Scottish Independence yea or nay

Madam

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

As someone who was on the no side since the start I'm loving the desperation and anguish coming from the nationalist side. It really is pathetic.

At the end of the day we don't really give a flying feck what someone thinks who had no say in the matter as he/she doesn't live here:p

Gerry T

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I can't see Westminster authorizing another referendum in the span of 50 years tbh.

It shouldn't have anything to do with Westminster. If there were a majority in Scotland then they decide, nothing to do with the English

Iwasfrozen

Gerry T wrote: »

It shouldn't have anything to do with Westminster. If there were a majority in Scotland then they decide, nothing to do with the English

Westminster must authorize the referendum for it to be legal.

Gerry T

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Westminster must authorize the referendum for it to be legal.

Yes and if there is a large enough "cry" for a vote, the English can't say no - how could they ? They are doing nothing but giving back territories they invaded, as an outsider I was really surprised the Scottish didn't take the jump. But as my sister (living in Scotland 20 yr's) has explained she has 10 more yr's working and then pension, she believes independence will take decades to get the country running, like it did here in Ireland. She wasn't prepared to make that sacrifice believing that staying in the union and getting more powers was the best option. Lets see how many people that took that stance will change their opinion when the english don't deliver what they say.

Iwasfrozen

Gerry T wrote: »

Yes and if there is a large enough "cry" for a vote, the English can't say no - how could they ? They are doing nothing but giving back territories they invaded, as an outsider I was really surprised the Scottish didn't take the jump. But as my sister (living in Scotland 20 yr's) has explained she has 10 more yr's working and then pension, she believes independence will take decades to get the country running, like it did here in Ireland. She wasn't prepared to make that sacrifice believing that staying in the union and getting more powers was the best option. Lets see how many people that took that stance will change their opinion when the english don't deliver what they say.

The English invaded Scotland? Do you by chance actually know how the Union was formed? Hint. It wasn't by conquest.

The English will deliver on their promises. What makes you think they wouldn't?

A Dub in Glasgo

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

As someone who was on the no side since the start I'm loving the desperation and anguish coming from the nationalist side. It really is pathetic.

Surprised at that comment as it is inconsistent

Gerry T

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The English invaded Scotland? Do you by chance actually know how the Union was formed? Hint. It wasn't by conquest.

The English will deliver on their promises. What makes you think they wouldn't?

I didn't say England invaded Scotland, the history books are not conclusive on how the union formed. Some say it was English bribes to Scottish statesmen, a cowards way in the back door, others say it was a decision the Scots made for economic stability, but even at that there were many riots about when the union happened. The election proved that just short of half the people want separation. Of the other half I doubt every person is in love with England, like my sister, has no time for England but in a selfish way wants stability as she enters the latter half of her adult life and is not prepared to endure the tough road separation would bring.

It's my opinion that the english won't deliver and time will tell, there are enough events in Irish/English history to show how england can't be trusted. That's a different topic I know and you won't bait me into listing things here, just google it yourself and see. The point being I don't think the english will give powers to Scotland, some meaningless gesture maybe, but nothing substantive.

Iwasfrozen

Gerry T wrote: »

I didn't say England invaded Scotland, the history books are not conclusive on how the union formed. Some say it was English bribes to Scottish statesmen, a cowards way in the back door, others say it was a decision the Scots made for economic stability, but even at that there were many riots about when the union happened. The election proved that just short of half the people want separation. Of the other half I doubt every person is in love with England, like my sister, has no time for England but in a selfish way wants stability as she enters the latter half of her adult life and is not prepared to endure the tough road separation would bring.

It's my opinion that the english won't deliver and time will tell, there are enough events in Irish/English history to show how england can't be trusted. That's a different topic I know and you won't bait me into listing things here, just google it yourself and see. The point being I don't think the english will give powers to Scotland, some meaningless gesture maybe, but nothing substantive.

The Union was formed because Scotland bankrupted themselves founding a colony in Panama they didn't have the navy necessary to defend. The project failed and the Spanish captured the colony wiping out a large portion of the wealth of the Scottish nobles in the process. The nobles figured their best alternative was to share in the wealth of England's empire.

England isn't a living being it can't be trustworthy or untrustworthy, the English Parliament however is another matter and even if you don't trust Cameron trust his competence, he knows going back on his vow would strengthen the nationalists position and he has no intention of doing so.

Gerry T

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The Union was formed because Scotland bankrupted themselves founding a colony in Panama they didn't have the navy necessary to defend. The project failed and the Spanish captured the colony wiping out a large portion of the wealth of the Scottish nobles in the process. The nobles figured their best alternative was to share in the wealth of England's empire.

That's what I said, the English bought their way in and took over. They didn't loan Scotland money, to help them. That would be the honourable thing to do. They saw a nation in need and they stuck the boot in. The union wasn't a vote of the people, it was a select number of nobles that England paid off. That's what led to the riots in the streets of Scotland. It's the same story but different perspectives. Ok my views are biased because of my perspective of the English over history in Ireland, read this and it gets a flavour of what I'm referring to. http://www.members.tripod.com/mise_eire/irishhistory.html

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

England isn't a living being it can't be trustworthy or untrustworthy

A group of people are not a living being but there is group think. I do have English friends, my son loves soccer, but I'm reluctant to bring him to a premiership game because of English group think, I have brought him to league of Ireland games, never a problem bar some bad language

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

, the English Parliament however is another matter and even if you don't trust Cameron trust his competence, he knows going back on his vow would strengthen the nationalists position and he has no intention of doing so.

If it was that simple then you may be right, but I still wouldn't believe him. Two reasons
1) He's English, its not in writing - can't be trusted
2) There is sentiment in England that Scotland get's more than it's fair share of money and a representation in parliament. Now each promise will probably cost money and/or more decision making powers in a local parliament. The problem with this is English people will get a serious hump if Scotland were to get more local powers and the same financial stability, systems etc.... I think its a really tough position that Cameron find's himself in and one where its near impossible to please both sides of the fence. But I have no sympathy for the idiot. He has had ample time to sit with the yes side and broker a deal for devolution, why did he use scare tactics and a 90 minute set of ambiguous promises. If this was his well thought out plan i'm not impressed

Godge

Gerry T wrote: »

That's what I said, the English bought their way in and took over. They didn't loan Scotland money, to help them. That would be the honourable thing to do. They saw a nation in need and they stuck the boot in. The union wasn't a vote of the people, it was a select number of nobles that England paid off. That's what led to the riots in the streets of Scotland. It's the same story but different perspectives. Ok my views are biased because of my perspective of the English over history in Ireland, read this and it gets a flavour of what I'm referring to. http://www.members.tripod.com/mise_eire/irishhistory.html

A group of people are not a living being but there is group think. I do have English friends, my son loves soccer, but I'm reluctant to bring him to a premiership game because of English group think, I have brought him to league of Ireland games, never a problem bar some bad language



If it was that simple then you may be right, but I still wouldn't believe him. Two reasons
1) He's English, its not in writing - can't be trusted
2) There is sentiment in England that Scotland get's more than it's fair share of money and a representation in parliament. Now each promise will probably cost money and/or more decision making powers in a local parliament. The problem with this is English people will get a serious hump if Scotland were to get more local powers and the same financial stability, systems etc.... I think its a really tough position that Cameron find's himself in and one where its near impossible to please both sides of the fence. But I have no sympathy for the idiot. He has had ample time to sit with the yes side and broker a deal for devolution, why did he use scare tactics and a 90 minute set of ambiguous promises. If this was his well thought out plan i'm not impressed

Don't you see how it will play?

England will give Scotland more devolution but less subsidy. The Scottish government will have to raise funds somewhere or cut services. That will bring the reality of independence home to people on the ground. Less chance then ever of a "Yes" vote.


P.S. As for where you get your view of Irish history - it is biased - but there are few, if any unbiased factual accounts of the Irish relationship with Britain.

ardmacha

Godge wrote: »

England will give Scotland more devolution but less subsidy. The Scottish government will have to raise funds somewhere or cut services. That will bring the reality of independence home to people on the ground. Less chance then ever of a "Yes" vote.

Possibly. But the SNP will then point out that their economic development is being held back by policies that are not devolved (this may be more or less true).

The problem with the UK is that centralised policies which favour economic activity in the centre to the detriment of everywhere else more or less requires subsidies to outlying parts.

A Dub in Glasgo

Godge wrote: »

Don't you see how it will play?

England will give Scotland more devolution but less subsidy
.

Can you substantiate your claim that England subsidises Scotland?

Gerry T

Godge wrote: »

Don't you see how it will play?

England will give Scotland more devolution but less subsidy. The Scottish government will have to raise funds somewhere or cut services. That will bring the reality of independence home to people on the ground. Less chance then ever of a "Yes" vote.

But do they actually get subsidies, that is a question not a statement. Does their economy not balance at the moment. But you make a good point, with Westminster in power they will probably cut spending but then you might get more people swinging to a yes not less.

Godge wrote: »

P.S. As for where you get your view of Irish history - it is biased - but there are few, if any unbiased factual accounts of the Irish relationship with Britain.

Your right, two sides to every story, that's one way how boards is so popular. (bet someone will disagree with that !!)
But I don't see how you could paint the history books a different way to make the English occupation of Ireland in any way pretty. Yes they gave us the English Language, a new legal system. But we weren't a bunch of savages, we were a cultured nation long before the English came. But there was far more on the other side of the balance scales such as the ban on Language, land ownership and grabbing, Education, Voting, property rights.....have to stop this list keeps going.... but yes I'm sure the English see it differently.

If the Scots keep moving toward independence through devolution eventually one day they may find a balance or may get full Independence. But I think its fascinating to watch these changes and hopefully for the better of the Scottish people.

Godge

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Can you substantiate your claim that England subsidises Scotland?

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-16477990

I think one line of this was made for posters like you:

"For readers who'd rather not wade through the statistics: the answer is yes, Scotland does get a net subsidy."

A Dub in Glasgo

Godge wrote: »

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-16477990

I think one line of this was made for posters like you:

"For readers who'd rather not wade through the statistics: the answer is yes, Scotland does get a net subsidy."

That doesn't cut it, you claimed England subsidises Scotland and offered the above as substantiation. The important quote from your link is

'it's worth remembering that we're all being subsidised by the Treasury these days. It's just that when we're talking about the UK we call it a budget deficit'

So Scotland is running a budget deficit just like the UK is running a budget deficit just like Ireland is running a budget deficit just like most countries running a budget deficit.

Are you claiming that Scotland get the budget deficit for nothing and does not need to pay any of it back?

Godge

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

That doesn't cut it, you claimed England subsidises Scotland and offered the above as substantiation. The important quote from your link is

'it's worth remembering that we're all being subsidised by the Treasury these days. It's just that when we're talking about the UK we call it a budget deficit'

So Scotland is running a budget deficit just like the UK is running a budget deficit just like Ireland is running a budget deficit just like most countries running a budget deficit.

Are you claiming that Scotland get the budget deficit for nothing and does not need to pay any of it back?

Yes, we all have a budget deficit. But the analysis in the link shows that the budget deficit per person for Scotland is higher i.e. net subsidy.

A Dub in Glasgo

The 'net subsidy' as you put it or 'net contribution' is dependent on how you split up revenues from Scotland and the coastline & resources in the waters around Scotland and which years you look at as some of them fluctuate in value. Your link also says 'Put it another way: Scotland provided 9.4% of total UK revenues and got 'only' 9.2% of UK public spending in return.

hiFidelity

The Chief Counting Officers team confirmed that to be valid, a Scottish ballot would have the barcode on the back. If it does not have a barcode on the back, it is to be thrown out. There have been many independent confirmations from people saying their ballot had no barcode anywhere and were blank on the back. There is a Facebook page for this, but I can't post links.

TheCitizen

Godge wrote: »

As I said already I have no axe to grind on this one. I am not Scottish or English, neither do I live there. I just call it as I see it. Often that upsets people because they are emotionally attached to one side or the other in a debate.

An independent Scotland outside the EU and outside sterling would have a precarious future. At the very least, capital controls would have to be introduced similar to Iceland.

In a way, I wish it had been a "Yes". The capital flight in the following few weeks would have been something to behold and the panic as people realised what they had actually voted for would have made interesting viewing. Not pleasant viewing though.

As it is, the result allows the dreamers and the wishful thinkers on the "Yes" side to continue with the illusion that everything would have been great if independence had happened.

You say you are neutral on this yet you are rehashing verbatim the scaremongering lies of the No campaign. "There would've been a capital flight" "Scotland would not have been allowed into the EU, use Sterling" etc.etc.. There is no way of verifying that that would've happened, yet you just throw it out there. You are being completely disingenuous on your position in this debate.

Godge wrote: »

This is complete wishful thinking.

The referendum result is "No". The promises on further devolution will need to be followed up. Negotiation and legislation on these will take at least two years. Implementation another two years. Monitoring and review of whether they work should take two terms of a Scottish devolved government. It is only then, that a second referendum would be possible. Nobody is saying this on either side but it is inevitable.

The divorce referendum took ten years to be reversed in Ireland and when it did, all the is and ts were dotted and crossed to make sure it would pass.

It will take a few years for another Referendum to happen, I didn't say otherwise. It will happen though.

alastair

TheCitizen wrote: »

You say you are neutral on this yet you are rehashing verbatim the scaremongering lies of the No campaign. "There would've been a capital flight" "Scotland would not have been allowed into the EU, use Sterling" etc.etc.. There is no way of verifying that that would've happened, yet you just throw it out there. You are being completely disingenuous on your position in this debate.

The subjective nature of 'scaremongering' aside. There are a couple of genuine issues regarding EU membership and retaining Sterling.

It's hard to know what hoops an independent Scotland would have to jump through to retain EU membership, but there's no doubt that it would technically become a new member state, so, while it's likely that its membership would be fast-tracked (Even if Spain had concerns, it would likely be pressurised into acceptance by other EU states), it still leaves the currency issue in very uncertain territory.

There's nothing stopping Scotland pegging their 'Scottish Pound' to Sterling, as long as they stay outside the EU, but EU membership requires committing to entering the Eurozone. That's just the rules of the club, and it isn't going to change for Scotland. The UK and Denmark got their opt-outs before the rules came into play, but those days are now gone. It looks like its EU membership or Sterling parity, but not both.

I'm sure there would be some capital flight for sure, but who knows what new inward investment might happen concurrently?

Godge

alastair wrote: »

The subjective nature of 'scaremongering' aside. There are a couple of genuine issues regarding EU membership and retaining Sterling.

It's hard to know what hoops an independent Scotland would have to jump through to retain EU membership, but there's no doubt that it would technically become a new member state, so, while it's likely that its membership would be fast-tracked (Even if Spain had concerns, it would likely be pressurised into acceptance by other EU states), it still leaves the currency issue in very uncertain territory.

There's nothing stopping Scotland pegging their 'Scottish Pound' to Sterling, as long as they stay outside the EU, but EU membership requires committing to entering the Eurozone. That's just the rules of the club, and it isn't going to change for Scotland. The UK and Denmark got their opt-outs before the rules came into play, but those days are now gone. It looks like its EU membership or Sterling parity, but not both.

I'm sure there would be some capital flight for sure, but who knows what new inward investment might happen concurrently?

It isn't just Spain who would have had concerns about fast-tracked Scottish membership. The most serious objections would have come from Belgium, a country that is barely held together at the best of times. There is nobody in Brussels unaware of that implication.

Other countries with an issue would have included France, Germany, Romania, Greece, Italy, Netherlands and Hungary.

Godge

TheCitizen wrote: »

You say you are neutral on this yet you are rehashing verbatim the scaremongering lies of the No campaign. "There would've been a capital flight" "Scotland would not have been allowed into the EU, use Sterling" etc.etc.. There is no way of verifying that that would've happened, yet you just throw it out there. You are being completely disingenuous on your position in this debate.

The use of the words "scaremongering lies" is indicative of a closed mind to the issue.

On the EU question, the loudest noise came from the Spanish, but it was the quieter ones from other member states who were saying the same thing who were the real danger to any Scottish application.

As for sterling and the Euro, we are learning with the Euro how difficult it is to have a currency union without a political union. Not saying it couldn't be done at all but I am saying that a sterling currency union couldn't be done without significant long-term damage to the Scottish economy.

alastair

Godge wrote: »

As for sterling and the Euro, we are learning with the Euro how difficult it is to have a currency union without a political union. Not saying it couldn't be done at all but I am saying that a sterling currency union couldn't be done without significant long-term damage to the Scottish economy.

All but a couple of years of the history of this state have involved a currency union - and even the EMU years had the Punt floating within defined limits, so union-lite. An Independent Scotland's economy would likely be healthier than our own, so there's not too much to fear in that regard. Their economy would be fine.

TheCitizen

Godge wrote: »

The use of the words "scaremongering lies" is indicative of a closed mind to the issue.

On the EU question, the loudest noise came from the Spanish, but it was the quieter ones from other member states who were saying the same thing who were the real danger to any Scottish application.

As for sterling and the Euro, we are learning with the Euro how difficult it is to have a currency union without a political union. Not saying it couldn't be done at all but I am saying that a sterling currency union couldn't be done without significant long-term damage to the Scottish economy.

Again you don't know that. You are merely extrapolating and speculating and rehashing the No campaigns baseless slogans to suit your anti Independence, pro UK Union stance.

The Spanish would've been reassured post Independence, as for the "quieter" noise as you put it, so quiet no one could hear it. More make believe stories. Next time around less people will believe the fairy tales of impending doom.

Godge

TheCitizen wrote: »

Again you don't know that. You are merely extrapolating and speculating and rehashing the No campaigns baseless slogans to suit your anti Independence, pro UK Union stance.

The Spanish would've been reassured post Independence, as for the "quieter" noise as you put it, so quiet no one could hear it. More make believe stories. Next time around less people will believe the fairy tales of impending doom.

Here are the Czechs

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-21085778

The President of the European Commission

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-20664907



Not just the Spanish.

Grudaire

Godge wrote: »

Here are the Czechs

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-21085778

He mentions a worse deal/less clout in the EU, but explicitly says that they wouldn't block membership.

alastair

Grudaire wrote: »

He mentions a worse deal/less clout in the EU, but explicitly says that they wouldn't block membership.

And Barroso simply points out that Scotland would need to re-apply as a new state, and wouldn't carry any opt-outs or exceptions to membership that the UK had.

So neither suggest opposition to Scotland's membership.

Godge

Grudaire wrote: »

He mentions a worse deal/less clout in the EU, but explicitly says that they wouldn't block membership.

If you go back about two months in this debate, I said there were plenty of ways of keeping Scotland outside the EU without blocking them.

Setting conditions that worsened the terms of Scottish membership to an extent that made them politically unacceptable in Scotland e.g. requirement to join Schengen as well as the Euro is one way of ensuring Scotland stays outside and teaches a lesson to the Catalans, Basques, Walloons, Bretons, Welsh, Bavarians or anyone else.

A Dub in Glasgo

This is all speculation as the EU offered to give the UK Government the legal opinion if the UK Government asked. The Scottish Government asked the UK Government to ask the EU and the UK Government refused. I suppose it was in the best interests of the UK Government to continue with the uncertainty and speculation

A Dub in Glasgo

Not even a week after the referendum and

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-29342142

'New gas and water technologies could add decades to the lifespan of oil reserves in the North Sea, according to Edinburgh researchers.

A Heriot-Watt University team said they had made a breakthrough in developing clean and cheap methods to maximise extraction from existing fields.'