Scottish Independence

Iwasfrozen

on the river wrote: »

Gives opinion of scotish people

Seemingly it gives the opinion of a minority of the Scottish people.

43V4 numb3R5

Hmm... http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1669_Act_for_annexation_of_Orkney_and_Shetland_to_the_Crown

The Act made Orkney and Shetland exempt from any "dissolution of His Majesty’s lands".

Richard

43V4 numb3R5 wrote: »

Hmm... http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1669_Act_for_annexation_of_Orkney_and_Shetland_to_the_Crown

Scottish independence wouldn't stop the Queen being Queen. She's just be Queen of Scotland in addition to the UK.


Also, under the British (unwritten) constitution no parliament can bind it's successor. So Westminster could get rid of the Scottish parliament, NI assembly etc (just like it did with the GLC in the 80s) also doing so would be very unlikely. It could also revoke Irish independence although that would obviously have no effect (apart from antagonising Irish people and throwing up a legal mess).

In the event if Scottisg independence this law would be repealed (if it is even still in force now)

Richard

cmore123 wrote: »

Secondly, if other EU countries could potentially block this separation, even if the scots voted for it and the rest of the uk didn't object, does that mean that (as a separate issue) a future agreement - however far away it might be - to reunite Ireland could be blocked by Finland, Austria or Malta?

I think this is different because although it would be the creation of a "New Ireland", the United Ireland would be a successor state to the current republic, signed up to the same international agreements, treaties etc.

Having said that, there would certainly need to be EU approval for things like increasing the European Parliament constituencies and possibly other things, but it would be different to Scotland which would be a new member state. A United Ireland would involve part of one member state joining another.

MakeMyFriend

jmayo wrote: »

On the other hand the Scots have never been totally united in their determination to axe it's links with Westminister or the English crown.
Hell poor ould Willy Wallace had to deal with the backstabbing nobles who took the English shilling, Bonnie Prince Charlie or the other Jacobite risings really did not have the support of the lowlanders and just remember how the massacre of the Clan MacDonald at Glencoe was planned and carried out by Scots loyal to the English crown.
Jeeze the more I think about it the more I hope they vote yes.
I think they should show Braveheart the night before the vote.

Yes, a nationalistic and subtly homophobic film, made by an anti-semitic narcissist, would be a great representation of democracy.

Iwasfrozen

MakeMyFriend wrote: »

Yes, a nationalistic and subtly homophobic film, made by an anti-semitic narcissist, would be a great representation of democracy.

Subtly homophobic? How so?

R P McMurphy

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Subtly homophobic? How so?

Maybe because the prince's boyfriend was thrown out of the tower. Is all I can think of but that may be reaching so to speak

Iwasfrozen

R P McMurphy wrote: »

Maybe because the prince's boyfriend was thrown out of the tower. Is all I can think of but that may be reaching so to speak

The King who did that was known to the audience as a despicable character and throwing the guy from the tower was intended to be seen as a despicable act.

MakeMyFriend

I seem to remember the scene being played for laughs, maybe it was unintentional, but regardless, Edward II is portrayed as an effeminate snobby coward, but pictures of the real figure, somewhat, suggest otherwise. I'm not that serious about it anyway, I'm just using that as an excuse to find another way to insult the film.

Fratton Fred

MakeMyFriend wrote: »

I seem to remember the scene being played for laughs, maybe it was unintentional, but regardless, Edward II is portrayed as an effeminate snobby coward, but pictures of the real figure, somewhat, suggest otherwise. I'm not that serious about it anyway, I'm just using that as an excuse to find another way to insult the film.

You could mention that it portrays Wallace as a paedophile. The queen he supposedly slept with was seven years old at the time of his execution.

sfakiaman

Film producers, like politicians, rarely let the truth get in the way of a good story!

everdead.ie

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You could mention that it portrays Wallace as a paedophile. The queen he supposedly slept with was seven years old at the time of his execution.

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

That's mad your one in the film looks way older :P.

On a serious note wtf?

A Dub in Glasgo

Interesting angle from Robert Peston

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26455655

sfakiaman

An interesting article, particularly because of referencing the EU. I wonder what the position would be if Scotland votes yes and is admitted to the EU and rUK votes to leave the EU.

Since Standard Life is mentioned I've posted the following, also from BBC Scotland.

At Holyrood, nationalists talk of how Standard Life has "form" on the issue of the constitution.

Devolution comments

They recall the company's stated opposition to the proposal for devolution in 1979. They recall the letter from the company sent to staff in 1992 warning of uncertainty associated with any constitutional change.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-26366006

The article clearly states that uncertainty is Westminster's strongest weapon against Scottish independence which is why they are refusing to negotiate anything before the Yes vote. One thing we can be pretty sure of is that people at the top of major corporations have close ties to the Westminster elite and will express anti independence views. Post independence businesses will simply go back to concentrating on the bottom line.

Fratton Fred

It makes me chuckle when I see references to " the Westminster Elite"Are the the mystical lizard people we all here of?

Business hates uncertainty, that is the end of it. Standard life has no great allegiance to the illuminati or an elite class of people, it is simply pointing out that it is in an industry that has had a lot of turmoil over the last five years and the uncertainty of independence isn't a welcome prospect.

sfakiaman

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It makes me chuckle when I see references to " the Westminster Elite"Are the the mystical lizard people we all here of?

The constraints of the official secrets act does not allow me to either confirm or deny that.

Iwasfrozen

sfakiaman wrote: »

The constraints of the official secrets act does not allow me to either confirm or deny that.

Ah so there is an Official Secrets Act! That's all I needed.

househero

Norway, owns North Sea oil. Richest Large EU country. GDP PPP $65,640

Scotland, owns North Sea oil. England steals it. GDP PPP $37,369



England has been stealing oil from Scotland for over 30 years. Making Scottish people poor. They should be as rich as Ireland ($43,600) or Norway. Not as poor as England ($36,900 GDP). In fact, English people will be even poorer without stealing North Sea oil. Englands empire collapsed after WW2. Its projected growth is far more limited than ALL the countries that surround it, its an insignificant old dog.

Scotland was the only area of the UK outside London to record output growth between 2007 and 2010, despite England stealing their oil. Scottish people world be 20% better off without England. Maybe more.

Iwasfrozen

househero wrote: »

Norway, owns North Sea oil. Richest Large EU country. GDP PPP $65,640

Scotland, owns North Sea oil. England steals it. GDP PPP $37,369



England has been stealing oil from Scotland for over 30 years. Making Scottish people poor. They should be as rich as Ireland ($43,600) or Norway. Not as poor as England ($36,900 GDP). In fact, English people will be even poorer without stealing North Sea oil. Englands empire collapsed after WW2. Its projected growth is far more limited than ALL the countries that surround it, its an insignificant old dog.

Scotland was the only area of the UK outside London to record output growth between 2007 and 2010, despite England stealing their oil. Scottish people world be 20% better off without England. Maybe more.

Why is it Scottish oil and not British?

England has been stealing oil from Scotland for over 30 years. Making Scottish people poor. They should be as rich as Ireland ($43,600) or Norway. Not as poor as England ($36,900 GDP). In fact, English people will be even poorer without stealing North Sea oil. Englands empire collapsed after WW2. Its projected growth is far more limited than ALL the countries that surround it, its an insignificant old dog.

I can think of one country with a lower growth rate that exists quite close to England.

househero

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Why is it Scottish oil and not British?

er... Because of country border lines.

Scotland is NOT Britain. It is... Scotland.

Iwasfrozen

househero wrote: »

er... Because of country border lines.

The oil lies within British waters yes.

househero wrote: »

Scotland is NOT Britain. It is... Scotland.

Scotland is the northern 1/3 of Britain (roughly).

househero

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I can think of one country with a lower growth rate that exists quite close to England.

If that country you 'can' think about is Ireland, then no, no you cant.

Growth forcasts
IMF Ireland 2014 3.7%
IMF Ireland 2015 3.9%

IMF UK 2014 2.4%
IMF UK 2015 2.2%

And what I am referring to is in fact medium to long term growth, in real terms the UKs economy is projected to retract.

If you are confused by this, the highest value reached to date for the London stock exchange FTSE was 6950.6, on 30 December 1999. 14 years of negative growth to 2014. A strong indicator of the UK economy as a whole and in real terms when financial deflation is factored in, the FTSE is still significantly lower and the UK economy significantly insignificant.

househero

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The oil lies within British waters yes.


Scotland is the northern 1/3 of Britain (roughly).

A vote will sort this very question out. But no you are wrong. Scotland is its own country under the rule of an outside power and it is the Scottish people who have the rights of Scottish oil, not the English.

Iwasfrozen

househero wrote: »

If that country you 'can' think about is Ireland, then no, no you cant.

Growth forcasts
IMF Ireland 2014 3.7%
IMF Ireland 2015 3.9%

IMF UK 2014 2.4%
IMF UK 2015 2.2%

And what I am referring to is in fact medium to long term growth, in real terms the UKs economy is projected to retract.

If you are confused by this, the highest value reached to date for the London stock exchange FTSE was 6950.6, on 30 December 1999. 14 years of negative growth to 2014. A strong indicator of the UK economy as a whole and in real terms when financial deflation is factored in, the FTSE is still significantly lower and the UK economy significantly insignificant.

I don't know where you got your numbers from but here's where I got mine.

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&plugin=1&language=en&pcode=tec00115

*Also I would like to point out you're now referencing UK growth rates when your original statement reference English growth rates.

househero wrote: »

A vote will sort this very question out. But no you are wrong. Scotland is its own country under the rule of an outside power and it is the Scottish people who have the rights of Scottish oil, not the English.

Polls would indicate the majority of Scots disagree you your assessment.

househero

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I don't know where you got your numbers from but here's where I got mine.

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&plugin=1&language=en&pcode=tec00115

*Also I would like to point out you're now referencing UK growth rates when your original statement reference English growth rates.


Polls would indicate the majority of Scots disagree you your assessment.

Why are people that split quotes so retarded.

My forecasts are from the IMF, just as it says in the post. If you dont know what the IMF is, look them up. As the Uk is still together, the independent Scottish growth forcast from an independent body such as the IMF does not exist. Devolution would have to happen to give a forecast for an independent country. Your stats show no forecasts, they are a record of the past. British people love looking backwards, when times were better.

POLLS? You mean polls commissioned by English propaganda newspapers?

Next you will be quoting a tabloid. It means nothing. Only the vote will decide.

ardmacha

I can think of one country with a lower growth rate that exists quite close to England.

France? Wales? Northern Ireland?

Growth forcasts
IMF Ireland 2014 3.7%
IMF Ireland 2015 3.9%

IMF UK 2014 2.4%
IMF UK 2015 2.2%

I don't think these estimates are current.
But the point is still valid, Ireland has grown faster than the UK in the 1960s, in the 1970s, in the 1980s, in the 1990s, in 2000s and will in the 2010s as well.

Iwasfrozen

househero wrote: »

Why are people that split quotes so retarded.

"Why are people *who split quotes so retarded?"

My forecasts are from the IMF, just as it says in the post. If you dont know what the IMF is, look them up. As the Uk is still together, the independent Scottish growth forcast from an independent body such as the IMF does not exist. Devolution would have to happen to give a forecast for an independent country. Your stats show no forecasts, they are a record of the past. British people love looking backwards, when times were better.

I'm aware of the IMF thank you and while leaving aside the unnecessarily aggressive undertones of your post your objections to the use of historical data is unwarranted. If you want to make any sort of accurate predictions about the future it's important to take note of historical trends.

If Eurostat is not good enough for you perhaps this report from EY is which shows no significant historical differences and actually quite a lot of correlation between the growth of the Republic of Ireland and Great Britain as one would expect given the reliance of Ireland on the British economy.

http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/Economic_Eye_summer_2013/$FILE/Economic%20Eye%20-%20Summer%20forecast%202013.pdf

POLLS? You mean polls commissioned by English propaganda newspapers?

Next you will be quoting a tabloid. It means nothing. Only the vote will decide.

If you have evidence the polls were biased or unrepresentative please present it.

Iwasfrozen

ardmacha wrote: »

France? Wales? Northern Ireland?

I would assume the two latter countries would be very heavily correlated with English growth rates but I have nothing to back that up.

househero

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I would assume the two latter countries would be very heavily correlated with English growth rates but I have nothing to back that up.

Yep I would agree.

It would be nice to see data on them separately. Maybe if Scotland leaves, more data would be published on NI. I wouldn't be surprised to see a controlled handover with lower tax's implemented in NI in the run up. Surprisingly this is MORE likely if England becomes independent of Europe. Another interesting vote.

ardmacha

Iwasfrozen wrote:

If Eurostat is not good enough for you perhaps this report from EY is which shows no significant historical differences and actually quite a lot of correlation between the growth of the Republic of Ireland and Great Britain as one would expect given the reliance of Ireland on the British economy.

http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAs...ast%202013.pdf

Firstly, this is quite a short term document. Scotland should not decide its future on the basis of 2015 growth rates, but should have a long term perspective.

Secondly, even the EY document you cite shows that the ROI will have a growth rate 1.1% higher than the UK after 2016, which is quite a significant difference, I'm sure Scotland would settle for that. It also shows that NI will have a growth rate 0.1% lower than the UK generally, which illustrates the limitations of the UK model where the poorer parts get poorer and have to be bailed out by handouts.