Jump to content

Scots Independence Referendum


Guest RTB

Scots Independence  

268 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

We've got enough oil and gas to bankroll us for a while yet. Our economy is reasonably diverse and I don't see independence causing too many shockwaves. On the contrary, I believe things would likely get better.

Small countries find it easier to adapt to changing market conditions and the Scottish tiger would roar alongside other successful small European nations. The British economy - while generally robust - is a bit of a behemoth in comparison and takes a while to kick-start following a downturn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've got enough oil and gas to bankroll us for a while yet. Our economy is reasonably diverse and I don't see independence causing too many shockwaves. On the contrary, I believe things would likely get better.

Small countries find it easier to adapt to changing market conditions and the Scottish tiger would roar alongside other successful small European nations. The British economy - while generally robust - is a bit of a behemoth in comparison and takes a while to kick-start following a downturn.

:blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, we know that. I am just unsure if most of the unionists have figured this out yet.

What a bizarre answer.

So given you "appear" to understand this (jury is still out to be honest) the answer to Mel Gibson there's fairly ludicrous question should be obvious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a bizarre answer.

The pro independence folk know that there was a time when we didn't have oil revenue, and there will be a time again when we will not have oil revenue. We accept this and believe we should prepare for it.

Most of the unionists don't seem to accept that there was ever a time without oil, hence their oil obsession. They evidently don't believe we should prepare for a time without oil revenue.

Of these two views, I know which of them is inherently more sensible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The pro independence folk know that there was a time when we didn't have oil revenue, and there will be a time again when we will not have oil revenue. We accept this and believe we should prepare for it.

Most of the unionists don't seem to accept that there was ever a time without oil, hence their oil obsession. They evidently don't believe we should prepare for a time without oil revenue.

Of these two views, I know which of them is inherently more sensible.

I see.

Not withstanding your use of the word 'most' in the next paragraph* you seem to believe that this is an argument which is solely used by the pro-indpendence movement.

In fact, I'm of the opinion that the economy needs rapid transformation and we would be better served carrying out this transformation whilst a member of the union. However, as you seem to prefer, feel free to simply label me a parasite who enjoys sucking of the British English teat.

*I ignore your use of the word most because I get the impression it's a menaingless sop designed to do no more than cover your own arse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You might want to do a tiny amount of reading on what happened to Tibet before you start pontificating about its borders.

Also I said, clearly, "for my money", and didn't make a final definitive statement.

Course you didn't. After all, that would have been a daft generalisation, and you would never make one of those. And, re Tibet, don't change the subject. It was merely an example of YOUR empirical statement. It's history and oppression are irrelevant in the context of ""numbers of borders making people safer".

If you're suggesting that these were anything other than isolated incidents then you are 1) a moron, 2) a bigot, 3) both.

I said they happened. Any reason for the insults were in your own self important mind. Are you Plastic in disguise? You are certainly starting to write like him. You've got it into your head that I have the Scottish cringe, and am an Anglophile. The latter is true. The former is a load of self regarding nationalist shite. You used to come across as an intelligent, well educated individual. Sadly only the latter is true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fact, I'm of the opinion that the economy needs rapid transformation and we would be better served carrying out this transformation whilst a member of the union. However, as you seem to prefer, feel free to simply label me a parasite who enjoys sucking of the British English teat.

*I ignore your use of the word most because I get the impression it's a menaingless sop designed to do no more than cover your own arse.

You're one of the few then! At least you are willing to see that everything is NOT fine. I am glad. If there were more like you then we might have a viable alternative to alternative. You must get embarrassed when your fellow unionists have to resort to "Alex Salmond is fat and has an old wife!".

Sadly, people like you appear to be in the minority, and so we will be stuck suckling off the English teat. And I use English rather than British here for good reasons. When the oil runs out, as it will, some of the unionists on this thread have had the argument of:

"well, we can't always contribute to the Union, sometimes we subsidise the rest of the union, sometimes they subsidise us. Thats the point of the union."

Surely you can agree with me that this IS an example of suckling at the English teat. Surely that sort of talk embarrasses you, just like the Anti English 1966 obsessed lunatic fringe embarrasses us pro-independence folk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're one of the few then! At least you are willing to see that everything is NOT fine. I am glad. If there were more like you then we might have a viable alternative to alternative. You must get embarrassed when your fellow unionists have to resort to "Alex Salmond is fat and has an old wife!".

Sadly, people like you appear to be in the minority, and so we will be stuck suckling off the English teat. And I use English rather than British here for good reasons. When the oil runs out, as it will, some of the unionists on this thread have had the argument of:

"well, we can't always contribute to the Union, sometimes we subsidise the rest of the union, sometimes they subsidise us. Thats the point of the union."

Surely you can agree with me that this IS an example of suckling at the English teat. Surely that sort of talk embarrasses you, just like the Anti English 1966 obsessed lunatic fringe embarrasses us pro-independence folk.

1. The actions of my fellow unionists do occassionaly embarass me. Being stuck in a group that includes the BNP and UKIP is more concerning than the occasssional insult being hurled at Salmond TBH.

2. Regarding the 'sucking from the English Teat'. If we ignore my dislike of your overly-emotive terminology then yes I agree to an extent. Where we differ is in that you believe it to be a negative and that your dislike of being part of Britain seems to be clouding the fact that that is what happens at all levels.

I don't believe it to be a negative because that's part of life. The richer section of society will always (hopefuly) be required to subsidise the poorer section. It happens in Britain, it will happen in Scotland, it happens in local council areas where the wealthy pay more council tax and it happens in the home where the higjher earner is more reposnsible for the bills.

The problem you seem to have with it is that you don't want to be beholden to a group you feel no affinity to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Course you didn't. After all, that would have been a daft generalisation, and you would never make one of those. And, re Tibet, don't change the subject. It was merely an example of YOUR empirical statement. It's history and oppression are irrelevant in the context of ""numbers of borders making people safer".

My empirical statement that was clearly qualified by "for my money", something that you've now twice ignored?

No, Tibet is not an example of my empirical statement. In fact it is the opposite, hence my suggestion that you open a book or even Wikipedia for 30 minutes or so.

I said they happened. Any reason for the insults were in your own self important mind. Are you Plastic in disguise? You are certainly starting to write like him. You've got it into your head that I have the Scottish cringe, and am an Anglophile. The latter is true. The former is a load of self regarding nationalist shite. You used to come across as an intelligent, well educated individual. Sadly only the latter is true.

You tried to compare a handful of brainless attacks to a kristallnacht. I stand by my moron, bigot or both demarcation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. The actions of my fellow unionists do occassionaly embarass me. Being stuck in a group that includes the BNP and UKIP is more concerning than the occasssional insult being hurled at Salmond TBH.

2. Regarding the 'sucking from the English Teat'. If we ignore my dislike of your overly-emotive terminology then yes I agree to an extent. Where we differ is in that you believe it to be a negative and that your dislike of being part of Britain seems to be clouding the fact that that is what happens at all levels.

I don't believe it to be a negative because that's part of life. The richer section of society will always (hopefuly) be required to subsidise the poorer section. It happens in Britain, it will happen in Scotland, it happens in local council areas where the wealthy pay more council tax and it happens in the home where the higjher earner is more reposnsible for the bills.

The problem you seem to have with it is that you don't want to be beholden to a group you feel no affinity to.

I think the point is that there is really very little reason for one part of the whole to be regarded as the 'poorer', and the longer this goes on and the more accepted it becomes the less chance there is of the 'poorer' part being able to rescue its status. There becomes very little incentive for improvement on a personal OR a national level if having the safety net below you is not only accepted but even encouraged.

Scotland both in terms of many of its citizens and as a whole has a dependence, statist culture, and I think that it would be better for *everyone* - except maybe some of the public sector apparatchiks :D - if this was to stop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2. Regarding the 'sucking from the English Teat'. If we ignore my dislike of your overly-emotive terminology then yes I agree to an extent. Where we differ is in that you believe it to be a negative and that your dislike of being part of Britain seems to be clouding the fact that that is what happens at all levels.

I don't believe it to be a negative because that's part of life. The richer section of society will always (hopefuly) be required to subsidise the poorer section. It happens in Britain, it will happen in Scotland, it happens in local council areas where the wealthy pay more council tax and it happens in the home where the higjher earner is more reposnsible for the bills.

The problem you seem to have with it is that you don't want to be beholden to a group you feel no affinity to.

I quite like your posts. I've noticed them before and you do usually come across as sensible. One of the few unionists who talks sense IMO.

To be honest, I don't like to be beholden to anyone, and while I accept that people will always have to subsidise each other to an extent, I believe that we should be doing our best to stop this being the case! I take issue with the idea that we should happily accept that we aren't as well off as the others and be happy to take benevolent hand outs without doing anything to improve our situation...and from reading your posts, I am sure you think the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The pro independence folk know that there was a time when we didn't have oil revenue, and there will be a time again when we will not have oil revenue. We accept this and believe we should prepare for it.

Err, right.

So as I said the answer to the idiotic question of what Britain will do when the North Sea Oil revenues diminish is really quite obvious.

Britain is an economic entity, with disparate revenue streams of differing type and amount from different regions.

And there is no "English teat". You keep ignoring this fundamental problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Err, right.

So as I said the answer to the idiotic question of what Britain will do when the North Sea Oil revenues diminish is really quite obvious.

Britain is an economic entity, with disparate revenue streams of differing type and amount from different regions.

So how will the region of North Britain develop economically? You keep ignoring that question. The answer of "disparate revenue streams of differing type and amount from different regions" solves nothing. Why should we accept that our region is going to contribute less?

How are we going to develop it? Are you capable of answering, or are you going to stick to anti independence jibes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So how will the region of North Britain develop economically? You keep ignoring that question.

The region of Northern Britain is very strong economically. Edinburgh is an excellent financial centre. I have a number of opportunities in the central belt of Scotland to continue my career, at a much higher salary rate than would be the case in most other parts of the United Kingdom.

The problems in North Britain relate to the complete inadequacy of the people in North Britain to better themselves and stop suckling on the state's teat.

The answer of "disparate revenue streams of differing type and amount from different regions" solves nothing. Why should we accept that our region is going to contribute less?

Erm, that is fact I am afraid! Not every region of every country can contribute in equal measure to the economy.

You rather alarmingly fail to realise this. And Scotland as a region contributes substantially more than other regions.

Parts of Scotland in an independent operation would subsidise other parts of Scotland. Do you understand this? I'm not sure you do...

It should be particularly evident to an Arbroathian who has moved to civilisation. What is the average salary in Arbroath, as compared to Stirling?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I quite like your posts. I've noticed them before and you do usually come across as sensible. One of the few unionists who talks sense IMO.

To be honest, I don't like to be beholden to anyone, and while I accept that people will always have to subsidise each other to an extent, I believe that we should be doing our best to stop this being the case! I take issue with the idea that we should happily accept that we aren't as well off as the others and be happy to take benevolent hand outs without doing anything to improve our situation...and from reading your posts, I am sure you think the same.

I take issue with that as well. The successive governments who have been allowing places in Glasgow, Bolton, Sunderland and the rest to continue just living off subsidies are reprehensible. More should be done to reinvigorate the local economies and I'm happy to agree the point.

The difference we're never going to agree upon is the level of local control that is required. I have no problem with Britain and it's economic policy being controlled from Westminster whilst you obviously do.

However, I suspect that you're not solely interested in the economic side of the argument as we've been focussed on here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I take issue with that as well. The successive governments who have been allowing places in Glasgow, Bolton, Sunderland and the rest to continue just living off subsidies are reprehensible. More should be done to reinvigorate the local economies and I'm happy to agree the point.

The difference we're never going to agree upon is the level of local control that is required. I have no problem with Britain and it's economic policy being controlled from Westminster whilst you obviously do.

However, I suspect that you're not solely interested in the economic side of the argument as we've been focussed on here.

Yip, I want independence for more than just economic issues. However, I don't think we will get the change that we both agree is needed within the Union. As I said earlier though, I wouldn't be so opposed to remaining in the Union if the unionists had more forward looking folk like yourself who were actually willing to engage in a bit of forward planning and positive action!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong. Once more you fail when it shows to showing basic literacy.

Super.

So Arbroath is going to contribute as much to the Scottish economy in an independent operation as Edinburgh does per capita?

Great!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Super.

So Arbroath is going to contribute as much to the Scottish economy in an independent operation as Edinburgh does per capita?

Great!!!

Again, you fail at basic literacy. Perhaps I should give you the help you so desperately need.

...and while I accept that people will always have to subsidise each other to an extent, I believe that we should be doing our best to stop this being the case....

Does that help? Perhaps you would prefer it if we said "oh, Arbroath will never contribute as much to the economy as Edinburgh, lets just ignore it and keep subsidising it".

Or, alternatively, and this is the view you seem to take issue with, we could say "Arbroath will never contribute as much to the economy as Edinburgh, but we shall develop it and try and make it a bit more economically viable. That way we won't have to subsidise it as much and we are better placed to meet future challenges".

I appreciate that such a statement might make you choke on your Empire biscuit, but it really isn't that controversial a view to hold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...