Independence - how would you vote?

[Rudolf Skácel]

Rudi, it's always worth remembering that the Unionists just want what's best for all of us. It's not like us bitter separatists with our agendas. It's about keeping Great Britain great.

Can you imagine if someone came along and said that the UK's natural resources were drastically depleting, meaning these great isles would have a more insecure future, heavily reliant on oil imports?

Utter, utter morons.

You have reached your quota of positive votes for the day.

oilfutures.jpg

OBR, who are responsible for what? Predicting future revenues for the UK government so their predictions are drastically over-optimistic. They must be going to try and declare the Scottish waters sovereign rUK territory?

Dat graph.

[banterman86]

Plus, even if we stayed within the CDU, those oil prices are still going to fluctuate...

But BT's point is that oil makes up a much smaller part of the UK economy than it would an Indy Scotland's

[xbl]

But BT's point is that oil makes up a much smaller part of the UK economy than it would an Indy Scotland's

So? If we were doomed and couldn't survive as Scotland, why would we be able to survive as Scotland within the CDU? Why would the CDU fund us? We already get called subsidy junkies, politicians make efforts to cut our funding as it stands, imagine if it was actually true? They don't have even the slightest element of a valid point.

[Ad Lib]

But BT's point is that oil makes up a much smaller part of the UK economy than it would an Indy Scotland's

This is true, but a significant drop in oil prices still harms the UK's energy exports and makes any energy it imports relatively more expensive. Most of the alternative home-grown energy solutions are growth sectors primarily *in Scotland*, so an independent Scotland would have more of a buffer in that regard than the UK as a whole, which lags behind on energy alternatives, relatively speaking.

[xbl]

Incidentally, the current private eye is full of panic about what "we" (as in the CDU) will do regarding electricity. Apparently "we" don't have enough, the contingency plans are woeful, and we're in trouble.

Meanwhile, the British government continues to penalise energy production in Scotland, where we already export a massive surplus, and the Lib Dems (and to be fair, Ad Lib has criticised them for this) tell us that if we become independent, they won't buy our electricity.

Am I the only one that finds this to be utterly surreal?

[renton]

But BT's point is that oil makes up a much smaller part of the UK economy than it would an Indy Scotland's

Yeah, and the block grant we get back from westminster is funded partly by that oil, if the oil runs out our block grant gets cut. The UK as a whole might be able to absorb the effect of diminishing oil but Scotland will be hit the same regardless of whether we ar ei or out the Union.

[xbl]

Oh, and Mr Rational likes to appeal for calm and reason. Well I say hell to that. Once again we have yet more nailed on evidence that the Unionists WANT to see Scotland fail. That justifies my anti-Scottish jibs. Meanwhile in Westminster, the likes of Moore are in government and actively working against their own country (Michael Moore has described himself as Scottish), which justifies my Quisling jibe.

[banterman86]

So? If we were doomed and couldn't survive as Scotland, why would we be able to survive as Scotland within the CDU? Why would the CDU fund us? We already get called subsidy junkies, politicians make efforts to cut our funding as it stands, imagine if it was actually true? They don't have even the slightest element of a valid point.

The whole Unionist economic argument is based on the shared pooling and distrubution of resources. Obviously you don't buy into that but they're argument is that the scottish economy is safer in the UK because the larger economy can hadle the fluctations better.

[banterman86]

Yeah, and the block grant we get back from westminster is funded partly by that oil, if the oil runs out our block grant gets cut.

Is this true under the current settlement, or as part of a hypothetical Holyrood with more tax raising responsibilties?

[xbl]

The whole Unionist economic argument is based on the shared pooling and distrubution of resources. Obviously you don't buy into that but they're argument is that the scottish economy is safer in the UK because the larger economy can hadle the fluctations better.

OR alternatively, their talk of oil prices is a load of fearmongering bollocks. Other oil producing countries seem to just about get by...

[renton]

Is this true under the current settlement, or as part of a hypothetical Holyrood with more tax raising responsibilties?

more true of a hypothetical Holyrood with increased tax raising powers, the current block grant is not explicitely linked to oil, though I'm cynical enoughh to think that it would ge tsubstnatially cut tomorrow if there was no oil.

However, saying the UK is better at absorbing the cost simply translates as 'Westminster poltiican doesn't notice if the north east of scotland turns into a post industrial wasteland' You may as well say that we should form a more perfect Union with the United States - after all the world's largest economy would much better absorb such puny losses as North sea oil would be to them. it's simply a false argument. What matters is how the local economy adjusts, and what help the government can provide to ease that adjustment. A Scottish government for whom oil is 14% of the eocnomy with 128 odd members is likely to take more account of the 4-5 msps affected by an oil crisis than the 640 odd Westminster MPs for whom north sea oil is less of a concern is going to take acocunt fo the two guys representing the north east down there.

[DeeGas]

What is the Royal Bank of Scotland had collapsed in an inde Scotland.

No United Kingdom family and friends to help out then.

Iceland springs to mind.

Better Together.

[archie guevara]

Nail hit, full on the head

[renton]

What is the Royal Bank of Scotland had collapsed in an inde Scotland.

No United Kingdom family and friends to help out then.

Iceland springs to mind.

Better Together.

Iceland, who's economy bounced back strongly, Iceland where the parliament refused to simply had over money to foreign governments becuase the will of the people was against it, iceland, who indicted their prime minister over the issue.

Them, aye?

Think they did alright.

As for RBS, we wouldv'e paid the money to guarentee the savings of those using RBS operations in Scotland. Governments are not responsible for the operations of a private corporation - a tthe time they were not nationalised remember. Had it been any other industry, any other company, the government might well have stood by and let it sink. As it was, to protect savers money, the government bailed out the bank, or at least those part sof the bank operating in the UK. The US government guarenteed the savings of those who used the bank's US operations.

In other words, a hypothetical Scottish government would only have had to have contributed towards those elements of RBS that concerned Scottish savers. This assumes that said hypothetical government had embraced the same light touch regulatory regime, of course.

[Baxter Parp]

It was half-decent at one stage as well.

I disagree.

[Rudolf Skácel]

What is the Royal Bank of Scotland had collapsed in an inde Scotland.

No United Kingdom family and friends to help out then.

Iceland springs to mind.

Better Together.

[Rudolf Skácel]

But BT's point is that oil makes up a much smaller part of the UK economy than it would an Indy Scotland's

Oil and gas would only make up ~15% of an independent Scotland's economy. In Norway, oil and gas makes up ~30% of their economy. What a disaster for them.

Oh.

[Baxter Parp]

Iceland, who's economy bounced back strongly, Iceland where the parliament refused to simply had over money to foreign governments becuase the will of the people was against it, iceland, who indicted their prime minister over the issue.

Them, aye?

Think they did alright.

Ooooh yes, poor Iceland where the unemployment rate is 5.8% and not 7.8% and the fiscal deficit is 1.5% and not 7% How sad for them! Damn right they did alright, mate.

[Rudolf Skácel]

For once, Bitter Together might have actually produced a reasonable graphic:

What answers do they want, though? The SNP have already said what their preferences are for things like currency and the EU, yet the UK government point blank refuse to enter into discussion with them. They could quite easily clear things up by just saying 'no' to currency union, but they aren't. Arseholes.

Also, unionists throwing the terms 'nat' and 'nationalist' about at yes supporters has to be one of the most cringeworthy things going. The majority of unionists are fucking raving British nationalists and a majority of people south of the border apparently want out of the EU as well. Cretins.

[Rudolf Skácel]

Also, in light of Susan Boyle expressing her support for 'no', it's hardly surprising that a complete down syndrome would be against Scottish political independence tbh.