Scottish Independence

[Torg73]

Seen that pic long time ago, but still make me go "lol". Bombarding Linus house with logs would make you somekind of Scottish terrorists

We don't call them terrorist's we call them football supporters! 

[Nexus]

I feel as though im back at school.

So many words.

 

....

Answer above, and sleep does not probe your arguments

 

edit:- I meant prove. One track mind...

[Ookami]

Seriously dudes. If UE wouldnt let Scotland in, but they let Poland then there is some serious f*cked up shit going on. UE pumped millions of Euro to Poland. Government and their friendly corporations took it all and typical "pollack" seen shit of it. We still dont have highways, our railroad infrastructure looks like its 1980 and people earn more in UK in a week than we in Poland in a month. UK's 8h*5days (6 pounds per hour) = 12h*14 days (about 1-1.5 pound per hour).

[AnUnQuietMind]

My family is Scotts Irish, primarily from the northern edge of Scotland. My ancestors were chased to the new world by the crowns catholic police due to them being protestant so in my my family's mind England has always been a yoke around Scotlands neck even now that its not run as a monarchy. It would be interesting to see how the union would turn out if such a large portion of great Britain broke free. yet another colonization gone. 

[Nexus]

Seriously dudes. If UE wouldnt let Scotland in, but they let Poland then there is some serious f*cked up shit going on. UE pumped millions of Euro to Poland. Government and their friendly corporations took it all and typical "pollack" seen shit of it. We still dont have highways, our railroad infrastructure looks like its 1980 and people earn more in UK in a week than we in Poland in a month. UK's 8h*5days (6 pounds per hour) = 12h*14 days (about 1-1.5 pound per hour).

Wow, i didn't realise that the situation was that bad in Poland. I just assumed that everything would be fine due to it being an EU member state.

[cacra]

There are a lot of polls that suggest Scottish independence is more popular in the rest of the uk then in Scotland herself. I for one think independence is a great thing for the rest of the country, for years Scotland has been running a budget deficit with the rest of the country and since the North sea oil is about to vanish there is really no reason to keep Scotland. In one move the UK massively cuts the amount of people on welfare, loses some of the most unstable and overextended banks in the world and lowers the price on an artificially high pound. Without Scotland exports will flourish, the financial sector will flourish and the UK will flourish. 

[Nexus]

There are a lot of polls that suggest Scottish independence is more popular in the rest of the uk then in Scotland herself. I for one think independence is a great thing for the rest of the country, for years Scotland has been running a budget deficit with the rest of the country and since the North sea oil is about to vanish there is really no reason to keep Scotland. In one move the UK massively cuts the amount of people on welfare, loses some of the most unstable and overextended banks in the world and lowers the price on an artificially high pound. Without Scotland exports will flourish, the financial sector will flourish and the UK will flourish. 

Where is your evidence for this?

 

edit:- Just to clarify im not talking about this part:

"There are a lot of polls that suggest Scottish independence is more popular in the rest of the uk then in Scotland herself."

[cacra]

I always loathe to use the Daily Mail as a source, but it is very late and that is all I can find after a quick search. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2214477/Nine-Scottish-households-benefits-pay-tax.html

 

Of course that is only for one of my points, if I have time tomorrow I will be able to provide evidence regarding the rest of them.

[cacra]

Where is your evidence for this?

 

edit:- Just to clarify im not talking about this part:

"There are a lot of polls that suggest Scottish independence is more popular in the rest of the uk then in Scotland herself."

sure, http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/independence-support-higher-in-england.22110344

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/the-conversation-uk/scottish-independence-england_b_3905037.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/09/10/scotland-independence-english_n_3898845.html

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-support-at-25-per-cent-poll-1-3138404 (this one says it is similar)

[Nexus]

I always loathe to use the Daily Mail as a source, but it is very late and that is all I can find after a quick search. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2214477/Nine-Scottish-households-benefits-pay-tax.html

 

Of course that is only for one of my points, if I have time tomorrow I will be able to provide evidence regarding the rest of them.

I used to read the daily mail too. The quality of the paper has declined a lot in recent years.

 

If you look at the Government and Expenditure and Revenue Scotland figures published for the year 2011/12 that were published earlier this year (the most recent figures) you see that this is not true. 

Scotland has 8.4 percent of the total UK population and in total (including the revenue from our share of the Oil industry) we generate 9.9% of UK total expenditure. We currently get about 9.3% of the total revenue spend on us. We provide more than we receive.

 

Source: http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scotland-public-spending-deficit-better-than-uk-1-2821963

Source for GERS publication: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2013/03/1859 

[Nexus]

sure, http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/independence-support-higher-in-england.22110344

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/the-conversation-uk/scottish-independence-england_b_3905037.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/09/10/scotland-independence-english_n_3898845.html

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-support-at-25-per-cent-poll-1-3138404 (this one says it is similar)

Lol. Im kind of surprised, since its predominately the English parties that support keeping the union.

[Ookami]

Wow, i didn't realise that the situation was that bad in Poland. I just assumed that everything would be fine due to it being an EU member state.

Most of EU think that way. That what ive told is just an tip of the iceberg. You wonder why soo much people run (not emigrate just run) from here and come to Ireland or UK. Shit i read, lived and see cant be described as WTF...

[cacra]

Lol. Im kind of surprised, since its predominately the English parties that support keeping the union.

Yeah I know, and I really have a lot of respect for the Conservatives campaigning for something that hurts them politically. But the majority of the rest of the UK still want Scotland to be apart of their country, just like (at the moment) the majority of Scots want to be part of the country.

 

Regarding your figures, im not going to get into a fact finding debate with you, economics is not an exact science and we would be foolish to pretend it is. However I work in the financial sector and the opinion of people I highly respect tends to verge onto the 'Scotland is an economic liability.' I would also like to point out that (last time I checked) the SNP only claims a surplus of £0.5b a year while you are claiming a surplus of £7b a year, I'm not doubting your authenticity but it seems a little hard to believe.

 

Finally, we come to the topic of oil. Just who does it exactly belong to? Well, frankly, no one knows. The UNCLOS III is extremely vague and by international convention maritime boundaries extend along the line of the land border. Looking at the Scottish English land border this heads north east from Berwick pointing towards Bergen in Norway rather than east towards Denmark as envisaged by many. A large proportion of the North Sea oil fields would under this scenario therefore belong to England not Scotland. Of course, this is an extremely pessimistic scenario, I would hope in the event of independence both governments would be able to settle this outside of the UN. However there is precedent for such a ruling and if it were to occur I think we all can agree Scotland's deficit would be massive.

[Nexus]

Yeah I know, and I really have a lot of respect for the Conservatives campaigning for something that hurts them politically. But the majority of the rest of the UK still want Scotland to be apart of their country, just like (at the moment) the majority of Scots want to be part of the country.

 

Regarding your figures, im not going to get into a fact finding debate with you, economics is not an exact science and we would be foolish to pretend it is. However I work in the financial sector and the opinion of people I highly respect tends to verge onto the 'Scotland is an economic liability.' I would also like to point out that (last time I checked) the SNP only claims a surplus of £0.5b a year while you are claiming a surplus of £7b a year, I'm not doubting your authenticity but it seems a little hard to believe.

 

Finally, we come to the topic of oil. Just who does it exactly belong to? Well, frankly, no one knows. The UNCLOS III is extremely vague and by international convention maritime boundaries extend along the line of the land border. Looking at the Scottish English land border this heads north east from Berwick pointing towards Bergen in Norway rather than east towards Denmark as envisaged by many. A large proportion of the North Sea oil fields would under this scenario therefore belong to England not Scotland. Of course, this is an extremely pessimistic scenario, I would hope in the event of independence both governments would be able to settle this outside of the UN. However there is precedent for such a ruling and if it were to occur I think we all can agree Scotland's deficit would be massive.

Sorry about not responding sooner but ive been busy the past few days.

 

All figures i have quoted in this thread are either published by GERS or Cebr, and used in open debate by more than just the SNP. If the figures are inaccurate then both sides are at fault. The economic argument has been dead in the water (in Scotland at least) for the past few years. 

About the economy not being an exact science. This is true but it refers to prediction/forecasting. It is argued that we would be in a more stable economy if we remained in the union, but the fact remains that this is impossible to know, and looking at current numbers they clearly show that Scotland is in a better position than the UK as whole at this moment (this has been the case for a few years now). The general explanation for this is quite simply that our economy is smaller and relies heavily on oil and gas industry, which has not collapsed like the financial sector has. An independent Scotland would see us having much more control over our resources and the revenue they generate, which in turn could lead to economic growth. Add to this the strong international interest in the Hydrogen industry could lead to the growth of a new and significantly more stable industry. There are other industries that would grow under an independence Scotland such as fishing. These problems persist right now due to the lack of Scottish representation in Westminster, most of the changes Scotland needs would not be beneficial to the rest of the UK to the same degree so it is seen as a minor issue.

 

 

On who owns the oil:

 

There is more than one way to in which the oil reserved could be divided.

 

The first is by population share. This has already been dismissed as it would mean that England and the rest of the UK would have control over assets that are within Scottish territory (you would expect us to have to give up our coal reserves to this method)

 

The second is based on The Continental Shelf Act. This divides the sea according to areas of political influence. This method would put 90% of the reserves in Scottish territory

 

The third, and the most likely is based on the equidistance principle. This is the method used to currently by the UK and other nations to divide the north sea oil reserves. This is the method that is debatable in terms of where the border lies. The SNP say that this would put about 95% total reserves in Scotland controlled waters. As of yet there has been no response by Westminster, which would suggest that they cannot argue against it. I believe the reason for that is due to the already agreed upon border from previous acts in regard to fishing area and legal jurisdiction.

Regardless i expect the end result would be a balance between the worst case and best case for Scotland, such is the point in negotiating. It would help though if Westminster would state their stance on the matter. Its in poor taste to wait until after the referendum as then people would be making a decision based on a lack of information.

 

Sorry if the post is a little over the place and not coherent, im feeling a little under the weather at the moment.

 .

[Mooshi]

Sure, I support an independent Scotland. The crown needs to keep her hands off the haggis (and natural resources ).

 

In that same breath, may I also get support for an independent Texas? We also have oil and give more to the US government than it gives us...just need to boot out the King of The Hill crowd and the ghetto lot that makes downtown cities terrible and it'd be ok.

[Torg73]

Sure, I support an independent Scotland. The crown needs to keep her hands off the haggis (and natural resources ).

 

If Scotland got independice then the Tory's would be more rarer then Wild Haggis, that could be a good thing 

[ConfusedDolphin]

I think that It would be a good thing for the UK to loose Scotland 

[JellyJaffa]

Well as a scot i would say yes especially if they let looser gun laws then people like me (law abiding) will be able to get into the sport easier and own a variety of fire-arms so yeah

[cacra]

Sorry about not responding sooner but ive been busy the past few days.

 

All figures i have quoted in this thread are either published by GERS or Cebr, and used in open debate by more than just the SNP. If the figures are inaccurate then both sides are at fault. The economic argument has been dead in the water (in Scotland at least) for the past few years. 

About the economy not being an exact science. This is true but it refers to prediction/forecasting. It is argued that we would be in a more stable economy if we remained in the union, but the fact remains that this is impossible to know, and looking at current numbers they clearly show that Scotland is in a better position than the UK as whole at this moment (this has been the case for a few years now). The general explanation for this is quite simply that our economy is smaller and relies heavily on oil and gas industry, which has not collapsed like the financial sector has. An independent Scotland would see us having much more control over our resources and the revenue they generate, which in turn could lead to economic growth. Add to this the strong international interest in the Hydrogen industry could lead to the growth of a new and significantly more stable industry. There are other industries that would grow under an independence Scotland such as fishing. These problems persist right now due to the lack of Scottish representation in Westminster, most of the changes Scotland needs would not be beneficial to the rest of the UK to the same degree so it is seen as a minor issue.

 

 

On who owns the oil:

 

There is more than one way to in which the oil reserved could be divided.

 

The first is by population share. This has already been dismissed as it would mean that England and the rest of the UK would have control over assets that are within Scottish territory (you would expect us to have to give up our coal reserves to this method)

 

The second is based on The Continental Shelf Act. This divides the sea according to areas of political influence. This method would put 90% of the reserves in Scottish territory

 

The third, and the most likely is based on the equidistance principle. This is the method used to currently by the UK and other nations to divide the north sea oil reserves. This is the method that is debatable in terms of where the border lies. The SNP say that this would put about 95% total reserves in Scotland controlled waters. As of yet there has been no response by Westminster, which would suggest that they cannot argue against it. I believe the reason for that is due to the already agreed upon border from previous acts in regard to fishing area and legal jurisdiction.

Regardless i expect the end result would be a balance between the worst case and best case for Scotland, such is the point in negotiating. It would help though if Westminster would state their stance on the matter. Its in poor taste to wait until after the referendum as then people would be making a decision based on a lack of information.

 

Sorry if the post is a little over the place and not coherent, im feeling a little under the weather at the moment.

 .

I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree regarding the economy. The bank I work for has access to most of the raw data on the Scottish economy but that doesnt mean they are wrong for reaching a different outcome GERS. Regardless, the general consensus in the financial sector is Scotland will be in for an extremely bad time should they achieve independence

 

The oil situation is something I really care about, not because of any financial necessity to the UK but because I believe the SNP is plain out lying to the Scottish people. There is a well respected international lawyer (Professor David Scheffer) who says "I don't think anyone should say that the law of the sea is static on this issue of where do you draw the line in the North Sea that would determine who has jurisdiction over which part of the reserves.There is a popular presumption that the median line should be drawn and that would be favourable to London. There is a popular notion in academic thinking that automatically it is the median line. However, international law has always invited negotiation on how to draw that line." International law is a fickle thing and the SNP assuming that the UK will lie down and accept what they demand is outrageous. The UK can and should take an independent Scotland to court and I believe the outcome would be favorable to the UK.

 

There is another thing I would like to touch on, the Sterling zone that the SNP proposes. This is of course due to the volatility of the Eurozone. I was wondering what the Scottish consensus was on the issue? Having banks as large as the RBS, a relatively small economy and very little say on monetary policy strikes me as a recipe for a default. What do you think?

[cacra]

Scottish Independence isn't as glorious as Scots make it sound. Being from England, all the countries in the United Kingdom should work together for a closer relationship and a closer union to drive all of the countries forward.

I think the exact opposite, I agree with a continuation of the UK but a continuation based on equality. Scotland being able to directly influence things like tuition fees in the UK (via Westminster) while England has no direct control or influence over Scottish policies is extremely unfair.

[cacra]

Lowering tuition fees would be a beneficial change to all citizens of the United Kingdom but if they can influence us into changing then we should be able to do it back.

The Scottish MPs voted for the changes and their votes were enough to carry the motion iirc. English MPs have no vote in the Scottish, Welsh or NI parliament. I'm not nationalist but I think it is extremely unfair. 

[Slinkey]

I say NAY!

[Torg73]

It was the English Government that forced the way this is going down as they would only let us have one question and that's just bad, we should of had two question's, and it might back fire on the Westminster, the Tories have never been a fan of other countries in the UK to have power.

 

Both Scotland and Wales have what power due to the Labour Government.  It would be mad for Scotland to go it's own way as this is not the right time, Scotland should of got it's independence back in the 50's or 60's.

 

 

We will have to wait till 18th September 2014, that's a Thursday.  Next year will be the 700th anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn on 1314, which saw the English army defeated by the forces of Robert the Bruce "King of Scots", during the wars of independence.

[lapris54]

You need Mel Gibson to lead you again

 

 

I only wonder if you would cut from the UK would you be still in EU (or UE; depends how you say it).

I know it's been a while since you said this but i hope you know how inaccurate Braveheart was as a movie?

[FireFox]

I support it and well lets face it, they can't do any worse than staying with the piece of shit country that I'm currently stuck in