An independent Scotland?

[ronmcd]

The SNP are hoping to walk away with all he oil and none of the national debt. It's fairy tale politics. And Salmond is a cunt.

Well, everyone is a cunt, you and me included I'm sure. On the politics, no, the SNP are intending following international law. That means the resources of Scotland become Scotland's after independence, just as Scotland wouldnt be expecting any revenue from English Welsh or NI resources in the future. Approx 80 - 90% of the oil fields are in Scottish waters, but most of the gas is in English waters, and thats how it would be split.

National debt, racked up historically, would be split on a GDP or population basis. Again I think thats internationally accepted, the SNP absolutely accept it.

100% of the oil and gas is in UK waters.

Indeed, as the UK is the current state. If Scotland were to split the union, then 100% of the oil and gas in Scotland's waters would be Scottish, 100% of the oil and gas in the remaining UK would belong to UK.

Simples.

Similarly, 100% of Edinburgh is in UK currently. If Scotland were independent, 100% of Edinburgh would be in Scotland, and not UK.

[ronmcd]

Has anybody mentioned that a good reason for the Scots' agreement with a 2014 referendum is because that will be the 700th anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn?

Anybody? Yes, you! But it's most commonly mentioned by: BBC SKY and other metropolitan media, Labour and Conservative MP's at Westminister, and angry ranting Daily Mail readers commenting on articles about the referendum. I've never - ever - heard it mentioned by SNP or the YES campaign.

They are more likely to mention the 2014 Commonwealth Games and 2014 Ryder Cup

To be honest though, all the other parties have moved heaven and earth to prevent the SNP having a referendum at all, and at the time of the 2011 Scottish election campaign they were demanding the referendum should be delayed and not held immediately! Alex Salmond then said in a tv debate that the referendum would, if SNP were elected, be held in the 2nd half of the Scottish parliamentary term ... which is 2014. It was only AFTER the election, after SNP won, that the other parties suddenly claimed it had to be held immediately. And started claiming 2014 was about Bannockburn.

Amusing.

[klr]

Has anybody mentioned that a good reason for the Scots' agreement with a 2014 referendum is because that will be the 700th anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn?

Anybody? Yes, you! But it's most commonly mentioned by: BBC SKY and other metropolitan media, Labour and Conservative MP's at Westminister, and angry ranting Daily Mail readers commenting on articles about the referendum. I've never - ever - heard it mentioned by SNP or the YES campaign.

They are more likely to mention the 2014 Commonwealth Games and 2014 Ryder Cup

To be honest though, all the other parties have moved heaven and earth to prevent the SNP having a referendum at all, and at the time of the 2011 Scottish election campaign they were demanding the referendum should be delayed and not held immediately! Alex Salmond then said in a tv debate that the referendum would, if SNP were elected, be held in the 2nd half of the Scottish parliamentary term ... which is 2014. It was only AFTER the election, after SNP won, that the other parties suddenly claimed it had to be held immediately. And started claiming 2014 was about Bannockburn.

Amusing.

Oh Christ, you're going to get re-runs of Braveheart until you are (quite literally) blue in the face.

[Thinking Aloud]

Oh Christ, you're going to get re-runs of Braveheart until you are (quite literally) blue in the face.

Haven't seen it myself. No TV for two years!!! WOOO!!

[mistermack]

I don't like this referendum, and Cameron is an idiot, the way he has agreed to it.

Firstly, I just don't like nationalism. It's illogical, causes wars, and is on a par with religion as far as logic goes.

Secondly, a simple majority of one vote should NEVER have been agreed, as a mandate.
Two to one in favour should have been the absolute minimum.

You have a simple majority, when you are voting for a fixed-term MP, or government.
Not something that is meant to stand for ever.

But now that all of that's been conceded, I hope the vote is no. And if it is, that should be the end of devolution. It's gone too far already. And that no vote should ALSO stand forever.

[Feck]

Why ? I know I'm against Independence because I'm not convinced it makes any financial sense for Scotland but why are you so anti ?

[Clinton Huxley]

The SNP are hoping to walk away with all he oil and none of the national debt. It's fairy tale politics. And Salmond is a cunt.

Well, everyone is a cunt, you and me included I'm sure. On the politics, no, the SNP are intending following international law. That means the resources of Scotland become Scotland's after independence, just as Scotland wouldnt be expecting any revenue from English Welsh or NI resources in the future. Approx 80 - 90% of the oil fields are in Scottish waters, but most of the gas is in English waters, and thats how it would be split.

National debt, racked up historically, would be split on a GDP or population basis. Again I think thats internationally accepted, the SNP absolutely accept it.

100% of the oil and gas is in UK waters.

Indeed, as the UK is the current state. If Scotland were to split the union, then 100% of the oil and gas in Scotland's waters would be Scottish, 100% of the oil and gas in the remaining UK would belong to UK.

Simples.



Similarly, 100% of Edinburgh is in UK currently. If Scotland were independent, 100% of Edinburgh would be in Scotland, and not UK.

Not quite. Depends on if there is a per-capita split or a geographical split. Also, over the years, the N. Sea oil and gas industry has had tax breaks from the UK Govt ie largely the English taxpayer, to encourage development. I don't think it is as clear cut as the SNP think.

[mistermack]

Why ? I know I'm against Independence because I'm not convinced it makes any financial sense for Scotland but why are you so anti ?

Because logic say's it's the opposite way we should be going.
The countries of Europe have come closer together, with the EU, and with modern communication and travel it all makes sense. Seperation just causes friction.

Also, it's just expesive duplication of government. Look what the Scottish parliament has cost, not just the building, but the salaries.
If there is unfairness in the current system, it's that that should be changed, not the borders.

With Ireland, it was religion that drove it, emotionally. You had a protestant set of landowners, grinding down the catholics, and not giving a shit when they were starving.
You don't have that in Scotland. All you have is some stupid line, drawn by long-dead kings.

I would personally dissolve the scottish parliament, and make the building into a fantastic concert venue, if I was in power.
And the same for the Welsh assembly.
Or maybe replace them with major government departments, so that it wasn't all carried on in London.

[ronmcd]

I don't like this referendum, and Cameron is an idiot, the way he has agreed to it.

Firstly, I just don't like nationalism. It's illogical, causes wars, and is on a par with religion as far as logic goes.

It depends what you mean. Nationalism as in religion or ethnicity, I agree. But that isn't the purpose here, it's simply about political control. Those who accuse the YES campaign of being "nationalists" often assume it's about being Scottish, but it isn't. It's the people who live in Scotland, Scots, English, EU citizens etc, making better (hopefully) decisions about this country than Westminister. Devolution goes so far, a federal system would go further, but only independence would give control over important areas such as taking part in wars or removing nuclear weapons.

Westminister (esp Tory) politicians talk of nationalists in Scotland in disparaging terms, but can't see that they are considerably more nationalistic about the British state and it's place in Europe than those they accuse. Why is British independence ok, but Scottish not?

[ronmcd]

The SNP are hoping to walk away with all he oil and none of the national debt. It's fairy tale politics. And Salmond is a cunt.

Well, everyone is a cunt, you and me included I'm sure. On the politics, no, the SNP are intending following international law. That means the resources of Scotland become Scotland's after independence, just as Scotland wouldnt be expecting any revenue from English Welsh or NI resources in the future. Approx 80 - 90% of the oil fields are in Scottish waters, but most of the gas is in English waters, and thats how it would be split.

National debt, racked up historically, would be split on a GDP or population basis. Again I think thats internationally accepted, the SNP absolutely accept it.

100% of the oil and gas is in UK waters.

Indeed, as the UK is the current state. If Scotland were to split the union, then 100% of the oil and gas in Scotland's waters would be Scottish, 100% of the oil and gas in the remaining UK would belong to UK.

Simples.



Similarly, 100% of Edinburgh is in UK currently. If Scotland were independent, 100% of Edinburgh would be in Scotland, and not UK.

Not quite. Depends on if there is a per-capita split or a geographical split. Also, over the years, the N. Sea oil and gas industry has had tax breaks from the UK Govt ie largely the English taxpayer, to encourage development. I don't think it is as clear cut as the SNP think.

Of course it is that clear cut. Scotland would be an independent country subject to the same international laws as any other, including resources and territorial borders. Scotland would not be looking for future revenues from within London, despite investing in it for hundreds of years, and UK would not have access to Scottish territorial resources and revenue in exactly the same way.

[Clinton Huxley]

This whole "governed by London" line is a barely concealed piece of bigotry, too. Governed by over-represented Scotland from London is more accurate.

One can only hope the people of Orkney and the Shetlands follow through on the the inevitable logic of this kind of thinking.

[Clinton Huxley]

The English taxpayer has paid a lot of money to help subsidise the North Sea oil industry. It's basically an investment. A return is expected. If English money paid for the development of the fields, we have a right to a return.

[Clinton Huxley]

I don't like this referendum, and Cameron is an idiot, the way he has agreed to it.

Firstly, I just don't like nationalism. It's illogical, causes wars, and is on a par with religion as far as logic goes.

It depends what you mean. Nationalism as in religion or ethnicity, I agree. But that isn't the purpose here, it's simply about political control. Those who accuse the YES campaign of being "nationalists" often assume it's about being Scottish, but it isn't. It's the people who live in Scotland, Scots, English, EU citizens etc, making better (hopefully) decisions about this country than Westminister. Devolution goes so far, a federal system would go further, but only independence would give control over important areas such as taking part in wars or removing nuclear weapons.

Westminister (esp Tory) politicians talk of nationalists in Scotland in disparaging terms, but can't see that they are considerably more nationalistic about the British state and it's place in Europe than those they accuse. Why is British independence ok, but Scottish not?

I doubt the Trident submarines are going to be moving from Scotland any time soon. Then, we don't know what the SNP military policy is going to be. Their pronouncement so far have been a joke.

[ronmcd]

Why ? I know I'm against Independence because I'm not convinced it makes any financial sense for Scotland but why are you so anti ?

Because logic say's it's the opposite way we should be going.
The countries of Europe have come closer together, with the EU, and with modern communication and travel it all makes sense. Seperation just causes friction.

Also, it's just expesive duplication of government. Look what the Scottish parliament has cost, not just the building, but the salaries.
If there is unfairness in the current system, it's that that should be changed, not the borders.

With Ireland, it was religion that drove it, emotionally. You had a protestant set of landowners, grinding down the catholics, and not giving a shit when they were starving.
You don't have that in Scotland. All you have is some stupid line, drawn by long-dead kings.

I would personally dissolve the scottish parliament, and make the building into a fantastic concert venue, if I was in power.
And the same for the Welsh assembly.
Or maybe replace them with major government departments, so that it wasn't all carried on in London.

So you would have more centralisation, not less? The simple fact is that people in SCotland at least are less and less willing to accept central control of their lives at Westminister, elected by an unfair FPTP system which does not actually represent their views. There is no going back from devolution, if there were such a suggestion or policy then independence would be the end result anyway I suspect. People believe Holyrood has been good, as it represents the political map of Scotland much better than Westminister ever could, and has appeared to bring policy changes people like.

Personally, I think a federal UK could work. People say it couldnt because England is so much larger than the other nations, but the centralised Westminister system already operates that way! It doesnt matter who Wales or Scotland or NI vote for, it's almost always the English votes which create the majority government. Thats not to blame England, that is just what happens under FPTP at Westminster. A federal system might be made to work much better. But no one appears to be proposing it.

[Feck]

Scotland as country would never vote the Cuntservatives in .That surely has to be the biggest point in favour !
Hux ,the oil revenue paid for Thatchers tax cuts ! while she killed every other industry north of Watford and turned Britain into a country totally dependant on the London financial 'industry' .