won't have a King Alex
We will have a currency called the pound
We will have the financial backing of the rUK
We will have the comfort of a nuclear deterrent in these times of ever increasing global tension
We will not have any membership hassles in relation to NATO or the EU
We will get to vote in the up and coming EU in/out referendum
We will be shot of this neverendum and can get back to normal life again
Just a few. I daresay we could fill pages and pages!
Is that not what we already have?
I asked what new improved Scotland would we get?
Chook a demus
08-Aug-14, 19:18
Question you should really ask is what is it independent Scotland want that they haven't already got.
Head of State...The Queen ... no change
Currency ....They want sterling .... no change
EU they want to stay in ... no change
NATO ..want to stay in ... no change
NHS... Still want it... no change
Defence .. Still want it just don't want to pay
So bottom line is it's all about taxation money money money and not much else.
As for the at least in and independent Scotland you'll get the government you want line, that's absolute rubbish unless they change to a proportional representation system.
erniesspeedshop
08-Aug-14, 20:51
Personally I don't care if nothing changes. I think the big problem if we vote yes is the numberless vacumes that we will have that won't be filled as a priority. Such as security services like GCHQ, look what happend in Norway when they dropped the ball! When half the world has the West's demise as a goal, anything other than total and unrelenting vigilence will be punished.
Chook a demus
08-Aug-14, 21:14
Whilst not personally subscribing to the impending apocalypse theory. It is well worth remembering the pains that society in this country as a whole has been through to get to where we are. We aren't oldest and most stable democracy in the world for nothing even though id be the first to admit it's not perfect. Having read a bit of history I've learnt that blind ideology and nationalistic fervour generally speaking don't do countries much good.
orkneycadian
08-Aug-14, 22:18
Is that not what we already have?
I asked what new improved Scotland would we get?
As part of the union, we are, sort of well, united....
Its not so much what Scotland gets per se, more what we get to keep. What we will get is what the UK gets. Like the vote on EU membership. The SNP will not give us that, but the UK will.
I don't really see the point of Scotland being in the UK, but having devolved powers from our colleagues in the union. Whilst some will say that devolution is a bonus, just as many will say that what the SNP do differently from Westminster is worse for them.
orkneycadian
08-Aug-14, 22:45
The other side of the coin is what voting Yes will not bring us. As the SNP keep telling us, this is a once in a lifetime opportunity. Its is also a once in a lifetime wasted opportunity to;
Put in place a robust and fit for purpose justice system
Put in place a robust "workfare" system that overcomes the pitfalls that the "welfare" system has fallen into over the last 40 years
Make sure that the rural population of Scotland are given a fair treatment by Europe
Make sure that the urban population of Scotland can similarly escape the Euro madness
But, we are told by the SNP / Yes camp that there will be no change (they use the word "maintain") in these areas. So pretty much a wasted opportunity.
So to summarise the last six posts.... In response to the question what benefits Scotland will have if it remains in the union - the answer from the voices above is .................................................. ...............................................
exactly what it has now.
Conveniently none of those answering said
We will have one of the lowest pensions in the EU
Will will have a wide and varied network of foodbanks
We will have some of the the most expensive childcare in Europe
We will have to pay for prescriptions
We will have to pay for tuition fees
We will have to pay the Bedroom tax
We will have to pay for personal care for the elderly
We will have increasing petrol prices - despite the fact we can almost wave to the guys on the rigs off the Caithness coast
We will have an increasingly insular society as immigration is curtailed and we leave europe
We will have the opportunity for fracking in Loch Lomond National Park
We will have weapons exports to some of the worlds most volatile countries
We will have the chance sit at the "Top Table" of the UN and we will get to allow the situations in Syria and Israel and Ukraine to continue
We will have the chance to wave our big scary nukes around despite the fact that EVERYONE knows we will never use them
We will have more rich people in the house of lords
We will have another Tory Government perhaps even with Boris Johnson as PM
We will have a privatised NHS
We will have fewer human rights as the next government will remove us from the ECHR
Chook says
So bottom line is it's all about taxation money money money and not much else.
As for the at least in and independent Scotland you'll get the government you want line, that's absolute rubbish unless they change to a proportional representation system.
And as usual completely misses the points - both of them. For Chook it may be all about money, money,money but for many of those who are voting yes it is about people and improving the lot of people that live in Scotland.
In addition when we say we will have the government we want - its not about having the Government that we - each of us personally - votes for. It is about having the government that Scotland votes for. The Government that, after all the votes are counted in Scotland, is the one we as a whole have chosen to form our government.
Ernie talks about his worries about defence and I understand his point about the GCHQ thing, that is why I beleive and the Scottish Government beleive that we must be in NATO. An Independent Scotland WILL be in NATO and the reasons for that are that want them or not we will be sitting with nuclear weapons on the clyde for some considerable time. We also are responsibile for one of the most important corridors in the North Atlantic. There is absolutely no chance whatsoever that NATO will leave either of those two things in the control of a country not in NATO. As part of NATO we can look for support from other members to help us over the initial development period. I was recently talking to a Colonel who used was the chief of Staff for North of England and Scotland and he explained to me that in his opinion career officers and soldiers from all over NATO and the commonwealth would grab at the chance to be seconded to developing a new defence force. It would be a massive opportunity and one to be grabbed with both hands.
We have the chance to do something different but we can only do that with a YES vote because as we have seen from our friends above - without a yes vote everything stays the same until the Block Grant is reduced and they can bring us into line by preventing us using our money to help people through personal care, through prescription charges and through tuition fees to name but a few
orkneycadian
08-Aug-14, 23:19
We will have one of the lowest pensions in the EU
Only if you sit and wait for the handouts. Providing for your own retirement will not be affected.
Will will have a wide and varied network of foodbanks
Only if you sit and wait for the handouts. Providing for yourself will not be affected.
We will have some of the the most expensive childcare in Europe
Or you could look after your own kids....
We will have to pay for prescriptions
Just like us farmers have to pay for all the medicines for the animals we rear to put food on your table....
We will have to pay for tuition fees
Is there any chance I can get some of this "Money for Nothing"?
We will have to pay the Bedroom taxw
Bearing in mind that those that complain about "Bedroom Tax" don't own the Bedrooms in the first place, this is a bit rich....
We will have to pay for personal care for the elderly
Personally, when I get to the stage where I need someone to wipe my backside, I don't expect them to do it for nothing.
We will have increasing petrol prices - despite the fact we can almost wave to the guys on the rigs off the Caithness coast
I waved to the last oil tanker in Scapa Flow! I think it was in February....
We will have an increasingly insular society as immigration is curtailed and we leave europe
I think you will find that that is the "Facebook" effect....
We will have the opportunity for fracking in Loch Lomond National Park
About time the Weegies took their share of the burden of Scotlands oil and gas....
We will have weapons exports to some of the worlds most volatile countries
Face it. From now on, the world is going to be a volatile hotch potch.
We will have the chance sit at the "Top Table" of the UN and we will get to allow the situations in Syria and Israel and Ukraine to continue
As Bachman Turner Overdrive sang - "You aint seen nothing yet. bbbbbbbaby...."
We will have more rich people in the house of lords
I think you will find that the House of Lords has a fixed number of seats....
We will have another Tory Government perhaps even with Boris Johnson as PM
We might, like we have at the moment, get the government we voted for.
We will have a privatised NHS
At some point, the population needs to realise you cant get everything for nothing.
We will have fewer human rights as the next government will remove us from the ECHR
Bring it on! The ECHR has been the biggest charter for murderers, rapists, con-men and scroungers that ever was....
An Independent Scotland WILL be in NATO
Do you have that in writing? Especially after you kick them out of Faslane?
We have the chance to do something different but we can only do that with a YES vote because as we have seen from our friends above
Thats odd. The last time I read the SNP prospectus, it still said that much would be the same as before....
Oh Orkneycadian none of what I said honey was for you.
I. Know you are all right jack.
I also know that you know none of that which you slag off is free. It all is paid for. Thing is you see, that it is about how we spend our money. Do we spend it on trident or supporting people who are sick or disabled. Do we spend it on shareholders dividends for companies like G4S who singularly fail to do a proper job or on initiatives like the SG community jobs fund which does significantly better than the Westminster programmes? Do we spend it on HS2 or on educating our young people and enabling women to return to the workforce and help build a robust economy.
I know you think everyone should be like you and that everyone getting a benefit is getting a handout and should be cast adrift to sink or swim or die penniless, alone and hungry without hope. I didn't realise that you also thought that a university education should be the preserve of the wealthy, that old people should have to pay for personal care even though they have paid in all their lives, and that women should stay at home where they are needed to raise their children.
It also appears that the only people you think justify support are farmers.
What a man you are! What a vision you have for Scotland and our future.
orkneycadian
08-Aug-14, 23:48
Oh Orkneycadian none of what I said honey was for you.
I. Know you are all right jack.
I also know that you know none of that which you slag off is free. It all is paid for. Thing is you see, that it is about how we spend our money. Do we spend it on trident or supporting people who are sick or disabled. Do we spend it on shareholders dividends for companies like G4S who singularly fail to do a proper job or on initiatives like the SG community jobs fund which does significantly better than the Westminster programmes? Do we spend it on HS2 or on educating our young people and enabling women to return to the workforce and help build a robust economy.
I know you think everyone should be like you and that everyone getting a benefit is getting a handout and should be cast adrift to sink or swim or die penniless, alone and hungry without hope. I didn't realise that you also thought that a university education should be the preserve of the wealthy, that old people should have to pay for personal care even though they have paid in all their lives, and that women should stay at home where they are needed to raise their children.
It also appears that the only people you think justify support are farmers.
What a man you are! What a vision you have for Scotland and our future.
Try finding this information out Squidge....
"What is the average hourly rate for an agriculturaul worker (including farm owners / employers)"
When you find the answer, let us know. And let us know what kind of militant campaign you are planning to highlight their plight, especially when you find that most of them are working for less than the legal National Minimum Wage, and probably what we would get on the dole!
And finally, let us know what your natioanl insurance number is. Just so I can live off your kind donations!
Then, and only then, can you say that I am "alright Jack"
orkneycadian
08-Aug-14, 23:51
Oh, and Squidge, please can you do some maths for me, and let me know where the tipping point is between having everyone on benefits vs everyone employed. I thought there was a tipping point somewhere, but from your postings, I understand that its possible for everyone to be on benefits and the country still to function?
orkneycadian
09-Aug-14, 00:03
Have a look at this Squidge;
http://www.debtbombshell.com/
See that blue bit in the tail fins? Thats our share. Alex is very keen to highlight that we are the Saltire and vice versa. Well, this is what we have got.
Now, how do you anticipate we can deal with this >100 billion £ debt (our share), on the strength of ever increasing welfare bills, and ever decreasing oil revenues?
Summed up very well in your favourite film....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwx2ce_AyOE
I absolutely know how hard farmers work and for little return but you know Orkneycadian, they - you - are t the only ones.
Try being a carer. You get the lowest rate of any benefit, you are there often 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, you often have no help, no social life, can't even think of going to work, maybe can't get time to even have a coffee with your friends. And whilst living with all this you may be watching the person you love most in the whole world suffer dreadful pain, struggle with life or even die. And then you get a demand for the bedroom tax.
orkneycadien, I really really really wish I could make you understand that I don't want support for one part if society at the expense of another. I WANT a fairer deal for farmers, I WANT children of those who pay bigger dates if tax to get free tuition, I WANT better livelihoods for fishermen. I want our economy, our society to put all of us first... Us, people, voters, workers, farmers - not money, individual wealth or the pursuit of power and status. That is idealistic, I know that and Independence is not a magic potion or fairy spell which will make that happen. I know that too.
What it is however, is the opportunity to make changes to start to move to a society where people have better life chances and where society works together to maximise the potential of every single one of us, through health, welfare,education and a healthy strong vibrant economy. Without a yes vote there is no opportunity for change.
orkneycadian
09-Aug-14, 00:14
Try being a carer. You get the lowest rate of any benefit, you are there often 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, you often have no help, no social life, can't even think of going to work, maybe can't get time to even have a coffee with your friends. And whilst living with all this you may be watching the person you love most in the whole world suffer dreadful pain, struggle with life or even die.
Some day, Squidge, you might grasp the concept, that farmers have to be farmers, and carers.
Carers, per se, never have to be farmers.
Farmers have family that need cared for too. :(
I guess you have never had to juggle trying to run a farm, calf coos, lamb ewes and look after a family member. :(
None of my posts about welfare have been about increasing the welfare Bill, having a bigger welfare state or about leaving people alone to languish on benefits for their whole life. I want to drive down welfare costs, I want to move people off benefits and into work. I want people to be sanctioned if it is necessary and the right thing to do and I want people who are sick or disabled to be supported. What I don't want is what we have now, unfair, immoral, victimisation of poor people. It is possible to have a welfare system which is fair and transparent and it would save money and support people better
Some day, Squidge, you might grasp the concept, that farmers have to be farmers, and carers.Carers, per se, never have to be farmers.Farmers have family that need cared for too. :(I guess you have never had to juggle trying to run a farm, calf coos, lamb ewes and look after a family member. :(Then if that is your situation then I am truly sorry that you are struggling so because being a carer alone can be terrifically difficult. This is not a peeing contest about whose life is the most difficult though is it? It is about how we start to try to make lives better for all of us. If we remain as part of the union you have already said things will stay the same. That is not good enough, for me or, in my opinion for the sick, disabled, unemployed, or for farmers OR for carers. I am surprised it's good enough for you.
orkneycadian
09-Aug-14, 00:30
Squidge. Its what we have got. If life deals you a bum hand, then you knuckle down and get on with it. Or you moan, pleep and girn, and hope that someone else deals with it for you.
We cannot all be on the receiving end of benefits, no matter how needy we might feel. The piggy bank just isn't big enough. We can get all militant, spit out the dummy, go on strike, but it will not change the basic arithmetic.
You are absolutely right we can't all be on benefits. That's why we need a fairer better welfare system - and you will note I have not said bigger- that supports people into work rather than forcing them into poverty. How do you present to an employer at your best if you are hungry and living without electricity?
You know we can change our welfare system with one flaming email in an independent Scotland. One email which we do not have the power to send as part of the union.
We need the control of spending and taxation to drive up growth, investment, increase our working population, push up wages, develop a highly skilled and educated workforce. We don't have those controls now.
None of the main parties in Westminster offer anything like the opportunity do the things I mention. None.
orkneycadian
09-Aug-14, 00:57
The good folkies of Caithness really need to read this....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-28712959
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-28712959)Presently the headline news on the BBC website for Scotland.
Whilst I appreciate that some of you Weekers have reservations about 'e windmills, here we have the Scottish Government telling you that they want shot of anything nuclear. Talk about a boot in the balls for Caithness!
I trust that you will all be telling Mr Salmond what he can do with his non nuclear policies come the 18th of September. Remember, he has the wishes of the Central Belt at heart. Not what you Caithness folk want!
What will all you Atomics do on the 19th of September if you vote Yes? Will there be enough windmill jobs to sustain you? Or will you all become "Squidgettes" and go on the dole?
orkneycadian
09-Aug-14, 01:09
You know, it must be really galling to hear from the Scottish Government that your work of the last 60 years or so has been in vain, and that the Scottish (SNP) Government want to flush all you efforts down the pan. The folk of Caithness (And Orkney) have put up with all the disruption of Dounreay, not to mention the risk to life and limb if it went pop. Now Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon are telling you that you shouldn't have bothered!
Ouch!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-28712959
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-28712959)Presently the headline news on the BBC website for Scotland.
That article, and part of what it contains is, I think, one of the single biggest reasons we must not vote for independence under SNP.
The paper stresses the SNP's commitment to ensure environmental protection is at the heart of a written constitution.
and
the Scottish government already has the powers it needs to protect the environment.
So there you have it.
The constitution of an independent Scotland, which would be decided by the SNP government currently in power.
But the SNP aren't content to allow future governments (that may not be SNP led) to decide future environmental policy. They want the SNP way etched on the constitution, a constitution that future governments must follow.
The same with including an anti-nuclear section. Who knows what the future will bring? Perhaps in 20, or 50 years time a return to nuclear power would be the best option for Scotland. Why then are they trying to force these policies into a constitution, making it significantly more difficult for future elected governments to make these decisions?
It is the SNP who currently tell us a YES vote is not a vote for a single party.
I'm sorry, but with the SNP in power at the time of a constitution, the Scottish people aren't allowing themselves the ability to determine their own future, they are being locked into SNP policies regardless of who is in power.
Of course, constitutions can be amended in future. But that is a much more difficult process than simply changing government policy (which the SNP constitution is trying to ensure). Ask Americans looking to ban guns.
If the Scottish government already has the powers it needs to protect the environment how come Westminster removed a key Scottish power over renewables when it tabled amendment 54 to the Energy Bill? Without consultation with the SG and in the House of Lords which avoids debate in the commons. Seems like we have the power to protect the environment that Westminster lets us have for as long as it allows us.
So, assuming independence would allow our elected government to control policy, why does the snp insist on getting it's policies into a binding future constitution?
The good folkies of Caithness really need to read this....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-28712959
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-28712959)Presently the headline news on the BBC website for Scotland.
Whilst I appreciate that some of you Weekers have reservations about 'e windmills, here we have the Scottish Government telling you that they want shot of anything nuclear. Talk about a boot in the balls for Caithness!
I trust that you will all be telling Mr Salmond what he can do with his non nuclear policies come the 18th of September. Remember, he has the wishes of the Central Belt at heart. Not what you Caithness folk want!
What will all you Atomics do on the 19th of September if you vote Yes? Will there be enough windmill jobs to sustain you? Or will you all become "Squidgettes" and go on the dole?
Never knew Westminster were trying to build a new nuclear power station in Caithness? Where did you hear this?
As no one has any plans to build one here how is this policy a kick in the teeth for caithness?
Never knew Westminster were trying to build a new nuclear power station in Caithness? Where did you hear this?
As no one has any plans to build one here how is this policy a kick in the teeth for caithness?
I think the point here is not that there's currently plans for a new build, it's that the Scottish (SNP) constitution would prevent future elected (non SNP) governments from building one.
Well theone, I have linked to the consultation on the constitution, in addition these are, you are right, these are SNP Commitments for a Scottish Constitution. It has been made absolutely clear that the constitution will be drawn up by a cross party group which includes all parties in Scotland after a referendum, as well as members of the public and third sector organisations. The constitution will be drawn up in negotiation and with agreement. Bit of a far cry from the amendment I referred to which pulled powers back from the Scottish government on Energy policy, there was no negotiation, no consultation and no agreement on that. In fact it was not even offered for debate in the House of Commons by any MPs never mind Scottish ones. Since when has putting forward your proposals been " insisting"? Every other political party will have a role to play in drawing up a constitution. These are the SNP ones. You yourself can make your views clear now and can be part of the debate on the constitution at a variety of levels. Good luck trying that at Westminster.
Come on squidge, that's not how it works and you know it.
The constitution will be discussed in the same "cross party group" manner in which current laws are discussed. By the MPS in Hollywood.
And, as with current laws, the decision isn't met by agreement of all concerned, it is met by a majority vote.
And the SNP will have that majority vote throughout discussions on the constitution, and indeed the share of UK assets.
So, assuming independence would allow our elected government to control policy, why does the snp insist on getting it's policies into a binding future constitution?
The constitution is an interim one, and no more set in stone than the American Constitution is.
The Scottish Government has outlined the process which would follow a Yes vote (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2013/01/written-constitution16012013) in September 2014, including an interim constitution which would serve as the basis for the government of Scotland from Independence Day in March 2016, and take us through the first elections to an independent Scottish Parliament in May 2016. Following this election, work will begin to craft a permanent written constitution for Scotland, involving people from all walks of life.
Come on squidge, that's not how it works and you know it.The constitution will be discussed in the same "cross party group" manner in which current laws are discussed. By the MPS in Hollywood. And, as with current laws, the decision isn't met by agreement of all concerned, it is met by a majority vote.And the SNP will have that majority vote throughout discussions on the constitution, and indeed the share of UK assets.The fact remains that this is the SNP position on the constitution. Their policies, their plans. So far none of the other parties are setting out their stall. YOU have been invited to contribute, I would urge you to do so if you haven't already. It's a bit rich to complain that the SNP are getting it all their own way when none of the other parties are saying what they propose. Give it a chance!
Her we go with the same old stories given out by the better together campaign: The S.N.P. will do this that and the other to the detriment of Scotland`s interests.
Why does it not sink in, that the S.N.P. will only be in Government in an Independent Scotland if we the electorate vote them in.
Her we go with the same old stories given out by the better together campaign: The S.N.P. will do this that and the other to the detriment of Scotland`s interests.
Why does it not sink in, that the S.N.P. will only be in Government in an Independent Scotland if we the electorate vote them in.
Because that doesn't fit the No Better Together Thanks agenda? If they can't daemonise Alex Salmond and the SNP, what do they have left to say, because, to date, they have offered no positive reasons as to why we would want to continue as we are.
Heisenberg
13-Aug-14, 09:08
So you've just shown that the oil wells have a rich sustainable future. 120,000 barrels of oil per day for 180 years.
Because that doesn't fit the No Better Together Thanks agenda? If they can't daemonise Alex Salmond and the SNP, what do they have left to say, because, to date, they have offered no positive reasons as to why we would want to continue as we are.we'll see what WE want after sept 18th, I think.
Humerous Vegetable
13-Aug-14, 14:07
Yes Heisenberg, you are right. For the first time in decades, after independence we will actualty get whatever government we in Scotland decide to vote for. I think what the posters you quoted are trying to do here is to give you an alternative vision of what this debate is about, as opposed to the misinformation being fed to us by the mainstream media. The UK government, for example, appears to have made no contingency plans in the event of a Yes vote. What are they going to do with Trident? Nobody in England or Wales wants it dumped on their doorstep.What are they proposing to do with the UK government debt in the event of them refusing a currency union and Scotland not obliged, legally, to pay it's share of that debt?
We never seem to get any much needed answers from the No side. Danny Alexander refused to say what additional devolved powers the Scottish parliament would receive in the event of a No vote, in his recent BBC debate in Inverness. Is that because, according to Boris Johnston, there won't be any?
Heisenberg
13-Aug-14, 19:29
QUOTE=Humerous Vegetable;1093432]Yes Heisenberg, you are right. For the first time in decades, after independence we will actualty get whatever government we in Scotland decide to vote for. I think what the posters you quoted are trying to do here is to give you an alternative vision of what this debate is about, as opposed to the misinformation being fed to us by the mainstream media. The UK government, for example, appears to have made no contingency plans in the event of a Yes vote. What are they going to do with Trident? Nobody in England or Wales wants it dumped on their doorstep.What are they proposing to do with the UK government debt in the event of them refusing a currency union and Scotland not obliged, legally, to pay it's share of that debt?We never seem to get any much needed answers from the No side. Danny Alexander refused to say what additional devolved powers the Scottish parliament would receive in the event of a No vote, in his recent BBC debate in Inverness. Is that because, according to Boris Johnston, there won't be any?[/QUOTE]Firstly, I did not mean to include the quote from rheghead in my post, it just seems to have materialised there.Secondly, I don't see why Scotland should not be liable for its share of UK debts, but that's just my opinion irrespective of how I will be voting.Its a shame that many of the more knowledgeable 'orgers' supporting the NO campaign have been silenced by banning, for what ever reason. Personally I can't be bothered with the argument anymore.
The debt question is an issue for which there is a quite clear internationally recognised procedure. The Vienna convention explains the options although it is true to say that the UK isn't a signatory.
There are two options which are internationally recognised. First option is the one that the SNP and others in the YES camp have said is the one Scotland is expecting. We share the assets and take our share of the debt. That's not complex and it has been and remains the position of the YES campaign.
The second is that Scotland becomes a new country and gets none of the assets and as a result none of the debt. The issue around whether Scotland takes a share of the debt has only arisen because the UK Government has set out their refusal to negotiate around assets.
Scotland can use the pound regardless but if the UK refuse Scotland a negotiated share of a key asset then they are saying that Scotland is a new country, with none of the rights, responsibilities assets or DEBT of a continuing country. It's up to the UK which they want to happen.
Just as an aside, all those recently banned were banned for being sock puppets Heisenberg. Not for their views or their bad behaviour but - like a sock puppet is - because there was one user with maybe two or more identities. I have no problem debating with anyone as I am sure you know, but one person using several ids to skew a debate is just a bit bonkers!
Well Alistair Darling spent what seemed 75% of the debate with Alex salmond banging on about a currency Plan B when he could have got all the info from Mark Carney the governor of the Bank of England who has made provisions in the event of a Yes vote. So all Darling's bluster was null and void and just scaremongering.
Even Darling has quoted that a shared currency is in the best interests of both sides.
Heisenberg
13-Aug-14, 21:32
I hear what you say squidge , about sock puppets that is. But I don't think your right. I don't want to argue or debate with you, as it appears anyone who does gets banned.
I hear what you say squidge , about sock puppets that is. But I don't think your right. I don't want to argue or debate with you, as it appears anyone who does gets banned. I have noticed that also, strange, but hey I am owld and a Naw voter
And yet, goodness me Golach - you and Heisenberg are not banned, neither is Orkneycadian, theone, lizz, Moira, Scorrie, Phill, mi16 and on and on lol. I wonder how that happened.I have no idea who the people are, who were banned recently, however the admin stated underneath their names that they were sock puppets guys. I was disappointed and surprised to see there were so many. Its not a question of ME being right Heisenberg lol lol, I simply gave you the definition of sock puppet - that's all. Investigations and decisions were made by people much more important than me!
The Better Together side keep alluding to extra powers for the Scottish Parliament in the event of a no vote but fails to disclose them. Lets make it quite clear, what Westminster gives Westminster can take away. Why should we here in Scotland always settle for second best when we can become a successful independent country in our own right? We can shape our own destiny free from the shackles of Westminster, get the government that the electorate of Scotland vote for, acting in the best interests of the people of Scotland. The better together side which is lead by a failed chancellor, who did not bring the U.K. economy to its knees, but laid it firmly on its back.
Mr. Darling avoided the question: Could Scotland be a successful Independent Country even though Mr. Cameron agreed Scotland could be. I am just of the telephone with the Better Together campaign and asked them the same question, the answer I got was: It is not as simple as that. Well I am sorry, it is as simple as that.
Membership of the E.U.: I do not agree with Mr. Salmond`s idea of this, but think that this question should be decided by the Scottish electorate in event of a yes vote.
My opinion is: A trade agreement with the E.U.
Trident: I would like to know who actually controls it.
The so called Top Secret nuclear site/s in Caithness, (which no side has mentioned): What will happen to them?
I have lots of questions about Scotland`s future, both inside the U.K. and as an Independent Country but I would prefer all decisions to be made on Scotland`s future to be made here in Scotland and not dictated by a succession of governments we did not vote for.
The Better Together`s answer to this is: We get the Government that the Majority of U.K. voters vote for.
Do I think there will be a yes vote: No, because the majority of Scotland`s electorate are too gutless to go it alone.
Humerous Vegetable
14-Aug-14, 16:40
Good post Sam09. Yes, there will be many options open to the Scottish electorate after a Yes vote, decided by the people living, working and paying taxes in Scotland, and not the far few living in London and the Home counties. We can decide what policies we want to adopt as regards the EU, Nato, the Constitution controlling how we are governed and how we want to spend our own money. That will include defending the Scottish NHS from privatization, and our free university access for Scottish students, if that's what we decide.
The point being, that we have very little control of what's happening to us now, with Westminster holding the power over our entire fiscal system, the welfare system, and control over how much of our own money they grudgingly disemburse to the Scottish parliament.
I hope you are wrong about the Scottish electorate being frightened into voting No. I have more faith in them, and think they will see through the seemingly unending scare stories from the media and the BBC. I think people are smarter than you think.
Heisenberg
14-Aug-14, 16:51
So you've just shown that the oil wells have a rich sustainable future. 120,000 barrels of oil per day for 180 years.
The Better Together side keep alluding to extra powers for the Scottish Parliament in the event of a no vote but fails to disclose them. Lets make it quite clear, what Westminster gives Westminster can take away. Why should we here in Scotland always settle for second best when we can become a successful independent country in our own right? We can shape our own destiny free from the shackles of Westminster, get the government that the electorate of Scotland vote for, acting in the best interests of the people of Scotland. The better together side which is lead by a failed chancellor, who did not bring the U.K. economy to its knees, but laid it firmly on its back. Mr. Darling avoided the question: Could Scotland be a successful Independent Country even though Mr. Cameron agreed Scotland could be. I am just of the telephone with the Better Together campaign and asked them the same question, the answer I got was: It is not as simple as that. Well I am sorry, it is as simple as that.Membership of the E.U.: I do not agree with Mr. Salmond`s idea of this, but think that this question should be decided by the Scottish electorate in event of a yes vote. My opinion is: A trade agreement with the E.U.Trident: I would like to know who actually controls it.The so called Top Secret nuclear site/s in Caithness, (which no side has mentioned): What will happen to them?I have lots of questions about Scotland`s future, both inside the U.K. and as an Independent Country but I would prefer all decisions to be made on Scotland`s future to be made here in Scotland and not dictated by a succession of governments we did not vote for.The Better Together`s answer to this is: We get the Government that the Majority of U.K. voters vote for.Do I think there will be a yes vote: No, because the majority of Scotland`s electorate are too gutless to go it alone.or simply don't want to 'go it alone'
Heisenberg
14-Aug-14, 17:07
Good post Sam09. Yes, there will be many options open to the Scottish electorate after a Yes vote, decided by the people living, working and paying taxes in Scotland, and not the far few living in London and the Home counties. We can decide what policies we want to adopt as regards the EU, Nato, the Constitution controlling how we are governed and how we want to spend our own money. That will include defending the Scottish NHS from privatization, and our free university access for Scottish students, if that's what we decide.The point being, that we have very little control of what's happening to us now, with Westminster holding the power over our entire fiscal system, the welfare system, and control over how much of our own money they grudgingly disemburse to the Scottish parliament.I hope you are wrong about the Scottish electorate being frightened into voting No. I have more faith in them, and think they will see through the seemingly unending scare stories from the media and the BBC. I think people are smarter than you think. As we are presently part of the UK I think the Scottish government have quite a lot of control over fiscal matters, free education, free prescriptions etc the rest of the UK don't get the benefit of this. I think more people will be frightened and pressured into voting YES than NO. I hope you are right that people are smart enough to make the right choice. Which ever way it goes, I hope that those who backed the loosing side will concede gracefully and help to make either an independant Scotland or Scotland as part of the UK work. I feel which ever way it goes Scotland itself will need to unite, as at present it is most definitely split.
Humerous Vegetable
14-Aug-14, 18:58
No, it has control over the limited amount given back to them by Whitehall, under the Barnett formula. It then has decided to use this amount to prioritise the NHS and education in Scotland, as Westminster could do with it's own budget, if it so decided....but hasn't. Why would anybody be "frightened" into voting Yes, given that all the scare spin is coming from the No side? For example - Mark Carney, the governor of the Bank of England, yesterday made a completely calm and balanced statement that the BoE has contingency planin place in the event of a Yes vote. Today this has been spun as an "emergency" plan to scare the undecided by most of the mainstream media.Some will believe anything they read, most of us will not.
Heisenberg
14-Aug-14, 19:36
No, it has control over the limited amount given back to them by Whitehall, under the Barnett formula. It then has decided to use this amount to prioritise the NHS and education in Scotland, as Westminster could do with it's own budget, if it so decided....but hasn't. Why would anybody be "frightened" into voting Yes, given that all the scare spin is coming from the No side? For example - Mark Carney, the governor of the Bank of England, yesterday made a completely calm and balanced statement that the BoE has contingency planin place in the event of a Yes vote. Today this has been spun as an "emergency" plan to scare the undecided by most of the mainstream media.Some will believe anything they read, most of us will not.Last time I looked at the figures in the Barnett formula, the limited amount given by Whitehall to the Scottish people amounts to 4% more per head than the rest of the UK population receive, I don't think this has changed. However I think that in the event of a YES vote a plan B is definitely going to be required if this http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/humiliation-finance-secretary-john-swinney-4051106 is to be believed. Plan B really should be announced NOW.
Humerous Vegetable
14-Aug-14, 22:54
I have just done more Googling on your 4% figure than is sensible for a normal human being at this time of night, and can't find any reference to it anywhere. Maybe you could post a link to it? I think it has been widely documented that Scotland pays into the treasury more than it gets back, and has done for many years. If you read the Daily Record, maybe you could get them to look at
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0041/00419554.pdf where 5 options are listed. How many plan Bs do we need? I myself would like to hear a plan A from the No side about any factor at all concerned with Scottish independence. So far, the only message we are getting from them is that we are too wee, too poor and too stupid to look after ourselves. How come we're too poor if Westminster is chucking this mythical extra 4% at us? Please explain, with some reliable back up, if possible.
Heisenberg
14-Aug-14, 23:33
I have just done more Googling on your 4% figure than is sensible for a normal human being at this time of night, and can't find any reference to it anywhere. Maybe you could post a link to it? I think it has been widely documented that Scotland pays into the treasury more than it gets back, and has done for many years. If you read the Daily Record, maybe you could get them to look at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0041/00419554.pdf where 5 options are listed. How many plan Bs do we need? I myself would like to hear a plan A from the No side about any factor at all concerned with Scottish independence. So far, the only message we are getting from them is that we are too wee, too poor and too stupid to look after ourselves. How come we're too poor if Westminster is chucking this mythical extra 4% at us? Please explain, with some reliable back up, if possible. http://www.scotsman.com/news/holyrood-faces-campaign-to-scrap-barnett-formula-1-3018639
Heisenberg
14-Aug-14, 23:42
And.....http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10465138/Chasm-between-English-and-Scottish-spending-widens.html
Heisenberg
15-Aug-14, 11:34
Looking at the figures quoted in these links, I think the difference is more like 20% !. ....... ....Nobody gets out what they pay in either, as things like free prescriptions and education cost the SG heavily, giving the impression to the population that the country is poor and hard done to. When actually it is just poor management by the SG... .... ....But whilst their giving out freebies, they look fab......don't they?
You still here Heisenberg?
Heisenberg
15-Aug-14, 14:42
You still here Heisenberg?yep, escaped the wrath so far.
Humerous Vegetable
15-Aug-14, 16:38
Sorry I didn't reply sooner, but I don't come on here very often nowadays, as you can tell from the number of posts I have managed to make in the last 8 years. There are no "freebies" from any government, UK or Scottish. We pay for everything we access or consume. What we have, in limited amounts, is the ability to prioritise what we feel are important issues for the Scottish electorate - health and education. We have no control over welfare and setting the benefits agenda, except by diverting some of the budget kindly returned to us by Westminster, to mitigate some of the effects imposed upon us by the UK government.
Thank you for your links. I forced myself to look at them, which was a hard ask, given my natural aversion to the right-wing press. I see where even the Daily Telegraph admits that "Scotland contributes more per head in taxation than the UK average".
The Scottish government has never said that we are poor and hard done by. It is saying that we are rich and hard done by. Time to change the hard done by issue on September 18 and vote Yes.
Heisenberg
15-Aug-14, 20:19
Sorry I didn't reply sooner, but I don't come on here very often nowadays, as you can tell from the number of posts I have managed to make in the last 8 years. There are no "freebies" from any government, UK or Scottish. We pay for everything we access or consume. What we have, in limited amounts, is the ability to prioritise what we feel are important issues for the Scottish electorate - health and education. We have no control over welfare and setting the benefits agenda, except by diverting some of the budget kindly returned to us by Westminster, to mitigate some of the effects imposed upon us by the UK government. Thank you for your links. I forced myself to look at them, which was a hard ask, given my natural aversion to the right-wing press. I see where even the Daily Telegraph admits that "Scotland contributes more per head in taxation than the UK average".The Scottish government has never said that we are poor and hard done by. It is saying that we are rich and hard done by. Time to change the hard done by issue on September 18 and vote Yes.The Telegraph didn't 'admit' anything they reported it. Obviously if we vote yes on 18th sept we'll be paying less tax as well as having free healthcare and education then?
Boris Johnson is probably our next Primeminister but this is what he thinks of Scotland.
He reckons it is far more value to the country (UK) to spend a £ on Croydon from a strict utilitarian calculus than spending a £ on Strathclyde. We have a get out of jail card called a yes vote though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUUfV7GvrHY
Heisenberg
15-Aug-14, 21:12
Boris Johnson is probably our next Primeminister but this is what he thinks of Scotland.He reckons it is far more value to the country (UK) to spend a £ on Croydon from a strict utilitarian calculus than spending a £ on Strathclyde. We have a get out of jail card called a yes vote though.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUUfV7GvrHY Vote YES then rheghead. I'll be voting NO I think.
Even in the event of a Yes vote, Danny Alexander has said he will campaign to work against the best interests of his own country by trying to prevent Scotland sharing the £.
Seemingly there is an oilfield originally discovered in 1977 on the east side of Shetland and has recently announced to have over 700 million barrels of oil in it. No mention of it on BBC mind.
Even in the event of a Yes vote, Danny Alexander has said he will campaign to work against the best interests of his own country by trying to prevent Scotland sharing the £.Make up your mind Rheg, what do you want, our oil or our pound, you cannot have both.
Heisenberg
15-Aug-14, 21:45
Seemingly there is an oilfield originally discovered in 1977 on the east side of Shetland and has recently announced to have over 700 million barrels of oil in it. No mention of it on BBC mind.Your obsessed man. Oil oil millions of oil, its all mine, mine a tell thee!
Make up your mind Rheg, what do you want, our oil or our pound, you cannot have both.
It is not about me golach. But I think we will use the £ and have the oil. I'd rather keep it in the North Sea but I see the value to the Yes campaign when I see the No campaign trying to keep the recent oil discoveries off the indyref agenda.
Does anyone else find it strange that there has been no mention from Eck or his deputy about the news of Ferguson's Shipbuilders going into administration today. According to Ms Sturgeon shipbuilding in the Clyde was going to be safe under the Snp. Vote yes and there will be more yards closing soon.
Does anyone else find it strange that there has been no mention from Eck or his deputy about the news of Ferguson's Shipbuilders going into administration today. According to Ms Sturgeon shipbuilding in the Clyde was going to be safe under the Snp. Vote yes and there will be more yards closing soon.
How can the Scottish government support Ferguson when they have not got the full range of financial powers to do what is best for Scotland? Ferguson have gone under on David Cameron's watch.
How can the Scottish government support Ferguson when they have not got the full range of financial powers to do what is best for Scotland? Ferguson have gone under on David Cameron's watch.Under Eck's watch Rheg, he is all wind and bluff. I thought him and his clone would be using this as propaganda, but not a peep from them, maybe they are taking their free tickets at the Tattoo, or appearing at the Stand as a comedy duo.
Heisenberg
15-Aug-14, 22:12
Seemingly there is an oilfield originally discovered in 1977 on the east side of Shetland and has recently announced to have over 700 million barrels of oil in it. No mention of it on BBC mind. Recent oil discoveries you say.
Recent oil discoveries you say.
No. It was discovered in 1977 and recently announced about the true extent of it this week. Over 700 million barrels, enough to last until 2050.
Under Eck's watch Rheg, he is all wind and bluff. I thought him and his clone would be using this as propaganda, but not a peep from them, maybe they are taking their free tickets at the Tattoo, or appearing at the Stand as a comedy duo.
Do you believe that government should step in to support or subsidise businesses?
Do you believe that government should step in to support or subsidise businesses?What Government Rheg, mine or yours?
What Government Rheg, mine or yours?
I didn't specify which, I was referring to the principle of government (any government) supporting/subsidising businesses. Do you?
What is going to happen to the 27000 civil servants currently employed by the UK government in Scotland at the moment?
What is going to happen to the 27000 civil servants currently employed by the UK government in Scotland at the moment?
Any chance of getting a breakdown of those 27,000?
What is going to happen to the 27000 civil servants currently employed by the UK government in Scotland at the moment?
If they are employed directly by the UK Government, as opposed to the Scottish government, they will have been employed to work in reserved UK departments, although their salaries will already be allocated to Scotland in the accounts as identifiable expenditure, just as the Scottish Office costs are charged to Scotland. (ie we already pay for them). An independent Scotland will undoubtedly need to have equivalent departments for some, if not all, of those dealing with reserved UK powers, therefore there would probably be jobs for them in an independent Scotland.....and the tax they pay will go into Scotland's pocket and not that of Westminster.
No. It was discovered in 1977 and recently announced about the true extent of it this week. Over 700 million barrels, enough to last until 2050.
No.
It was announced many months ago, March I believe.
But it has made it's way onto yes campaign websites in the last week to support their new smear tactic of pretending the UK government is hiding these finds.
Clair Ridge, and the Bentley field have been in the public domain for months and years. Nothing new. And no great conspiracy.
No.
It was announced many months ago, March I believe.
But it has made it's way onto yes campaign websites in the last week to support their new smear tactic of pretending the UK government is hiding these finds.
Clair Ridge, and the Bentley field have been in the public domain for months and years. Nothing new. And no great conspiracy.
No
Nowhere have I claimed the Bentley field has been kept a secret. I just want to make it clear that the No campaign are keen to keep oil out of the debate as the evidence clearly shows that Scotland is rich with it.
I was referring to the announcement from the Bentley oil field itself where they have upgraded their reserves significantly. I'll even give supporting evidence to show everyone that it is a most recent announcement, 14th August.
http://www.xcite-energy.com/investors/regulatory-news/rns-news/12051260
Here is just one example of how Alistair Darling is hoodwinking us.
“I’ve always said Scotland could go it alone, however you’d have to cut your cloth according to your means.....I think it would be less successful and we’d be less prosperous if we left the UK, if you look at countries like Denmark you pay a lot more in tax, the amount of money that people have got to spend is less.”
But if you look at the data, the average wages in Denmark (after taxes have been taken off) are actually higher than in the UK.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_average_wage
try a night on the lager there though
No
Nowhere have I claimed the Bentley field has been kept a secret. I just want to make it clear that the No campaign are keen to keep oil out of the debate as the evidence clearly shows that Scotland is rich with it.
I was referring to the announcement from the Bentley oil field itself where they have upgraded their reserves significantly. I'll even give supporting evidence to show everyone that it is a most recent announcement, 14th August.
http://www.xcite-energy.com/investors/regulatory-news/rns-news/12051260
Read your own link.
It says recoverable reserves of between 203 and 317 million barrels. History shows it'll probably land in the middle.
If you knew this, why then would you quote the 700 million barrels figure if you weren't deliberately trying to mislead the readers here?
Also, the EXACT SAME FIGURES were released here on 28 March. http://www.xcite-energy.com/assets/bentley
So no, your "evidence" does not show it to be "a most recent announcement".
Now, no, you never said the Bentley field was kept a secret. But the separatist websites promoting the find as "new" and "secret", in the same way they did Clair Ridge (with nonsense figures that you also quoted) did.
The people casting their votes deserve the truth, not lies and spin.
try a night on the lager there thoughRheghead , stay off the malts, they befuddle your brain
Read your own link.
It says recoverable reserves of between 203 and 317 million barrels. History shows it'll probably land in the middle.
If you knew this, why then would you quote the 700 million barrels figure if you weren't deliberately trying to mislead the readers here?
Also, the EXACT SAME FIGURES were released here on 28 March. http://www.xcite-energy.com/assets/bentley
So no, your "evidence" does not show it to be "a most recent announcement".
Now, no, you never said the Bentley field was kept a secret. But the separatist websites promoting the find as "new" and "secret", in the same way they did Clair Ridge (with nonsense figures that you also quoted) did.
The people casting their votes deserve the truth, not lies and spin.
No.
You read the link. It does not say reserves between 203 and 315 million barrels.
It says "Upgrade in 1P, 2P and 3P oil reserves for the Bentley field to 203 MMstb, 257 MMstb and 317 MMstb, respectively, effective 31 December 2013 and based on an initial 35 year production period."
You add 203+257+317= 777 million barrels in Bentley.
Rheghead , stay off the malts, they befuddle your brain
I am trying to keep this indyref debate on the facts and not on personal attacks.
I am trying to keep this indyref debate on the facts and not on personal attacks.I consider you telling me/ us to vote yes as a personal attack, please desist.
No.
You read the link. It does not say reserves between 203 and 315 million barrels.
It says "Upgrade in 1P, 2P and 3P oil reserves for the Bentley field to 203 MMstb, 257 MMstb and 317 MMstb, respectively, effective 31 December 2013 and based on an initial 35 year production period."
You add 203+257+317= 777 million barrels in Bentley.
Rheg, stop, please.
You are embarrasing yourself as you obviously HAVE NO CLUE WHAT YOU'RE SPEAKING ABOUT.
1P is proven recoverable reserves in the field. 203 million.
2P is proven recoverable reserves in the field PLUS probable reserves. 257 million.
3P is proven recoverable reserves in the field PLUS probable reserves PLUS possible reserves. 317 million.
You CANNOT add 1P to 3P, as 3P already contains 1P!!!!!!
The absolute maximum recoverable oil is 3P, 317MMsb.
And that's absolutely best case. History shows real recoveries are generally much lower. Oil companies on the stock exchange like to make "best" guess figures to boost their share price.
A long way from 777 million barrels............ Nationalists maths.............
Rheg, stop, please.
You are embarrasing yourself as you obviously HAVE NO CLUE WHAT YOU'RE SPEAKING ABOUT.
1P is proven recoverable reserves in the field. 203 million.
2P is proven recoverable reserves in the field PLUS probable reserves. 257 million.
3P is proven recoverable reserves in the field PLUS probable reserves PLUS possible reserves. 317 million.
You CANNOT add 1P to 3P, as 3P already contains 1P!!!!!!
The absolute maximum recoverable oil is 3P, 317MMsb.
And that's absolutely best case. History shows real recoveries are generally much lower. Oil companies on the stock exchange like to make "best" guess figures to boost their share price.
A long way from 777 million barrels............ Nationalists maths.............
Oh please. When you are in a hole you should stop digging.
Oh please. When you are in a hole you should stop digging.
Yes, you really should.
The Bentley Field, which is due to be drilled by Xcite Energy, has up to 777 million barrels of oil reserves, the company has revealed.
http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-economy/9594-huge-north-sea-oil-find-enough-to-produce-for-over-thirty-five-years
http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-economy/9594-huge-north-sea-oil-find-enough-to-produce-for-over-thirty-five-years
Rheghead. There's reserves. Then there's recoverable reserves.
What part of that don't you understand?
Read up on 1P, 2P and 3P figures. YOU quoted them.
http://www.wolfatthedoor.org.uk/mainpages/jargon.html
Rheghead. There's reserves. Then there's recoverable reserves.
What part of that don't you understand.
Read up on 1P, 2P and 3 figures. YOU quoted them.
http://www.wolfatthedoor.org.uk/mainpages/jargon.html
I understand the bit that reserves become recoverable reserves when the price of oil goes up enough to make recovery viable. You don't seem to understand that concept.
I understand the bit that reserves become recoverable reserves when the price of oil goes up enough to make recovery viable. You don't seem to understand that concept.
I can assure you I'm well aware of that concept.
But there's a limit to what technology can do, at any price.
I repeat, the absolute maximum RECOVERABLE oil from Bentley is 317 million barrels. That's what YOUR LINK shows. A link to an announcement to the stock exchange that the oil company is legally bound to ensure it is accurate.
That's what's been proven there and is recoverable, what should be there and is recoverable and what might be there and recoverable all added together.
How many fields, in the history of oil production, have achieved over 50% of total reserves recovered?
How many fields, in the history of oil production, have achieved over 50% of total reserves recovered?
I wouldn't know and I am not googling it for you.
But last week you were trying to play down the Clair Ridge reserves by saying that the reserves of 8 billion barrels could only yield less than 300 million barrels. Even if a low estimate of 10% of that 8 billion can can recoverable then it could yield 800 billion barrels. But oh no, you refused to entertain the thought that there was a boom of oil at Clair Ridge because it doesn't fit your agenda.
I wouldn't know and I am not googling it for you.
But last week you were trying to play down the Clair Ridge reserves by saying that the reserves of 8 billion barrels could only yield less than 300 million barrels. Even if a low estimate of 10% of that 8 billion can can recoverable then it could yield 800 billion barrels. But oh no, you refused to entertain the thought that there was a boom of oil at Clair Ridge because it doesn't fit your agenda.
Google it not for me, but for yourself, perhaps you will become less ignorant of oil production and maybe willing to admit when you are mistaken or wrong.
The definition of a boom can be wide ranging and open to interpretation. Speculate as you wish.
The figures discussed on Clair Ridge were not my own. They are those of BP.
BP have said there's 8 billion barrels there, but that the reservoir is highly fractured and extremely complicated, hence why the new Clair Ridge platform will only produce somewhere less than 300 million barrels.
There's been no lies from me. No spin. Only statement of facts. Regardless of "my agenda".
Ask me to prove or explain any of my figures (as I've offered many times) and I will. But unfortunately you don't want clarification or truth, because unfortunately it doesn't suit YOUR agenda.
Anyone reading this thread will see you have made numerous nonsensical claims and assumption, the majority of which I have proven to be so. If you don't accept this, again, feel free to ask, I'll put you right using real facts. I doubt you will.
Google it not for me, but for yourself, perhaps you will become less ignorant of oil production and maybe willing to admit when you are mistaken or wrong.
The definition of a boom can be wide ranging and open to interpretation. Speculate as you wish.
The figures discussed on Clair Ridge were not my own. They are those of BP.
BP have said there's 8 billion barrels there, but that the reservoir is highly fractured and extremely complicated, hence why the new Clair Ridge platform will only produce somewhere less than 300 million barrels.
There's been no lies from me. No spin. Only statement of facts. Regardless of "my agenda".
Ask me to prove or explain any of my figures (as I've offered many times) and I will. But unfortunately you don't want clarification or truth, because unfortunately it doesn't suit YOUR agenda.
Anyone reading this thread will see you have made numerous nonsensical claims and assumption, the majority of which I have proven to be so. If you don't accept this, again, feel free to ask, I'll put you right using real facts. I doubt you will.
Oh your tone has suddenly changed. You are getting desperate now. I only have links and sources to prove you wrong.
The UK government have thrown £7 billion of investment at Clair Ridge oilfield.
Nothing to see here, move along!!!
Oh your tone has suddenly changed. You are getting desperate now. I only have links and sources to prove you wrong.
My tone hasn't changed. Yours certainly has.
What sources prove me wrong?
The UK government have thrown £7 billion of investment at Clair Ridge oilfield.
Nothing to see here, move along!!!
Really?
Can we have some proof?
My tone hasn't changed. Yours certainly has.
What sources prove me wrong?
The numerous sources that prove that Clair Ridge and Bentley have more oil than the No campaign are prepared to make an indyref issue. In fact I've never seen anything from the No campaign that says they are proud to extract the natural resources from Scotland for the betterment for the rest of the UK. Instead, we are continually being fed a down rated version of what is out there in the North Sea and West of Shetland.
In fact, it is only a few weeks ago that the No campaign was trying to say that the curse of oil was actually in the worse interests of an independent Scotland. It is the first time in history that the discovery of oil is bad news for the country.
Really?
Can we have some proof?
Beg pardon
It is £4.5 billion investment. The report i was reading says in dollars. Even so, my point still stands, Clair Ridge is the future.
Beg pardon
It is £4.5 billion investment. The report i was reading says in dollars. Even so, my point still stands, Clair Ridge is the future.
Correct. Dollars not pounds.
But you made two lies in one sentence.
The UK government hasn't invested one penny.
No matter what anybody says, there is a shed load of oil still to be recovered and a shed load of oil which we have the ability to recover NOW and are likely to be able to recover with technological advances in the future. Time will tell whether we are having the wool pulled over our eyes about how big or how lucrative Scotland's oil fields are. Westminster have form on this. Recently Dennis Healey explained how WM lied about oil in the 70s and the McCrone report was only released after a Freedom of Information request so it is understandable that many many people are prepared to believe that there are some sort of shenanigans going on right now. Whatever the ins and outs of it all, whether Clair Ridge is massive or massively massive, whether there is oil off the west coast which we haven't been able to develop or not - Scotland is well able to afford it's independence. There is no doubt about that at all.
Correct. Dollars not pounds.
But you made two lies in one sentence.
The UK government hasn't invested one penny.
I didn't say there that the UK government made investment. I conceded in the other post last week your point. But the point has been made. £4.5 billion has been invested in Clair Ridge. You tried to convince us that it is negligible. Small potatoes.
No matter what anybody says, there is a shed load of oil still to be recovered and a shed load of oil which we have the ability to recover NOW and are likely to be able to recover with technological advances in the future. Time will tell whether we are having the wool pulled over our eyes about how big or how lucrative Scotland's oil fields are. Westminster have form on this. Recently Dennis Healey explained how WM lied about oil in the 70s and the McCrone report was only released after a Freedom of Information request so it is understandable that many many people are prepared to believe that there are some sort of shenanigans going on right now. Whatever the ins and outs of it all, whether Clair Ridge is massive or massively massive, whether there is oil off the west coast which we haven't been able to develop or not - Scotland is well able to afford it's independence. There is no doubt about that at all.
Exactly squidge. theone will claim victory on tripping me up on minor details.
The numerous sources that prove that Clair Ridge and Bentley have more oil than the No campaign are prepared to make an indyref issue. In fact I've never seen anything from the No campaign that says they are proud to extract the natural resources from Scotland for the betterment for the rest of the UK. Instead, we are continually being fed a down rated version of what is out there in the North Sea and West of Shetland.
In fact, it is only a few weeks ago that the No campaign was trying to say that the curse of oil was actually in the worse interests of an independent Scotland. It is the first time in history that the discovery of oil is bad news for the country.
What sources?
The only people who have an idea of how much oil is in Clair Ridge and Bentley are the companies who have explored, drilled, and are developing the reservoirs.
Companies trying to make money. Companies who want to raise their share prices. Companies whose share price would rise with higher published reserves.
But you suggest pro independence websites who know little of oil extraction know better. That it's a great conspiracy. That these companies, who operate all over the world, are hiding their oil. To the detriment of their share price.........
The fact is the No campaign have no control over these figures. Indeed most of the figures quoted by yourself have been in the public domain for months and years, but are only being banded around now by the yes campaign because they are losing public support on financial issues after the TV debate.
Again. I challenge you. What statements have I made are wrong or confusing?
I didn't say there that the UK government made investment. I conceded in the other post last week your point. But the point has been made. £4.5 billion has been invested in Clair Ridge. You tried to convince us that it is negligible. Small potatoes.
ARE YOU SERIOUS???????
Less than 1 hour ago you said this:
The UK government have thrown £7 billion of investment at Clair Ridge oilfield.
Nothing to see here, move along!!!
So yes, you DID say the UK government made investment.
No matter what anybody says, there is a shed load of oil still to be recovered and a shed load of oil which we have the ability to recover NOW and are likely to be able to recover with technological advances in the future. Time will tell whether we are having the wool pulled over our eyes about how big or how lucrative Scotland's oil fields are. .................................. Whatever the ins and outs of it all, whether Clair Ridge is massive or massively massive, whether there is oil off the west coast which we haven't been able to develop or not - Scotland is well able to afford it's independence. There is no doubt about that at all.
I agree with all you've said that I've quoted squidge.
I've given up trying to persuade people to my point of view on the referendum, let people decide on their own, based on the truth available.
What I don't believe in in lies, spin, denial and deception from either side.
Which is exactly what Rheghead is spouting with regards to Clair Ridge/Bentley on this forum.
A shame really, because his positive, founded arguments on other subjects such as renewables are degraded by his unwillingness or inability to admith he is wrong on subjects he is ignorant about, such as oil.
ARE YOU SERIOUS???????
Less than 1 hour ago you said this:
So yes, you DID say the UK government made investment.
Oh my goodness, you are right, me bad.
the fact remains that there has been £4.5 billion investment into Clair Ridge when you claimed it was no major thing. Fact is that the UK has to make major tax incentives to allow that investment to take place. Incentives and subsidies means that the UK tax payers foots the bill. Same as the UK pays.
Why don't you rejoice that your country is in a fantastic position in the world? It is in a historic position wrt the referendum but it is mega rich if it went independent? Or do find solice in doing Scotland down? :~(:roll:
Oh my goodness, you are right, me bad.
Not your first on this subject. I wonder if it was indeed amistake or an atempt to let your lies slip through unchallenged.
the fact remains that there has been £4.5 billion investment into Clair Ridge when you claimed it was no major thing.
I never claimed it was no major thing. A big investment indeed. I only challenged your claim it would make us "rinsanely rich"
Fact is that the UK has to make major tax incentives to allow that investment to take place. Incentives and subsidies means that the UK tax payers foots the bill. Same as the UK pays.
NO THIS IS NOT A FACT.
Your knowledge on taxation appears to be as poor as that of oil extraction.
There is NO subsidy on oil exploration. The government (taxpayer) does not pay ONE PENNY to the oil companies. NO SUBSIDY.
The incentive is "no tax before investment returned". Tax that would not be payed if the field wasn't developed. SO THERE IS NO BILL TO BE FOOTED.
.
Why don't you rejoice that your country is in a fantastic position in the world? It is in a historic position wrt the referendum but it is mega rich if it went independent? Or do find solice in doing Scotland down? :~(:roll:
I acknowledge it is in an historic position.
But I don't believe it would be mega rich with independence. See previous posts...............
Do we need to be mega rich? I truly don't think so, although (in much the same way as I think about a lottery win) it would be nice :) What we need is the ability to choose our own priorities, the ability to decide how we spend our money, and the freedom to choose to follow the direction that suits us, Scotland. We can do these things with a Independence with or without oil bonanzas.
Do we need to be mega rich? I truly don't think so, although (in much the same way as I think about a lottery win) it would be nice :) What we need is the ability to choose our own priorities, the ability to decide how we spend our money, and the freedom to choose to follow the direction that suits us, Scotland. We can do these things with a Independence with or without oil bonanzas.
And if that's your argument for independence squide, it is a noble one.
I chose to go the other way. Mainly because I don't see any better argument for defining "WE" as the border south of berwick than "WE" on this big island, or indeed "WE" within the border between Reay and somewhere south of Dunbeath.
Obvious lies, deceit, ignorance, confusion and spin are not so noble. Other Yes (and I'm sure, No) supporters on the org could learn a lot from you
Jeezo theone, I'm not 'noble'.
My argument for Independence is a pragmatic one. I know our society needs to change and over the years I have tried through a variety of paid work, voluntary work, support for Individuals, voting for change, speaking out where I see things that are wrong and immoral. I have tried to make a difference and I HAVE done so on an individual basis and in a small way but here we are - nothing has changed really. I haven't made one iota of difference to society as a whole.
So, WM is not changing, the direction of travel is further away from the things I believe in, the things that matter to me and to many others. And then here we are, we have the chance to make a change. A huge change, the opportunity to write our future the way we want to. We - Scotland - have that chance. I have had to accept that I cannot change WM with my vote or my voice, and you know, if you keep trying to make changes that need to be made and no one is listening, there comes a point where you have to make the changes and SHOW people what can be achieved.
I believe that is what independence will do. There is no opportunity for change within the UK. None. All the parties are singing the same song. Only with a YES vote do we have the chance to make the changes that need to be made. Whether we do that or not is up to us, setting priorities, spending wisely, holding politicians to account, putting people at the heart of our politics. It'll be hard work and we will get it wrong sometimes but we have the opportunity and that opportunity is lacking as part of the UK.
That's what I believe, it's not some "noble cause' theone lol. It's the logical decision for someone who sees the need for something better and fairer.
Haha, careful, I said your argument was noble.
For the record, I never once said you were noble ;-)
Jeezo theone, I'm not 'noble'. My argument for Independence is a pragmatic one. I know our society needs to change and over the years I have tried through a variety of paid work, voluntary work, support for Individuals, voting for change, speaking out where I see things that are wrong and immoral. I have tried to make a difference and I HAVE done so on an individual basis and in a small way but here we are - nothing has changed really. I haven't made one iota of difference to society as a whole. So, WM is not changing, the direction of travel is further away from the things I believe in, the things that matter to me and to many others. And then here we are, we have the chance to make a change. A huge change, the opportunity to write our future the way we want to. We - Scotland - have that chance. I have had to accept that I cannot change WM with my vote or my voice, and you know, if you keep trying to make changes that need to be made and no one is listening, there comes a point where you have to make the changes and SHOW people what can be achieved. I believe that is what independence will do. There is no opportunity for change within the UK. None. All the parties are singing the same song. Only with a YES vote do we have the chance to make the changes that need to be made. Whether we do that or not is up to us, setting priorities, spending wisely, holding politicians to account, putting people at the heart of our politics. It'll be hard work and we will get it wrong sometimes but we have the opportunity and that opportunity is lacking as part of the UK. That's what I believe, it's not some "noble cause' theone lol. It's the logical decision for someone who sees the need for something better and fairer.Yawn, what a load of rubbish, I know your a clever woman Squidge, but in my opinion your living in a make believe world, independence will not work.
Haha, careful, I said your argument was noble.For the record, I never once said you were noble ;-)Phew thank goodness for that. I was awful sure you were gonna be disappointed.!
Yawn, what a load of rubbish, I know your a clever woman Squidge, but in my opinion your living in a make believe world, independence will not work.G
Golach you are as ever, constructive in your feedback and say absolutely nothing of any use at all. Let's see if we can pin you down. Which bit won't work? All of it?
You have said previously that no one in Scotland has the intellectual capacity, the experience or the ability to run our country and yet you put your faith in a bunch of people who have no real world experience. Nothing like you have, nothing like I have. I think it is you who is living in a make believe world. Show me where the opportunity to change things is just now Golach? Prove me wrong.
Show me how you and I can influence what WM decides over defence, taxation, social policy, welfare? Show me how voting NO will improve life expectancy, reduce inequality, Show me how voting no makes us a better fairer place to live. Please. I'm not a nationalist of the heart Golach, I don't believe fundamentally that I need Scotland to be independent. So show me how the things I believe in can be achieved as part of the union. On ya go.
GGolach you are as ever, constructive in your feedback and say absolutely nothing of any use at all. Let's see if we can pin you down. Which bit won't work? All of it? IYou have said previously that no one in Scotland has the intellectual capacity, the experience or the ability to run our country and yet you put your faith in a bunch of people who have no real world experience. Nothing like you have, nothing like I have. I think it is you who is living in a make believe world. Show me where the opportunity to change things is just now Golach? Prove me wrong. Show me how you and I can influence what WM decides over defence, taxation, social policy, welfare? Show me how voting NO will improve life expectancy, reduce inequality, Show me how voting no makes us a better fairer place to live. Please. I'm not a nationalist of the heart Golach, I don't believe fundamentally that I need Scotland to be independent. So show me how the things I believe in can be achieved as part of the union. On ya go.All of it!!! I am not changing and I see no reason telling you why, I am a No voter for ever
Oh Golach I know THAT. I am not trying to change your mind - I might as well plait fog! But neither am I telling you that your opinions and beliefs are rubbish. You DO know we can disagree but still accept each other's point of view don't you. I am sure you can't have got to your wise old age and not know that and yet, sadly not for the first time, you just choose to be rude. I know my reasons are not yours, I know my reasons are different from loads of folk - yes, no, don't know - but what gives you the right to say my reasons are rubbish whilst saying yours cannot be challenged? If you think my reasons are rubbish then let's hear you offer ME an alternative view. Otherwise, in the words of that immortal creature "Thumper" (from Disney's Bambi) if you can't say something nice, don't say nothing at all :)
Heisenberg
19-Aug-14, 08:20
All of it!!! I am not changing and I see no reason telling you why, I am a No voter for ever I will always keep an open mind, open to new ideas, I think people should always be willing to switch allegiance, and able to admit when they were following the wrong ideals. So what I would say is 'i will be voting NO as so far the argument for independance is too week to change my mind' .
Oh Golach I know THAT. I am not trying to change your mind - I might as well plait fog! But neither am I telling you that your opinions and beliefs are rubbish. You DO know we can disagree but still accept each other's point of view don't you. I am sure you can't have got to your wise old age and not know that and yet, sadly not for the first time, you just choose to be rude. I know my reasons are not yours, I know my reasons are different from loads of folk - yes, no, don't know - but what gives you the right to say my reasons are rubbish whilst saying yours cannot be challenged? If you think my reasons are rubbish then let's hear you offer ME an alternative view. Otherwise, in the words of that immortal creature "Thumper" (from Disney's Bambi) if you can't say something nice, don't say nothing at all :)
Oh its sad Squidge, you ask me what my reasons for not voting yes, and when I tell you in the shortest way possible,( because I am not long winded unlike some) you call me rude, maybe I was too blunt for you, but my mind is not for changing, I see no reason to break up our nation, its as plain as that.
All of it!!! I am not changing and I see no reason telling you why, I am a No voter for ever
In all the threads on this subject golach I don't recall you presenting a coherent arguement why we should vote no. squidge has covered a variety of subject areas and issues and consistently presented eloquent arguements for a yes vote. Yet I admit to being a first class cynic. All you appear to have done is present negatve bluster and feign boredom.
I'm undecided; a fence-sitter and I've scoured the media but a lot of what I see is squabbling, both petty and quite vicious.
So golach tell me why I should vote no.
In all the threads on this subject golach I don't recall you presenting a coherent arguement why we should vote no. squidge has covered a variety of subject areas and issues and consistently presented eloquent arguements for a yes vote. Yet I admit to being a first class cynic. All you appear to have done is present negatve bluster and feign boredom.I'm undecided; a fence-sitter and I've nscoured the media but a lot of what I see is squabbling, both petty and quite vicious.So golach tell me why I should vote no.Gronnuck, I would never presume to tell anyone how to vote or why, I have always stated my preference , and I am not sifting it one little bit.
Gronnuck, I would never presume to tell anyone how to vote or why, I have always stated my preference , and I am not sifting it one little bit.
So am I right in thinking you're not taking part in this debate?
Oh its sad Squidge, you ask me what my reasons for not voting yes, and when I tell you in the shortest way possible,( because I am not long winded unlike some) you call me rude, maybe I was too blunt for you, but my mind is not for changing, I see no reason to break up our nation, its as plain as that.
I did NOT ask you for your reasons Golach. I explained mine and you rudely told me they were rubbish and make believe. I asked you to explain to me where I was wrong and why my reasons are rubbish. I simply asked you to prove me wrong. There is no point in trying to persuade you or even explore with you what your reasons are. I respect that. But what you said was my reasons are rubbish and so I think it is acceptable to ask you to tell me why you think that. That may not be the same as your own reasons for voting No and thats ok but to say im talking rubbish and not tell me why is a bit of a cheek.
Humerous Vegetable
19-Aug-14, 10:42
Gronnuck, I would never presume to tell anyone how to vote or why, I have always stated my preference , and I am not sifting it one little bit.
Nobody could accuse you of ever sifting anything at all, which is probably why your argument, if you even had one, would be as full of lumps as the rest of U Kok's weird political porridge. Why not debate your reasons for staying in the Union? Have you actually got any, apart from credulity and fear of something else?
Gronnuck, I would never presume to tell anyone how to vote or why, I have always stated my preference , and I am not sifting it one little bit.
I have to ask you golach why have you bothered to post anything on any of the independent threads? It’s not as if you’ve contributed anything to the discussion is it?
I will admit my first thoughts were ‘No, never’ but over time I’ve opened my mind, read and listened to both sides of the arguement. I’m still sitting on the fence because the No Campaign have not revealed anything new and innovative to hold me. 300 years and more of the same old-same old is no longer good enough. I was hoping you would be able to help enlighten me.
NO THIS IS NOT A FACT.
Your knowledge on taxation appears to be as poor as that of oil extraction.
There is NO subsidy on oil exploration. The government (taxpayer) does not pay ONE PENNY to the oil companies. NO SUBSIDY.
The incentive is "no tax before investment returned". Tax that would not be payed if the field wasn't developed. SO THERE IS NO BILL TO BE FOOTED.
The chancellor said in his budget statement: "We will end the uncertainty over decommissioning tax relief that has hung over the industry for years by entering into a contractual approach ... We are also introducing new allowances including a £3bn new field allowance for large and deep fields to open up west of Shetland, the last area of the basin left to be developed."
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/mar/21/budget-2012-oil-industry-tax
And once again, you have been caught out to be unequivocally misleading the members of this forum.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/mar/21/budget-2012-oil-industry-tax7
And once again, you have been caught out to be unequivocally misleading the members of this forum.
Haha, open your eyes and read the first sentence in your link.
A "3 billion pound tax break".
A tax break is not a subsidy. Not a penny leaves the treasury to go to the oil companies. The companies receive the tax break on future profits from the oil. Hence why (I've already told you) Clair Ridge won't start paying for 7 years or so.
No misleading on my behalf Rheghead.
Haha, open your eyes and read the first sentence in your link.
A "3 billion pound tax break".
A tax break is not a subsidy. Not a penny leaves the treasury to go to the oil companies. The companies receive the tax break on future profits from the oil. Hence why (I've already told you) Clair Ridge won't start paying for 7 years or so.
No misleading on my behalf Rheghead.
Tax subsidy
Government can create exactly the same outcome through selective tax breaks as through cash payment.[3] For example, suppose a government sends monetary assistance that reimburses 15% of all health expenditures to a group that is paying 15% income tax. Exactly the same subsidy is achieved by giving a health tax deduction. Tax subsidies are also known as tax expenditures. Tax subsidies are one of the main explanations for why the tax code is so complicated.
A tax break is a subsidy. If I wanted to build a house that cost £100,000 and the government came along gave me a £50,000 tax break next year so I could build it then that is as good as the government giving me £50,000. It also means that the government is going to have to tax something else to recoup the loss, same as if they had given me the money.
Just face it, the Clair Ridge oilfield is huge. The big green blob west of Shetland is far bigger than any of the rest.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/22/North_Sea_OilandGas_Fields.jpg
A tax break is a subsidy. If I wanted to build a house that cost £100,000 and the government came along gave me a £50,000 tax break next year so I could build it then that is as good as the government giving me £50,000. It also means that the government is going to have to tax something else to recoup the loss, same as if they had given me the money.
Just face it, the Clair Ridge oilfield is huge. The big green blob west of Shetland is far bigger than any of the rest.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/22/North_Sea_OilandGas_Fields.jpg
There's a flaw in that comparison.
Because the government isn't making any "loss" by giving the tax break. If the field is undeveloped, it gets no tax. Normal tax rates make it uneconomical to develop. Therefore reducing the normal tax rate is the only way to receive ANY tax.
It's not a case of "paying up front".
On your second point, not once have I said Clair Ridge isn't a huge field. I just argued it will not make us "insanely rich" and provided the real production figures as opposed to trapped reserves.
Warning from History - SNP are like the Nazis not listening to no one - Alex Salmond - Hitler, Nicola Sturgeon - Goebbels, John Swinney - Goering, Kenny Macaskill - Himmler, Alex Neil - Mengele etc., NHS having problems, Police havings problems , Local Authorities having problems. SNP thinks the the golden bullet - Oil, thats not going to last, overwriting decisions against local councils and the general public on windfarms etc., also what it the atcual costs of setting up new services - Own Passports Services, DVLA, Welfare System, the list goes on. I can also see the amalgamation of the call centres ie combine the police, ambulance, nhs and fire service into one. Due away with local authorities and run direct from Edinburgh
Oh dear God Almighty. More nazi similies. Can't imagine where I've seen that before.
Heisenberg
21-Aug-14, 21:45
Oh dear God Almighty. More nazi similies. Can't imagine where I've seen that before.I don't think it was me
Shabbychic
22-Aug-14, 14:00
Warning from History - SNP are like the Nazis not listening to no one - Alex Salmond - Hitler, Nicola Sturgeon - Goebbels, John Swinney - Goering, Kenny Macaskill - Himmler, Alex Neil - Mengele etc., NHS having problems, Police havings problems , Local Authorities having problems. SNP thinks the the golden bullet - Oil, thats not going to last, overwriting decisions against local councils and the general public on windfarms etc., also what it the atcual costs of setting up new services - Own Passports Services, DVLA, Welfare System, the list goes on. I can also see the amalgamation of the call centres ie combine the police, ambulance, nhs and fire service into one. Due away with local authorities and run direct from Edinburgh
Well jings, crivens and help ma boab......we better all join the Nawbags then!!!!!
One simple fact that has not been mentioned is that all powers that The Scottish Parliament are devolved powers and that means just that - Devolved, and any powers devolved can be taken away by Westminster at any time.
Heisenberg
25-Aug-14, 23:53
One simple fact that has not been mentioned is that all powers that The Scottish Parliament are devolved powers and that means just that - Devolved, and any powers devolved can be taken away by Westminster at any time.Hi sam09, are you trying to say, that, in the event of a successful NO vote that any powers Scotland now has may be taken away? If so upon what facts are you basing this argument?
Heisenberg, Read my post (it is not on Police Scotland) "can" and I meant just that. Devolved powers are just that "Devolved Powers" and can be taken away by Westminster at any time. Can you say that the powers that are devolved will not be taken away? Or further diluted by budget restraints?
Heisenberg
26-Aug-14, 00:56
Heisenberg, Read my post (it is not on Police Scotland) "can" and I meant just that. Devolved powers are just that "Devolved Powers" and can be taken away by Westminster at any time. Can you say that the powers that are devolved will not be taken away? Or further diluted by budget restraints?Wow sam09, you've totally lost me, who mentioned Police Scotland? I can't say what will happen either way, I am not a politician, nor as far as I believe are any other orgers, unless you know better...............?
Heisenberg, What points were you trying to score this time? Devolved Powers ARE just that, Devolved and CAN be taken away by Westminster at any time and in many ways, such as cutting the budget allocation to the Scottish Government.
I did not say "in event of a successful no vote" you did.
The vote that we the Scottish Electorate have is the first vote we have had to shape Scotland`s future in 2014 years. We did not have a vote for the Treaty of Union, (before that we just did not have a vote) we did not have a vote on joining the E.U.
When it comes to Police Scotland, if the cap fits wear it. Are you not the same Heisenberg that posts on the Police Scotland forum? I have read these post and found them very entertaining.
Heisenberg
26-Aug-14, 12:26
Heisenberg, What points were you trying to score this time? Devolved Powers ARE just that, Devolved and CAN be taken away by Westminster at any time and in many ways, such as cutting the budget allocation to the Scottish Government.I did not say "in event of a successful no vote" you did.The vote that we the Scottish Electorate have is the first vote we have had to shape Scotland`s future in 2014 years. We did not have a vote for the Treaty of Union, (before that we just did not have a vote) we did not have a vote on joining the E.U. When it comes to Police Scotland, if the cap fits wear it. Are you not the same Heisenberg that posts on the Police Scotland forum? I have read these post and found them very entertaining. Again sam09 you amaze me with your lack of knowledge, and assumptions, I did not realise there was an on going competition where points were being awarded, I may have tried harder. I'm glad you found the posts on police Scotland forum amusing, sadly its not me. I'm sure if you ask squidge she will fill you in on the time frames involved, and what the referendum is actually about, as I can't be bothered with you. I do however await your next post, purely for my own sad amusement you understand.
O.k. Heisenberg just for your sad amusement. You think I am wrong, in what may I ask? Devolved means just that, "devolved" and can be taken away at the whim of Westminster in more ways than one. Such as cutting the budget allocation.
The referendum to put it simply so that even you can understand it: Is: in the event of a YES vote for all decisions on Scotland`s future to be made here in Scotland by the Government that the Scottish electorate vote in to serve us.
Heisenberg
26-Aug-14, 15:53
O.k. Heisenberg just for your sad amusement. You think I am wrong, in what may I ask? Devolved means just that, "devolved" and can be taken away at the whim of Westminster in more ways than one. Such as cutting the budget allocation. The referendum to put it simply so that even you can understand it: Is: in the event of a YES vote for all decisions on Scotland`s future to be made here in Scotland by the Government that the Scottish electorate vote in to serve us. I didn't say you were wrong, I said you have a lack of knowledge and were making assumptions. If you could tell me how the points system works and what the score is, am I winning or loosing?
Does it really matter if there are a few barrels of oil more or less either way ?, does it matter if we are going to be a few £ either way better or worse off?. Scotland is a wee country with good resources,a skilled workforce, a good reputation in the world, and given the opportunity , could , in time, produce a fairer society with a bit more even distribution of wealth-- vote no and you accept more of the same; vote yes and at least you have the courage to hope for something better.
And of course Heisenberg,he of the well known uncertainty principle, is someone to rely on for definitive answers.
Humerous Vegetable
27-Aug-14, 14:29
Good post, Murdo. Calm, reflective comments in a increasingly desperate onslaught from the unionists. Still no positive vision for a future Scotland, following their leader's hammering the other night, though. What are the measures being devolved to the Scottish parliament this weird collaboration of Scottish Labour, LibDems Tories and Ukip are promising if we vote no?
I didn't say you were wrong, I said you have a lack of knowledge and were making assumptions. If you could tell me how the points system works and what the score is, am I winning or loosing?
Heisenberg. (The defective would be detective) So I am not wrong, that makes me right. So where does the lack of knowledge come in ? By the way "losing" is spelt thus. I still fail to see what point you are trying to make, if I am right in what I say then where is is assumption ?
I agree with what Murdo has posted but I honestly think that the majority of the electorate are too gutless to vote YES and we will end up with more of the same.
Heisenberg
27-Aug-14, 16:06
Hi sam09, are you trying to say, that, in the event of a successful NO vote that any powers Scotland now has may be taken away? If so upon what facts are you basing this argument? Hi sam09, I have gone right back to my original question and reposted it, and await a clear answer. The lack of knowledge of the subject is just that. The assumption, you assumed I was another. As for spelling mistakes, well to point this out is just typical of those losing an argument, to try make themselves look better than there opponent. As we are not arguing, this does not apply, if we were arguing, and I needed to look better than my opponent, I might bring into question the very poor grammar and also spelling of my opponent, as we aren't, I won't.
Hi sam09, I have gone right back to my original question and reposted it, and await a clear answer. The lack of knowledge of the subject is just that. The assumption, you assumed I was another. As for spelling mistakes, well to point this out is just typical of those losing an argument, to try make themselves look better than there opponent. As we are not arguing, this does not apply, if we were arguing, and I needed to look better than my opponent, I might bring into question the very poor grammar and also spelling of my opponent, as we aren't, I won't.
Dear me Heisenberg once again you fail to read my post I said "can be taken away" I did not say: would be. For once in your life pay attention.
Heisenberg
27-Aug-14, 20:02
Dear me Heisenberg once again you fail to read my post I said "can be taken away" I did not say: would be. For once in your life pay attention. Sorry Sir, maybe you should actually read mine, and yours come to think of it. I did not say you said it 'would' I said 'may'. You do have quite the attitude, don't you. This is where you would say "read with your eyes, not your mouth".
Sorry Sir, maybe you should actually read mine, and yours come to think of it. I did not say you said it 'would' I said 'may'. You do have quite the attitude, don't you. This is where you would say "read with your eyes, not your mouth".
I love the banter with you Heisenberg. You do not give in do you. You said I was not wrong and then you go on to question it. Where was I making any assumption ? I was stating a fact. Devolved powers can be taken away at anytime by Westminster. I did not say that they may be taken away. It was you that made that assumption. I ask you: Why you would make that assumption? Also why we should accept devolved powers that could be taken away, when with a yes vote, we here in Scotland would ensure that all decisions made on Scotland`s future would be made here in Scotland by a Goverment elected by the electorate here in Scotland? Incidently I did not say anywhere "in the event of a NO vote any powers now has, may be taken away"
Heisenberg
27-Aug-14, 22:03
I love the banter with you Heisenberg. You do not give in do you. You said I was not wrong and then you go on to question it. Where was I making any assumption ? I was stating a fact. Devolved powers can be taken away at anytime by Westminster. I did not say that they may be taken away. It was you that made that assumption. I ask you: Why you would make that assumption? Also why we should accept devolved powers that could be taken away, when with a yes vote, we here in Scotland would ensure that all decisions made on Scotland`s future would be made here in Scotland by a Goverment elected by the electorate here in Scotland? Incidently I did not say anywhere "in the event of a NO vote any powers now has, may be taken away". No that's what I said! You made the assumption that I was posting on Police Scotland forum! I have made no assumptions. AND that's not the correct spelling of government
Heisenberg
27-Aug-14, 22:07
Come back rheghead and the one, save the day pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaase!
Heisenberg, whatever happens with a no vote devolved powers can be taken back to Westminster. Westminster can also abolish or change the Barnett Formula. Whether they will or will not would remain to be seen. I would hope not but the fact remains that they could. Some politicians argue for removing the Scottish Parliament or reducing powers for Scotland's Parliament. Some argue for getting rid of the Barnett Formula and slashing Scotland's Block Grant. Whether they will or not remains to be seen.
What this conversation does rather illustrate though is that the only way to ensure Scotland retains the powers it has and gets new ones, the only way to guarantee the continuation of a Scottish Parliament is to vote YES for independence.
Heisenberg
28-Aug-14, 08:30
[QUOTE=squidge;1095242]Heisenberg, whatever happens with a no vote devolved powers can be taken back to Westminster. Westminster can also abolish or change the Barnett Formula. Whether they will or will not would remain to be seen. I would hope not but the fact remains that they could. Some politicians argue for removing the Scottish Parliament or reducing powers for Scotland's Parliament. Some argue for getting rid of the Barnett Formula and slashing Scotland's Block Grant. Whether they will or not remains to be seen. [QUOTE/]Thank you squidge, I totally agree with this statement, nowhere in this thread have I said otherwise. I merely asked samo 'upon what he was basing' his point on.
Heisenberg: One simple fact that has not been mentioned is that all powers that the Scottish Government has are devolved powers and that means just that - Devolved, and any powers can be taken away by Westminster.
A simple truth, with no assumptions.
Your reply: Hi sam09, are you trying to say, that, in the event of a NO vote that any powers Scotland now has may be taken away? If so upon what facts are you basing this argument?
Read again my post and let the statement sink in and again maybe you will start to engage brain before assuming I was trying to say, " that, in the event of a NO vote that any powers Scotland now has may be taken away" I was stating the above fact, no more no less.
I asked you; are you not the one and the same Heisenberg posting on Police Scotland ? Do deny it?
If anyone is in doubt about the extreme right wing political direction of the rest of the UK then you just have to take stock of the Douglas Carswell MP defection to UKIP.
Do you want Scotland's future being determined by these rightwing elements at Westminster? We should take Scotland's future into our own hands.
Vote Yes
Yes Rheghead we should indeed take Scotland`s future into our own hands, but not turn our future over to a Federal E.U.
My main worry is that Mr. Salmond will take a YES vote as a mandate to join/re-join the E.U. with out a referendum of the Scottish electorate. A view that I share with many people here on the org and the rest of Scotland.
Former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan says "Being part of the UK is impossible to be proud of" and "all they think (uk ministers) of is keeping control of resources". A very disturbing account of behind the scenes of UK diplomatic life. He even goes on to say that you cannot vote No and be a moral person. WoW, that is powerful stuff and not something that I personally would have promoted until I listened to what he had to say.
youtu.be/CIQ8VVn8AJA (youtu.be/CIQ8VVn8AJA )
If anyone is in doubt about the extreme right wing political direction of the rest of the UK then you just have to take stock of the Douglas Carswell MP defection to UKIP.
Do you want Scotland's future being determined by these rightwing elements at Westminster? We should take Scotland's future into our own hands.
Vote Yes
Scary stuff since one of UKIP's stated aims is to re-establish and protect the sovereignty of the UK parliament. That might well mean rescinding the devolved administrations in Cardiff, Stormont and Edinburgh.
I just filled In my postal vote and I voted yes. I made my mind up today. I was a unionist and didn't pay much attention to the debate until John Littles 'secessionist' theory a couple of years ago. Then Ducati made a good case for everything else. Squidge has always held her ground and took a fair bit of stick, and Rheghead too. Thanks to all of you for helping me make my mind up.
Wow Gleeber. Vote cast. I'm glad you have considered everything and made your decision. Whatever the result it's the settled will of the Scottish people we want. It's quite a moment.
After a No vote then a source inside FIFA has said FIFA may stop Scotland football team playing international matches. :eek: I actually don't think that will happen but it is a risk.
AARGH, no more chance of England thumping the auld enemy yet again. A bland UK football team. The tragedy...
http://en.ria.ru/analysis/20140828/192417905/Scottish-No-Vote-Will-Lead-to-Questions-Over-Its-International.html
Heisenberg
30-Aug-14, 08:51
After a No vote then a source inside FIFA has said FIFA may stop Scotland football team playing international matches. :eek: I actually don't think that will happen but it is a risk.AARGH, no more chance of England thumping the auld enemy yet again. A bland UK football team. The tragedy...http://en.ria.ru/analysis/20140828/192417905/Scottish-No-Vote-Will-Lead-to-Questions-Over-Its-International.htmlIts only a game.................But what isn't sportsman like are 'egg attacks' by nationalist on Better Together campaigners as happened to Jim Murphy in Kirkaldy..........as for thumping the auld enemy, perhaps it should be 'egging' the auld enemy..................All football is bland anyway
Its only a game.................But what isn't sportsman like are 'egg attacks' by nationalist on Better Together campaigners as happened to Jim Murphy in Kirkaldy..........as for thumping the auld enemy, perhaps it should be 'egging' the auld enemy..................All football is bland anywayEgg attacks? Is there an epidemic? Jim Murphy got hit by an egg. He stands on the street and campaigns loudly. I'm not sure why he is surprised. It's not "sportsmanlike" you are right. But neither is it sinister or dangerous as is being portrayed in the media.
Maybe if he had received anonymous notes telling him to stay away "if he values his health" like Jim Sillars did this month. Or even been chased by a car or received death threats like Alex Salmond then there may have been a case for the sense of outrage that has been manufactured here. But he got hit by an egg by it is suggested, the same disgruntled labour member who heckled Gordon Brown in Dundee recently.
There is no place for threats from either side but manufactured outrage does no one any favours. Thankfully these incidents are rare.
Heisenberg
30-Aug-14, 12:58
Egg attacks? Is there an epidemic? Jim Murphy got hit by an egg. He stands on the street and campaigns loudly. I'm not sure why he is surprised. It's not "sportsmanlike" you are right. But neither is it sinister or dangerous as is being portrayed in the media. Maybe if he had received anonymous notes telling him to stay away "if he values his health" like Jim Sillars did this month. Or even been chased by a car or received death threats like Alex Salmond then there may have been a case for the sense of outrage that has been manufactured here. But he got hit by an egg by it is suggested, the same disgruntled labour member who heckled Gordon Brown in Dundee recently. There is no place for threats from either side but manufactured outrage does no one any favours. Thankfully these incidents are rare.You are right of course squidge, threats and physical action of this kind are unacceptable from either party, and are counter productive.I only mentioned it, as rheg seemed to be 'scaremongering' again, with the threat against football. I would vote YES if Alex Salmon's said he would outlaw football, and all the nonsense that goes with it, in an independent Scotland.
Its only a game.................But what isn't sportsman like are 'egg attacks' by nationalist on Better Together campaigners as happened to Jim Murphy in Kirkaldy..........as for thumping the auld enemy, perhaps it should be 'egging' the auld enemy..................All football is bland anyway
There seems to be some speculation that Jim Murphy or Better Together arranged for a bloke to throw the egg at him. This is a classic tactic that has happened before. We've got a photo of the bloke now so it is a matter of time before the truth will out.
Heisenberg
30-Aug-14, 13:28
There seems to be some speculation that Jim Murphy or Better Together arranged for a bloke to throw the egg at him. This is a classic tactic that has happened before. We've got a photo of the bloke now so it is a matter of time before the truth will out. Like Alex Salmond making up death threats against him, eh rheg. What a lot of nonsense this referendum has become.
You are right of course squidge, threats and physical action of this kind are unacceptable from either party, and are counter productive.I only mentioned it, as rheg seemed to be 'scaremongering' again, with the threat against football. I would vote YES if Alex Salmon's said he would outlaw football, and all the nonsense that goes with it, in an independent Scotland.
Actually, the Green Yes campaign has recently released their plans to have football teams owned by their fans. Their plans to have football teams to be owned by comunity groups could in theory sort out the worse aspects of the modern game like ridiculous wages and sectarianism on the terraces. Only a Yes vote will give us this chance for change, a No vote will maintain the status quo. Nothing scaremongering about that, only hopes and aspirations for a better future.
http://www.scottishgreens.org.uk/uncategorized/greens-set-out-plans-to-put-fans-in-charge-of-football/
Like Alex Salmond making up death threats against him, eh rheg. What a lot of nonsense this referendum has become.
Well it just goes to show, Alex Salmond get death threats and keeps on campaigning, Jim sillars gets death threats and keeps on campaigning. Jim Murphy gets hit by an egg and goes home to wash his shirt. :lol:
Like Alex Salmond making up death threats against him, eh rheg. What a lot of nonsense this referendum has become.Only from those lookin in from outside. These incidents are rare so let's put it in perspective. RIC have canvassed over 80k people directly with no aggression. WFI are attending events almost every day of the week, with no aggression. Yes stalls in many many towns at weekends and during the week - no aggression. Expected turn out of over 80%, more people registering to vote than there has been for years. Next week I'm doing 4 events. I'm not expecting any aggression. One man gets hit with an egg and the papers are all over it. You are absolutely right Heisenberg - what a load of nonsense.
Only from those lookin in from outside.
And that's where most of us are looking at you from. From the outset the referendum (like any other election) has been hijacked by the usual small band of immature, partisan, socially challenged 'activists' who seem to think its more important to score some sorry little point with someone of a different political colour than actually take a big picture, mature and intelligent view.
People like you are the sort of people you see on election night television in the 'audience' at election count results - they aspire to be characters in "The Thick of It" but are just feckless individuals who stick leaflets through doors and harass people via social media. If your political party told you to jump off a cliff you'd campaign for everyone to do, and you'd do it yourself. If your defence is that you think you are 'grass roots political activists' then it's about time someone came and mowed the lawn.
(and the above applies to those no matter what side they are on)
And that's where most of are looking at you from. From the outset the referendum (like any other election) has been hijacked by the usual small band of immature, partisan, social challenged 'activists' who seem to think its more important to score some sorry little point with someone of a different political colour than actually take a big picture, mature and intelligent view. People like you are the sort of people you see on election night television in the 'audience' at election count results - they aspire to be characters in "The Thick of It" but are just feckless individuals who stick leaflets through doors and harass people via social media. If your political party told you to jump off a cliff you'd campaign for everyone to do, and you'd do it yourself. If your defence is that you think you are 'grass roots political activists' then it's about time someone came and mowed the lawn.(and the above applies to those no matter what side they are on)
Lol lol lol. You are absolutely right I'll be at the count. My job will be to scrutinise the process and make sure it's being carried out fairly. There are 150 of us who will be doing that in Highland so You can be sure of the result. Will I cheerif there is a YES vote. Bloody right I will.
I am sorry that you are missing what's going on. No matter what dide of the vote you are on. The engagement of people in this process is hugely exciting. People who never voted. Who thought they couldn't make a difference are trying to do just that. That's massive.
Am I an activist yes I guess I have become exactly that, and I'm proud of standing up for what I believe in. I dont have a political party. I'm just me but I have addressed meetings, spoken at events, leafletted and and will continue to do so. I am pleased to say I have never been rude to anyone ... Yet lol
I'm interested to see you think I'm feckless, immature, partisan and socially challenged when you gave no idea about me or who I am or what I do out with this place. I am however utterly sure that in real life you are a kind polite mature and intelligent soul. Maybe you're just having a bad day.
weeker2014
30-Aug-14, 16:32
I love the big yes set up the guy in Thrumster has a street along from me!! Hat off to ya for doing it!!!
There is a lot of talent in Scotland.
You have many additional natural resources currently not developed or exploited.
By changing the course of history and voting Yes you will be the catalyst for the much needed change in society for the people of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Cornwall too.
Changing the hearts and minds of 65 million people in the UK where the gap between poverty and wealth is immense and the power of Westminster, London and the South East dominates what happens across the country, ludicrous. Uniting 6- 7 million is an easier task.
Create your own currency - what about 'the Groat' - STERLING needs Scotland - you will have even greater power to negotiate if you vote Yes.
Just make sure you have the right people in the right jobs at the heart of your new Scottish Government and across the regions.
Financial services, Education, Health and Social Care are strong in Scotland - you have clever, resourceful people in touch with the needs across your communities.
Everyone, even the work shy and those with the 'society owes me/ will pay attitude' will have to unite and pull their weight, but you can make it happen.
A YES vote is a brave step, but....... nothing changes by doing the same old thing.
Please make the A9 Dual carriage ALL the way to Inverness and build a beautiful skyway bridge across the Berridale Braes (with the option for those of us who love that piece of road to wind our way up the hill at leisure).
Oh and by the way.......Tidal Energy will be a lot more reliable and efficient than Wind farms - (may also be kinder on the wildlife)
Heisenberg
30-Aug-14, 18:49
Actually, the Green Yes campaign has recently released their plans to have football teams owned by their fans. Their plans to have football teams to be owned by comunity groups could in theory sort out the worse aspects of the modern game like ridiculous wages and sectarianism on the terraces. Only a Yes vote will give us this chance for change, a No vote will maintain the status quo. Nothing scaremongering about that, only hopes and aspirations for a better future.http://www.scottishgreens.org.uk/uncategorized/greens-set-out-plans-to-put-fans-in-charge-of-football/ Scottish football without sectarianism will never happen, ever, even if Celtic and Rangers merged into one team, they would still fight amongst them selves, sectarianism in Scotland, is as Scottish as haggis, square sausage and Bonnie prince Charlie ( who was neither Scottish nor bonnie by all accounts-and probably wasn't even a prince)
Scottish football without sectarianism will never happen, ever, even if Celtic and Rangers merged into one team, they would still fight amongst them selves, sectarianism in Scotland, is as Scottish as haggis, square sausage and Bonnie prince Charlie ( who was neither Scottish nor bonnie by all accounts-and probably wasn't even a prince)
Do we just shrug our shoulders and concede that this is as good as it gets or do we think there is need for some Hopes and Aspirations for something better for Scotland?
Humerous Vegetable
31-Aug-14, 14:42
Scottish football without sectarianism will never happen, ever, even if Celtic and Rangers merged into one team, they would still fight amongst them selves, sectarianism in Scotland, is as Scottish as haggis, square sausage and Bonnie prince Charlie ( who was neither Scottish nor bonnie by all accounts-and probably wasn't even a prince)
I hope you are wrong about sectarianism in Scottish football, but the truth is that our nation has alwas been open to and welcoming of outside influences, be it Northern Ireland unionists,Southern Ireland catholics, Italians, Poles, Russians,Asians, Norse or whoever. We are an inclusive society and nation. We have sent family and friends, explorerers and gifted innovators throughout the world for hundreds of years. I think your "Bonnie Prince Charlie" was actually born in Rome, to a Polish mother, and that haggis was actually first documented as being a Lancastrian dish in 1430, although it may have originated in Scandinavia. Lorne sausage - the clue is in the word.
What I am trying to say, not very coherently I admit, is that our country has a long history of taking in other points of view, other cultures and beliefs and incorporating them into the Scottish mindset. This vote is not about us, it is about the opportunities of our children and our children's children and for the future of our nation.
The opportunity it there.......do we have the courage to make it happen for future generations ?
Heisenberg
31-Aug-14, 17:46
Do we just shrug our shoulders and concede that this is as good as it gets or do we think there is need for some Hopes and Aspirations for something better for Scotland? There should always be hopes and aspirations for something better for Scotland. I'm not sure independence is the answer. The devolved government have enough powers to make a difference without the need to break up the union with the rest of Great Britain, much improved management might be better. Whoever ends up on power after either a Y or N vote, will need to pull their socks up and be better than the present government.
There should always be hopes and aspirations for something better for Scotland. I'm not sure independence is the answer. The devolved government have enough powers to make a difference without the need to break up the union with the rest of Great Britain, much improved management might be better. Whoever ends up on power after either a Y or N vote, will need to pull their socks up and be better than the present government.
Independence is the answer because it is the people of Scotland who are the best qualified to run Scotland. We are the ones who care most about Scotland.
Independence is the answer because it is the people of Scotland who are the best qualified to run Scotland. We are the ones who care most about Scotland.Independence is the answer because there is no opportunity for changing our society with the confines of the Westminster System. Independence gives us that opportunity.
BetterTogether
01-Sep-14, 14:00
Independence is the answer because there is no opportunity for changing our society with the confines of the Westminster System. Independence gives us that opportunity.
Im not sure how you can say that with any degree of honesty. The reality is that an independent Scotland should it happen would have a constitution which would be written by the SNP who currently hold a majority which means that at the time of becoming independent the SNP will effectively write into Stone the rules by which they alone think an Independent Scotland should be run. The argument that this will be by cross party consensus is not a good ones as the SNP hold an unassailable majority which means to all intents and purposes they can do as they wish.
To claim that Westminster is unable to change is to deny the very society which we all live in and the monumental changes that have occurred to make society free and fair. Free and Fair can mean many things to many people and as we have seen by the vast majority of posts on this particular subject there has been very little free or fair when one political activist has ruthlessly applied themselves to ensuring that democratic debate is all but quelled on this community website. Is this really the free and fair society that you'd wish to sign up for where any voice that doesn't comply with the party line is ruthlessly culled.
With the Yes campaign desperately grasping at straws these last few weeks no chance for them to score a point will be missed even down to members of the public being arrested for making comments online about the first minister, the SNP cannot even tell the difference between a serious threat and Hyperbole, this shows proves that contrary to the free and fair society you're being promised and more centralised police state awaits. Youve already seen the first signs with armed police routinely walking the streets the only place in the whole country where this is seen to happen and how much input did the public get...NON
We had to listen to the First Minister on TV behaving as though he had won some great debate when he crowed that an Independent Scotland could use the pound. That has never been disputed but a currency union is very different matter and it is truly insulting to the electorate to pretend that he has successfully answered the serious questions that have been asked of him.
We as a Nation deserve to be treated with respect and have those serious questions answered honestly.
Currency still not answered honestly
Europe still not answered honestly
NHS still not answered honestly
NATO still not answered honestly
and the list goes on of all the questions you the electorate deserve to have answered.
If you genuinely want to get answers then ask the right people.
Listening to activists online will only give you the answers they are told to give you, remember they aren't at the heart of the matter making the decisions.
Truth of the matter is you live in a society considered the world over as a shining example of a free and fair society, with further powers of devolution promised we all know that we are BETTER TOGETHER
so remember when you see all the yes stickers plastered everywhere and the online activists doing their masters service just remember to say NO THANKS
Shabbychic
01-Sep-14, 14:23
Truth of the matter is you live in a society considered the world over as a shining example of a free and fair society, with further powers of devolution promised we all know that we are BETTER TOGETHER
Could you tell us what these powers of devolution are, that we have been promised?
Johann Lamont (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GY0q_XYxN8) doesn't appear to be able to answer this question.
Im not sure how you can say that with any degree of honesty. The reality is that an independent Scotland should it happen would have a constitution which would be written by the SNP who currently hold a majority which means that at the time of becoming independent the SNP will effectively write into Stone the rules by which they alone think an Independent Scotland should be run.
Now who is the one not being quite honest here?
The First Minister said in the second debate that a cross party group called in his own words 'Team Scotland' will conduct the post Yes negotiations. He even welcomed Alistair Darling as part of that process. But I am sure if there is one person that you would want on your side to get the best deal for Scotland and that is Alex Salmond. It is obvious that a shared union on currency is the best option but Danny Alexander and Alistair Darling will still campaign against the interests of Scotland.
The simple answer Better Together is that no constitutions are written in stone. They are subject to amendments and change. Examples can be found in the histories of constitutions of the USofA, Australia and Ireland to name just a few.
140 countries have gained independence since the end of WW2 and none of them have wanted to revert to their original status.
When I saw Alistair Darling wagging his finger like an irate headmaster, that brought home to me the attitude of the Westminster elite; that they know best what’s good for us. Well I’m not convinced.
And a’m gettin’ gye unheartsome at sittin oan ‘e fence.
Im not sure how you can say that with any degree of honesty. The reality is that an independent Scotland should it happen would have a constitution which would be written by the SNP who currently hold a majority which means that at the time of becoming independent the SNP will effectively write into Stone the rules by which they alone think an Independent Scotland should be run. The argument that this will be by cross party consensus is not a good ones as the SNP hold an unassailable majority which means to all intents and purposes they can do as they wish.To claim that Westminster is unable to change is to deny the very society which we all live in and the monumental changes that have occurred to make society free and fair. Free and Fair can mean many things to many people and as we have seen by the vast majority of posts on this particular subject there has been very little free or fair when one political activist has ruthlessly applied themselves to ensuring that democratic debate is all but quelled on this community website. Is this really the free and fair society that you'd wish to sign up for where any voice that doesn't comply with the party line is ruthlessly culled.With the Yes campaign desperately grasping at straws these last few weeks no chance for them to score a point will be missed even down to members of the public being arrested for making comments online about the first minister, the SNP cannot even tell the difference between a serious threat and Hyperbole, this shows proves that contrary to the free and fair society you're being promised and more centralised police state awaits. Youve already seen the first signs with armed police routinely walking the streets the only place in the whole country where this is seen to happen and how much input did the public get...NONWe had to listen to the First Minister on TV behaving as though he had won some great debate when he crowed that an Independent Scotland could use the pound. That has never been disputed but a currency union is very different matter and it is truly insulting to the electorate to pretend that he has successfully answered the serious questions that have been asked of him.We as a Nation deserve to be treated with respect and have those serious questions answered honestly.Currency still not answered honestlyEurope still not answered honestlyNHS still not answered honestlyNATO still not answered honestlyand the list goes on of all the questions you the electorate deserve to have answered. If you genuinely want to get answers then ask the right people. Listening to activists online will only give you the answers they are told to give you, remember they aren't at the heart of the matter making the decisions.Truth of the matter is you live in a society considered the world over as a shining example of a free and fair society, with further powers of devolution promised we all know that we are BETTER TOGETHERso remember when you see all the yes stickers plastered everywhere and the online activists doing their masters service just remember to say NO THANKS....... tl;dr
....... tl;dr
Further powers of devolution promised. Why should the Scottish electorate want further devolved powers that can be taken away by Westminster government, when we can have all decisions about Scotland`s future made here in Scotland by a Government elected by the Scottish people ?
Shabbychic
01-Sep-14, 15:36
Listening to activists online will only give you the answers they are told to give you, remember they aren't at the heart of the matter making the decisions.
Does this not also apply to you, or are you special?
Hello Better Together how nice to see you. I have tried several times to get you to come along to the various cafe events I have been involved in so you can put the positive case for the union without much success so im delighted to see you here. http://forum.caithness.org/images/icons/icon10.png
Im not sure how you can say that with any degree of honesty.
I can say that because I look at the three main parties and see very little difference between the policies. I see no opportunity to vote for anything other than a determination to follow a direction which leads to a smaller public service, the dismantling of the welfare state, profits before people and the selling off of public serices to private profit making companies. Now is that honest? Well its MY honest viewpoint. You may disagree but I dont think you can call me a liar.
The reality is that an independent Scotland should it happen would have a constitution which would be written by the SNP...the SNP hold an unassailable majority which means to all intents and purposes they can do as they wish.
Rheghead has already pointed out that this is not the plan at all. IN addition there has already been work done to enable members of the public to have a say on the constitution and as well as the three main political parties it is likely that , in the event of a YES vote organisations like Women For Independence, Radical Independence Convention and others will be consulted. There has been a commitment given by the first minister that the 3rd Sector will also have a key role in drafting a constitution - that commitment was given in February this year at the Third Sector Conference in Glasgow. They can do as they wish? Isnt their wish that they have a team to deliver the constitution for the people of Scotland.
To claim that Westminster is unable to change is to deny the very society which we all live in and the monumental changes that have occurred to make society free and fair. Free and Fair can mean many things to many people and as we have seen by the vast majority of posts on this particular subject there has been very little free or fair when one political activist has ruthlessly applied themselves to ensuring that democratic debate is all but quelled on this community website. Is this really the free and fair society that you'd wish to sign up for where any voice that doesn't comply with the party line is ruthlessly culled.. It is not at all about denying the monumental changes that have been made but to accept that a Union which worked for a long time is no longer working for the benefit of all. Many people are completely disengaged by the political process which exists in westminster and there was a report only last week which showed how eleitist and further disconnected from the people of this country, Westminster is becoming. Contrast this with the amazing upsurge in engagement across the whole of society which is talking place as a result of simply holding this referendum. The view is that around 80% of those eligible will vote. That is massive. As for the quelling of democratic debate on this website - Which Political Activist are you talking about Better Together? The vast majority of the posts on this thread and others have actually been in support of the union and have remained in place even when those posting have been identified as sock puppets.
With the Yes campaign desperately grasping at straws these last few weeks no chance for them to score a point will be missed even down to members of the public being arrested for making comments online about the first minister, the SNP cannot even tell the difference between a serious threat and Hyperbole, this shows proves that contrary to the free and fair society you're being promised and more centralised police state awaits. Youve already seen the first signs with armed police routinely walking the streets the only place in the whole country where this is seen to happen and how much input did the public get...NON
I assume that you are speaking about the threat that some daft lad posted on twitter to assassinate Alex Salmond. I am not sure why that is so much less of an issue that Jim MUrphys egg incident which has been all over the press. Interestingly the reports of the twitter threat state that this incident was reported to the police by an american living here not by the SNP. I absolutely agree with you about Armed Police and thats one of the things I would hope will change regardless of whether we get a YES or a NO vote.
We had to listen to the First Minister on TV behaving as though he had won some great debate when he crowed that an Independent Scotland could use the pound. That has never been disputed I am very surprised to hear you say that when so many of your leaflets specifically say that independence will mean that Scotland will LOSE the pound, Will not be allowed to use the pound or that the only way to guarantee the use of the pound is to vote NO. Those leaflets are all over the place.
but a currency union is very different matter and it is truly insulting to the electorate to pretend that he has successfully answered the serious questions that have been asked of him.
We as a Nation deserve to be treated with respect and have those serious questions answered honestly.
Currency still not answered honestly
Europe still not answered honestly
NHS still not answered honestly
NATO still not answered honestly
and the list goes on of all the questions you the electorate deserve to have answered.
If you genuinely want to get answers then ask the right people.
Listening to activists online will only give you the answers they are told to give you, remember they aren't at the heart of the matter making the decisions.
Would the right people be you? I hope so and i hope then that you will come along to the Referendum Cafe which is being held in Wick on Saturday at 10am in the PPP Cafe and again in The Pentland Hotel at 2pm. I can assure you that you will be welcome and I am sure that people attending would be delighted to hear from you as would I. Listening to Activists and campaigners is an excellent way of hearing different sides I only wish that you would have been happier to engage at a local level as I so often find myself having to put your side of the argument forward too and my heart isnt in that I am afraid. I will also look forward to hearing from you what the Devolved powers you are guaranteeing will be.
Truth of the matter is you live in a society considered the world over as a shining example of a free and fair society, with further powers of devolution promised we all know that we are BETTER TOGETHER
so remember when you see all the yes stickers plastered everywhere and the online activists doing their masters service just remember to say NO THANKS
I would say that whilst the society we live in is good for me I believe it can be better - a lot better, particularly for those who are sick, disabled, carers, unemployed or poor. Im also not sure why you suggest that we who are voting YES are "doing their masters service" whilst you who are here, posting and persuading people that a NO vote is the right vote are not ddoing YOUR masters service.
However - like i said - its good to hear from you and i look forward to see you on Saturday - Dont forget now :)
Squidge I have just spoken to YES SCOTLAND on the telephone and asked the following questions: Will Mr. Salmond take a YES vote as mandate to join the E.U. The person that I spoke to would not give a straight answer but replied: During the eighteen months negotiating period before the Scottish election (in event of a yes vote) he, Alex Salmond will negotiate Scotland`s membership of the E.U. When asked: Would the Scottish Electorate be given a referendum on E.U. membership, he replied "Not by the S.N.P.
So how can I vote yes to the question Should Scotland be an Independent Country when voting yes means that I will be voting to join the E.U. ? Where is the Independence in a Federal E.U.?
Last edited by sam09 (http://forum.caithness.org/posthistory.php?p=1095676); 01-Sep-14 at 16:22. Reason: spelling
BetterTogether
01-Sep-14, 17:08
It would appear everytime i try to respond i get logged out
Bobinovich
01-Sep-14, 17:57
It would appear everytime i try to respond i get logged out
Either you're not ticking the Remember Me box under the username when logging in, or possibly you have set your cookies not to be stored - either one will most likely cause you to log out in between posts unless they're close together...
Squidge I have just spoken to YES SCOTLAND on the telephone and asked the following questions: Will Mr. Salmond take a YES vote as mandate to join the E.U. The person that I spoke to would not give a straight answer but replied: During the eighteen months negotiating period before the Scottish election (in event of a yes vote) he, Alex Salmond will negotiate Scotland`s membership of the E.U. When asked: Would the Scottish Electorate be given a referendum on E.U. membership, he replied "Not by the S.N.P.So how can I vote yes to the question Should Scotland be an Independent Country when voting yes means that I will be voting to join the E.U. ? Where is the Independence in a Federal E.U.?
Last edited by sam09 (http://forum.caithness.org/posthistory.php?p=1095676); 01-Sep-14 at 16:22. Reason: spelling The SNP has a stated aim of keeping Scotland in the EU. I have not seen any indication that membership of the EU is a constitutional commitment. This means it is SNP policy. So in an independent Scotland you would vote for the party in 2016 which offers the policy of leaving the EU. Just like in any election. Remember the referendum is not about party politics but about democracy.
But Sam09 if membership of the EU is your critical issue - The one issue which determines how you vote then you need to decide which system of government is more likely to meet your desire to leave Europe. However it's also worth considering whether Scotland will have its voice heard louder in the EU as part of the union or as an independent country because WM cannot guarantee the UK will leave the EU. So what can you live with Sam? Scotland as part of the union in the EU or an Independent Scotland In the EU?
The choice is up to you Sam09. I would not dream of telling you which way to vote . I decided based on what's important to me and that's what you should do. If that decision is No then that's fine :)
YouGov, the most pessimistic pollster towards Scottish independence now has the Yes Campaign 47% No campaign 53%. The momentum is with the Yes vote as the people of Scotland reject the scaremongering of the No campaign and start to believe that Scotland can be prosperous as an independent nation.
Heisenberg
02-Sep-14, 08:36
It would appear everytime i try to respond i get logged out Perhaps the YES vote biased admin have locked you out, a few NO vote campaigners appear to have been banned in the passed for expressing 'strong' opinions, now it appears there may be a 'lockout' of some sort going on. Jacko having been locked out for almost a week, his user name and password not recognised, this came just after being suspended for three hours. Despite emailing the admin they have yet to explain. I apologise for posting this if this has been rectified.
Even Chance
02-Sep-14, 09:24
Hardly, he managed to post the fact he cant get logged on ok enough!! lol
You were quick to stamp on heids tho werent you. Disna surprise me really. You do realise that there will be a resounding YES vote dont you? You may as well just accept it. The tide has turned, and yer side is gonna get swamped.
Caithness is bound to have a larger No following due to Dounreay and Vulcan folks worrying about their jobs. The plants are not going anywhere in their lifetimes are they! Its their childrens lives they could change by voting Yes and stopping being so selfish.
Hardly, he managed to post the fact he cant get logged on ok enough!! lol You were quick to stamp on heids tho werent you. Disna surprise me really. You do realise that there will be a resounding YES vote dont you? You may as well just accept it. The tide has turned, and yer side is gonna get swamped. Caithness is bound to have a larger No following due to Dounreay and Vulcan folks worrying about their jobs. The plants are not going anywhere in their lifetimes are they! Its their childrens lives they could change by voting Yes and stopping being so selfish. So are you voting based on your children's views or yours?
Even Chance
02-Sep-14, 11:55
So are you voting based on your children's views or yours?
Im voting FOR my childrens good, but its obviously my view entirely. Saying that, even my bairns can tell the difference.
My job is also on the line so to speak, but I have the ability to look further than myself when voting Yes. Dounreay wont close, its not like someone will switch the lights off in 2016 and say "off home chaps, nowt to do here"
Still havent heard anything saying why we would be better together yet. Its just a tirade of negativity thats doing Scotland as a whole no favours. Thats not good. Whats the RUK's plan A should we become Independant? They dont seem to be planning anything. Bit shallow of them to neglect their own people dont you think? Maybe they know the result can be rigged easily enough?
Tubthumper
02-Sep-14, 12:20
Dounreay will go into the 'liabilities' column as part of the negotiations, along with Chapelcross. What's more worrying is what happens to Torness & Hunterston - at present are they viewed as assets or liabilities, seeing as they're privately-owned but will revert to taxpayer ownership once they're done.
Humerous Vegetable
02-Sep-14, 12:42
Im voting FOR my childrens good, but its obviously my view entirely. Saying that, even my bairns can tell the difference.
My job is also on the line so to speak, but I have the ability to look further than myself when voting Yes. Dounreay wont close, its not like someone will switch the lights off in 2016 and say "off home chaps, nowt to do here"
Still havent heard anything saying why we would be better together yet. Its just a tirade of negativity thats doing Scotland as a whole no favours. Thats not good. Whats the RUK's plan A should we become Independant? They dont seem to be planning anything. Bit shallow of them to neglect their own people dont you think? Maybe they know the result can be rigged easily enough?
I don't think Westminster can envision a time where Scotland will vote for independence, so will not negotiate any post-yes scenario. They think they have us in their pockets for all time to come, like they have for the past 300 years, and that Scots voters would never see past the lies and propaganda they have been served by governments they never elected.
It's time to stand on our own two feet, and take reponsibility for the governance of our own country, with our own money, assets, talents and innovative thinkers and doers. We are bright enough, rich enough and talented enough to do this, but are we brave enough to try?
Even Chance
02-Sep-14, 16:18
Im hearin ye HV.
Caithness is a particularly difficult area, because of the afore-mentioned employment establishments. Thankfully the rest of Scotland are making up for our local lacking in support. Polls closing the points all the time, truths eventually coming out and the No camp appearing more desperate every day is becoming a reality I like. Their recent Ad campaign really shot themselves in the foot. Just goes to show how out of touch they are with Scots. They have no clue that we are actually a wee bit more switched-on than they would have liked.
We have the voice, and we can have the power to go with it.
Either way, Scottish politics has been re-vamped in a way like never before. Its invigorating now. Folk you never thought of as having an interest in politics are now speaking up for their beliefs. Its simply amazing.
BetterTogether
02-Sep-14, 16:27
Sorry for being unable to reply in depth to any questions it would appear each time I attempt a detailed post the system logs my out, yesterday for some reason the system refused to accept my username and password and the admin had to be contacted to reset this. I am unsure why this problem only seems to occur on this Org but if you feel there is political bias being shown on this org I suggest you contact Better Together Media Team 0141 332 4634
Even Chance
02-Sep-14, 16:59
You managed to post that, so wheres the detailed post? Write it out offline, then copy and paste. Thanks.
Heisenberg
02-Sep-14, 19:13
Hardly, he managed to post the fact he cant get logged on ok enough!! lol You were quick to stamp on heids tho werent you. Disna surprise me really. You do realise that there will be a resounding YES vote dont you? You may as well just accept it. The tide has turned, and yer side is gonna get swamped. Caithness is bound to have a larger No following due to Dounreay and Vulcan folks worrying about their jobs. The plants are not going anywhere in their lifetimes are they! Its their childrens lives they could change by voting Yes and stopping being so selfish. I would rather it were a NO vote, but you are right as we live in a democracy, I will accept it which ever way it goes. Will you?
Humerous Vegetable
02-Sep-14, 19:47
I would rather it were a NO vote, but you are right as we live in a democracy, I will accept it which ever way it goes. Will you?
Why wouldn't we? Have we suddenly stopped being a democracy since I last has a shufti at the state of play? Or is this yet another scare tactic from the No side, along the pathetic lines of the Glasgow Herald's Riots and Mayhem at the Polling Stations stuff, for which they received a Police Scotland censure this morning?
Heisenberg
02-Sep-14, 20:16
Why wouldn't we? Have we suddenly stopped being a democracy since I last has a shufti at the state of play? Or is this yet another scare tactic from the No side, along the pathetic lines of the Glasgow Herald's Riots and Mayhem at the Polling Stations stuff, for which they received a Police Scotland censure this morning? I don't see how my saying, 'as we live in a democracy' or that, 'I will accept the outcome which ever way it goes', could be a scare tactic of any kind.As I don't read any paper, I could not comment on the story you quote, however I wouldn't be surprised if isolated incidents broke out at some polling stations. Personally I'm not planning starting a riot on polling day, nor do I think anyone else I know is.
Even Chance
03-Sep-14, 08:48
I would rather it were a NO vote, but you are right as we live in a democracy, I will accept it which ever way it goes. Will you?
Absolutely. We're all Scots after all. We stand firm as a nation, and a wee squabble like this wont get us doon. I'll still have a tin of beer with any No voter and get the crack.
I'll take whatevers coming at me, be it a Yes or a No.
As a nation, we've been ground down over the last few hundred years to just accept things. Its just our nature.......aye right! Now is the time to have a wee re-think about it all. Roll on the 19th. Not long now til its all over and we can start afresh. Cheers...
Absolutely. We're all Scots after all. We stand firm as a nation, and a wee squabble like this wont get us doon. I'll still have a tin of beer with any No voter and get the crack.I'll take whatevers coming at me, be it a Yes or a No. As a nation, we've been ground down over the last few hundred years to just accept things. Its just our nature.......aye right! Now is the time to have a wee re-think about it all. Roll on the 19th. Not long now til its all over and we can start afresh. Cheers... I hope the rest of the nation will share your outlook on it, I fear not though
Absolutely. We're all Scots after all. We stand firm as a nation, and a wee squabble like this wont get us doon. I'll still have a tin of beer with any No voter and get the crack.
I'll take whatevers coming at me, be it a Yes or a No.
As a nation, we've been ground down over the last few hundred years to just accept things. Its just our nature.......aye right! Now is the time to have a wee re-think about it all. Roll on the 19th. Not long now til its all over and we can start afresh. Cheers...
I sincerely hope you're right.
I'll still be voting no but I do believe a yes vote is now quite likely - it wouldn't surprise me in the least.
Although I'm not looking forward to another 2 years of insults and blame from both sides during the negotiations - this could be the dirtiest divorce settlement in history - I just hope it gets over and done with asap.
Rioting in the street wouldn't surprise me (either way the vote goes) , I've seen nothing in my lifetime as divisive as the independence debate, between friends, family and strangers.
Even Chance
03-Sep-14, 11:55
The Scots wont riot. Remember when the big riots were raging in England twa years ago and they destroyed their own cities and the Scots just sat back and laughed at them for being such numpties?
Maybe Ive got the rose coloured specs on again, but we can and will work together after the Yes vote to build this country. We need all those No voters to help build it after all!
Since you are starting to sound more positive about a Yes vote, why not go the whole hog and actually join us in voting Yes? Every vote counts, and your most welcome. I'll have a tinny of Tenants on ice for you! lol
I'm not becoming more positive in favour of a yes vote, I still don't believe it is the best thing for the nation. I'm just accepting it is a real possibility.
As I say, if (when) the negotiations are completed and the reality, as opposed to the promises, become apparent, I predict trouble. I hope I'm wrong.
The Scots wont riot. Remember when the big riots were raging in England twa years ago and they destroyed their own cities and the Scots just sat back and laughed at them for being such numpties? Maybe Ive got the rose coloured specs on again, but we can and will work together after the Yes vote to build this country. We need all those No voters to help build it after all! Since you are starting to sound more positive about a Yes vote, why not go the whole hog and actually join us in voting Yes? Every vote counts, and your most welcome. I'll have a tinny of Tenants on ice for you! lol Violence has been breaking out already in the central belt. I too will accept whatever result until it becomes more advantageous to live elsewhere.As for joining the yes campaign...... I think I will pass on that
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.