Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Scottish independence: Scotland would be 'separate state'

Options
124

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Procrastastudy wrote: »
    I missed this one. :) The standard of living in the worst part of the South East is no where near as bad as certain parts of Glasgow.
    You've never been to Tower Hamlets then?


  • Options
    #93
    Procrastastudy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,224 ✭✭✭Procrastastudy


    djpbarry wrote: »
    You've never been to Tower Hamlets then?

    No but I've spent quite a bit of time in Glasgow!


  • Options
    #94
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Procrastastudy wrote: »
    No but I've spent quite a bit of time in Glasgow!
    As have I. You’re kidding yourself if you think serious deprivation doesn’t exist in the South East.


  • Options
    #95
    Procrastastudy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,224 ✭✭✭Procrastastudy


    djpbarry wrote: »
    As have I. You’re kidding yourself if you think serious deprivation doesn’t exist in the South East.

    I know it does. I would suggest, anecdotally, it's not as bad as places in Scotland.

    Lets assume I'm wrong - how does money flowing out of England and into Scotland and NI help the deprivation in England? (Slightly different point I grant you as I would agree there are places in Northern England that are as deprived and areas in Scotland).

    I would at the very least support a regional assembly for the North of England, but if they wanted independence I'd support it too.


  • Options
    #96
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Procrastastudy wrote: »
    ...how does money flowing out of England and into Scotland and NI help the deprivation in England?
    I never suggested that it does?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Thomas_I
    Closed Accounts Posts: 596 ✭✭✭Thomas_I


    Procrastastudy wrote: »
    ... I would at the very least support a regional assembly for the North of England, but if they wanted independence I'd support it too.

    Not a bad idea, but above that England should have its own Parliament / Assembly too. I would support that rather than any separatism and in doing so backing up the UK.


  • Options
    #98
    Procrastastudy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,224 ✭✭✭Procrastastudy


    djpbarry wrote: »
    I never suggested that it does?

    No you made some odd off hand comment about 1 million and 24 million - I think in some way to push some agenda / thanks fetish which in all honesty didn't, as far as I could see, have much of a point.

    The point I made was England would be better off, financially at least, if Scotland was independent - allowing more money for everything from tax breaks for the rich to dealing with the social problems of places like Tower Hamlets.


  • Options
    #99
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Procrastastudy wrote: »
    The point I made was England would be better off, financially at least, if Scotland was independent...
    Actually the point you made was that you were strongly in favour of the South East becoming independent, claiming that a “very rich state of about 25 million people” would result.

    Why stop at the South East? Let’s just make London independent. Actually no, let’s just make The City of London an independent state – imagine how wealthy that would be.
    Procrastastudy wrote: »
    ...allowing more money for everything from tax breaks for the rich...
    Yeah, we definitely need more of those.
    Procrastastudy wrote: »
    ...to dealing with the social problems of places like Tower Hamlets
    But you have no interest in dealing with social problems? You want to cut off all the poor bits of the UK – or, more correctly, the bits you perceive as being poor - from South East England?


  • Options
    #100
    Procrastastudy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,224 ✭✭✭Procrastastudy


    djpbarry wrote: »
    But you have no interest in dealing with social problems? You want to cut off all the poor bits of the UK – or, more correctly, the bits you perceive as being poor - from South East England?

    Where did I say that I wasn't in favour of dealing with social problems?

    I didn't realise I was dealing with an imperialist - We should re-establish the empire so that we can deal with social problems worldwide!

    Is there, perhaps, a distinct possibility that people who want to be independent might just feel they have better solutions than the ones imposed by Westminster?

    At no point have I said I'd make anyone cut ties - I like having Scotland part of the UK - but if they want independence let them have it.


  • Options
    #101
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Procrastastudy wrote: »
    Where did I say that I wasn't in favour of dealing with social problems?
    You said you wanted the South East to become independent, to halt the drain of resources to less well-off regions in the UK. Right?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Procrastastudy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,224 ✭✭✭Procrastastudy


    djpbarry wrote: »
    You said you wanted the South East to become independent, to halt the drain of resources to less well-off regions in the UK. Right?

    Wrong. When you do a big quotey post now please be sure to keep the context of what was said. (Bear in mind I've never suggested that the SE should push for it's own independence.)


  • Options
    #103
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Procrastastudy wrote: »
    Bear in mind I've never suggested that the SE should push for it's own independence.
    Splitting hairs. You want to see the South East independent as this would make the South East wealthier, yes?


  • Options
    #104
    Procrastastudy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,224 ✭✭✭Procrastastudy


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Splitting hairs. You want to see the South East independent as this would make the South East wealthier, yes?

    Nope. Nice side effect though.


  • Options
    #105
    everdead.ie
    Registered Users Posts: 9,153 ✭✭✭everdead.ie


    I was under the impression that Scotland didn't actually take much if anything from England, as the oil royalties from Scotland go straight to London and never stop in Scotland. This is then essentially just rebated back to Scotland for their budget?


  • Options
    #106
    Procrastastudy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,224 ✭✭✭Procrastastudy


    everdead.ie wrote: »
    I was under the impression that Scotland didn't actually take much if anything from England, as the oil royalties from Scotland go straight to London and never stop in Scotland. This is then essentially just rebated back to Scotland for their budget?

    That is a fair argument - I'm not 100% sure that now it balances out, but to be fair over the period since it's been exploited England got the better end of the deal.


  • Options
    #107
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Procrastastudy wrote: »
    Nope. Nice side effect though.
    Might actually help to progress the discussion if you actually elaborate on what you did mean.
    everdead.ie wrote: »
    I was under the impression that Scotland didn't actually take much if anything from England, as the oil royalties from Scotland go straight to London and never stop in Scotland. This is then essentially just rebated back to Scotland for their budget?
    The argument doesn't make much sense as the oil in question, and the revenue it generates, is British, not English or Scottish.


  • Options
    #108
    Procrastastudy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,224 ✭✭✭Procrastastudy


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Might actually help to progress the discussion if you actually elaborate on what you did mean.

    Tis all there if you read over it.


  • Options
    #109
    everdead.ie
    Registered Users Posts: 9,153 ✭✭✭everdead.ie


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Might actually help to progress the discussion if you actually elaborate on what you did mean.
    The argument doesn't make much sense as the oil in question, and the revenue it generates, is British, not English or Scottish.
    Except 90% of the oil is what is in what you would call scottish territorial waters so if they leave it should be their oil surely?


  • Options
    #110
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    everdead.ie wrote: »
    Except 90% of the oil is what is in what you would call scottish territorial waters so if they leave it should be their oil surely?
    Did Scotland bear the entire cost of developing the oil fields?


  • Options
    #111
    everdead.ie
    Registered Users Posts: 9,153 ✭✭✭everdead.ie


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Did Scotland bear the entire cost of developing the oil fields?
    No the private companies did with tax breaks etc.

    The oil is still on their land though it's an undeniable fact.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    everdead.ie wrote: »
    No the private companies did with tax breaks etc.
    Nope. BP, the first company to strike oil in the North Sea, was not fully privatised until the late 80's.


  • Options
    #113
    everdead.ie
    Registered Users Posts: 9,153 ✭✭✭everdead.ie


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Nope. BP, the first company to strike oil in the North Sea, was not fully privatised until the late 80's.
    BP were very much looking to make a profit and have made substantial profits for decades from North Sea Oil.


  • Options
    #114
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    everdead.ie wrote: »
    BP were very much looking to make a profit...
    Obviously? Doesn't change the fact that over much of their history, they were majority-owned by the British government.


  • Options
    #115
    everdead.ie
    Registered Users Posts: 9,153 ✭✭✭everdead.ie


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Obviously? Doesn't change the fact that over much of their history, they were majority-owned by the British government.
    No that much is fine but they didn't invest because the British Government said quick poor money into that project it was a business decision a commercially sound business decision and in my opinion does not in any way affect the rights of the Scottish people to claim the oil as their own(That which is within their territorial waters)


  • Options
    #116
    everdead.ie
    Registered Users Posts: 9,153 ✭✭✭everdead.ie


    everdead.ie wrote: »
    No that much is fine but they didn't invest because the British Government said quick poor money into that project it was a business decision a commercially sound business decision and in my opinion does not in any way affect the rights of the Scottish people to claim the oil as their own(That which is within their territorial waters)
    I will just add onto this.

    If The British government still majority owned BP and BP were to find 65 billion barrels of oil off the west coast of Ireland would this oil be British?
    Of course not it would be Irish owned but the project would be developed by BP under license from the Irish Government.

    That is how I view the situation if you view it differently that is fine.


  • Options
    #117
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    everdead.ie wrote: »
    No that much is fine but they didn't invest because the British Government said quick poor money into that project it was a business decision a commercially sound business decision and in my opinion does not in any way affect the rights of the Scottish people to claim the oil as their own(That which is within their territorial waters)
    But it’s not about claiming the oil – it’s about claiming the revenue. Suppose you own some land. Suppose that, in partnership with someone else, you build something on that land. If your partnership breaks down, you can’t just stake sole claim to your joint investment just because it happens to be within your “territory” – your partner would be entitled to compensation.
    everdead.ie wrote: »
    If The British government still majority owned BP and BP were to find 65 billion barrels of oil off the west coast of Ireland would this oil be British?
    Of course not it would be Irish owned but the project would be developed by BP under license from the Irish Government.
    Again, the issue is the revenue – BP, and, by extension, British taxpayers, would be entitled to a portion of the revenue. In that sense, the oil would be part-“owned” by Britain.

    Let me turn your question around. Suppose the Irish state invested in the development of the Corrib Gas Field. Suppose, some time later, Mayo gained independence from the rest of the country. Could Mayo then decide that the gas field was theirs alone and they were going to keep all the revenue for themselves?


  • Options
    #118
    ardmacha
    Registered Users Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭ardmacha


    But it’s not about claiming the oil – it’s about claiming the revenue. Suppose you own some land. Suppose that, in partnership with someone else, you build something on that land. If your partnership breaks down, you can’t just stake sole claim to your joint investment just because it happens to be within your “territory” – your partner would be entitled to compensation

    How much State investment was there in oilfields? Little enough, I would say, the model has been private investment which is then taxed. These taxes will now fall to Scotland.


  • Options
    #119
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    ardmacha wrote: »
    How much State investment was there in oilfields?
    I don't know - all I know is BP was state-owned when development of the fields commenced.

    Anyway, this is all something of a moot point. Even the most optimistic of estimates puts British North Sea reserves at less than 25% of original capacity - production has been in decline for about 10 years now.


  • Options
    #120
    .jacksparrow.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,428 ✭✭✭.jacksparrow.


    Orange order in Scotland threatening to become an armed paramilitary group and turn to violence if referendum goes through.

    http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-19044262.html


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    .jacksparrow. wrote: »
    Orange order in Scotland threatening to become an armed paramilitary group and turn to violence if referendum goes through.

    http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-19044262.html

    That article is twelve years old, hardly relevant I'd say.


Advertisement