Scottish Independence

[The_Kincardine]

I'm sure I could fit "short-termism" and "Rangers fan" into a really poor quality joke.

For sure it;d be shite. I'd even bet it'd be ad hominem .Do give it a go.

The newly independent country will implement new (and perhaps more suitable) infrastructure, this will then allow Scotland to focus more attention on developing Scotland in the future. Is Holyrood better suited to developing Scotland in the long-term than Westminster? I believe it is, and as such the short-term costs are outweighed by the long term benefits.

Without doubt Holyrood has the potential to make efforts to develop Scotland.

Can it do so better than a much larger and less risky economy? Are the years and billions it'll take to establish iScotland worth it in opportunity costs?

I pretty-much doubt it.

[speckled tangerine]

Can it do so better than a much larger and less risky economy? Are the years and billions it'll take to establish iScotland worth it in opportunity costs?

I pretty-much doubt it.

Fucking right it would be worth it. Stop being an apologist for accepting second best.

[vikingTON]

Things it takes "billions" to establish;

iScotlland (with "billions" actually remaining to use compared to the next option) orrrr

a replacement for Trident

Hmm, it's a real toughie as to which one we could possibly choose.

[Gordon EF]

Just imagine what xbl's doing now!

[The_Kincardine]

The cost of replicating state infrastructure is an absolute fraction of the annual cost to pay for British sought-after nonsense like a replacement nuclear missile system.

Nice try though.

Well I'd welcome your input. Weigh how much, "The cost of replicating state infrastructure" is against, "The annual cost to pay for British sought-after nonsense like a replacement nuclear missile system.".

I have no doubt you'd not have made that claim without empirical evidence.

[BerwickMad]

Just imagine what xbl's doing now!

What happened to him and Swampy?

[vikingTON]

Niall Ferguson

[CGR]

For sure it;d be shite. I'd even bet it'd be ad hominem .Do give it a go.

fucking hell desperate to be offended, like a celtic fan.

[Gordon EF]

What happened to him and Swampy?

Pretty sure they both got banned but don't know what for. I'm not sure Swampy's was permanent but he probably rage quit. xbl got into pretty tedious fueds but there are times when the forums a poorer place for their absence.

[BerwickMad]

Pretty sure they both got banned but don't know what for. I'm not sure Swampy's was permanent but he probably rage quite. xbl got into pretty tedious fueds but there are times when the forums a poorer place for their absence.

Aye they were both entertaining on occasion, but constant in their posting and were dominating absolutely every non-football thread. Xbl will be forever famous in Berwick.

[DigOutYourSoul]

• Which companies? how much? how have you managed to value Scottish (as opposed to British) oil revenue? do you mean gross oil revenues or simply tax revenue?
• Are you really suggesting that we should change our plans on the basis of the fucking markets?

The drop in value of shares may be disappointing for those shareholders but when it's based on speculation rather than actual performance it means f**k all otherwise.

In no way was I suggesting anyone should 'change their plans' based on what I said, I was merely raising a point - I've got a link to the financial times but I can't post it on my phone for some reason - will try again in the morning. Some of the companies listed were RBS, Lloyds banking group and standard life - all headquartered in Edinburgh dropped more than 4% over the day. SSE, wood group and stagecoach all had drops of over 2%.

if you seriously believe the markets mean 'f**k all' to a country other than some shareholders being disappointed then you could be somewhat mislead somewhere along the line.

[vikingTON]

Well I'd welcome your input. Weigh how much, "The cost of replicating state infrastructure" is against, "The annual cost to pay for British sought-after nonsense like a replacement nuclear missile system.".

I have no doubt you'd not have made that claim without empirical evidence.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13442735

Trident: £15-20 billion by the Government's own conservative estimates. The annual cost of running Trident on top of this, is considered to be £2 billion, each and every year:

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-should-we-scrap-trident/13202

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28053028

£600 million to £1.5 billion.

So absolutely no doubt then, that the cost of establishing state institutions for Scotland is less than the opportunity reward for offloading Britain's laughable pretence as a nuclear superpower. Thanks for playing anyway.

[Gordon EF]

Aye they were both entertaining on occasion, but constant in their posting and were dominating absolutely every non-football thread. Xbl will be forever famous in Berwick.

Yep. Overall, this section is probably better of without them. Was it an xbl post stuck on the Berwick dressing room door? What did that even say?

[MuckleMoo]

Niall Ferguson

Was that the guy that was just on Newsnight? Fecking hell. Apparently we're going to end up as a third world backwater similar to Belarus

[yoda]

Can it do so better than a much larger and less risky economy? Are the years and billions it'll take to establish iScotland worth it in opportunity costs?

I pretty-much doubt it.

I'm not sure that makes a difference. Switzerland, Finland, and the Netherlands are but three European economies that are smaller than the UK's but are considered more competitive (by the WEF) than the UK economy. Interesting to note they've all got higher employment rates than the UK, GDP per capita, and GNI per capita.

Larger economy doesn't = less risky. Particularly when the IMF tells that large economy to stop acting in a "risky" manner.

[Blaven]

For sure it;d be shite. I'd even bet it'd be ad hominem .Do give it a go.

Without doubt Holyrood has the potential to make efforts to develop Scotland.

Can it do so better than a much larger and less risky economy? Are the years and billions it'll take to establish iScotland worth it in opportunity costs?

I pretty-much doubt it.

If we were starting out with nothing but the money in our pocket, then it would be scary and a bit of a risk.

But we are not. This country of OURS has everything in place, all we need to do is take it back into OUR own control.

The vision you are putting forward is one that runs parallel with the rUK. That's not the vision that we want to follow anymore. We want to go another path. Do it our way. Cut our own cloth.

[~~~]

Was that the guy that was just on Newsnight? Fecking hell. Apparently we're going to end up as a third world backwater similar to Belarus

This guy?

http://m.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/time-to-liquidate-scotland-and-sell-off-her-assets-says-expat-historian-1-686107

[BerwickMad]

Yep. Overall, this section is probably better of without them. Was it an xbl post stuck on the Berwick dressing room door? What did that even say?

All over the dressing room apparently. The pictures he posted of bottles smashing and different posts he made were handed around the players before the promotion game.

[vikingTON]

Was that the guy that was just on Newsnight? Fecking hell. Apparently we're going to end up as a third world backwater similar to Belarus

Yep, watching Devine tear into him was thoroughly pleasing.

[shiltrum]

I'm sure I could fit "short-termism" and "Rangers fan" into a really poor quality joke.

The newly independent country will implement new (and perhaps more suitable) infrastructure, this will then allow Scotland to focus more attention on developing Scotland in the future. Is Holyrood better suited to developing Scotland in the long-term than Westminster? I believe it is, and as such the short-term costs are outweighed by the long term benefits.

Hear Hear!!!!