Scots Independence Referendum

[Guest RTB]

Sorry, what relevence do Thatcher, Blair and Brown have to this?

Ah here it is! The us and them dogma. It finally comes out. Well I've got news for you RTB. A politician doesn't suddenly *care* more because he's sitting in Holyrood instead of Westminster.

I find it offensive that any legitimate reasoning that suggests Scotland might, shock horror, not be the land of milk and honey with Independence is automatically treated as being as a result of a "self-hate attitude". I'm proud to be Scottish. I'm proud to be British. But I'm also a realist. We're only human. We're no better than other nations just because of our origins. Independence would have to come with almost revolutionary reform to bring about any tangible benefit that couldn't be achieved within the present Union framework. That is not adopting self-hate; it's finding a way to resolve problems without the need to fracture and split from eachother.

I will reply to that tommorrow. Vodka kicking in

[Ad Lib]

so at least you admit we can cope on our own

its a start,sadly ive moved house recently and i cannae find all my own material,hence the copy and paste from dubious sources,i shall dig out some more material when i build a bookshelf for the spare bedroom and unpack all my books,which at the rate im going will be around 2010-2020

Oh there's no question we'd cope. But I don't want to just "cope". I want prosperity. And unless I can be convinced that we are more likely to be prosperous Independent than in Union, and that the implications if it were to fail won't be greater, I will not support Independence .

[Michael W]

so at least you admit we can cope on our own

I don't think the issue for many is that we won't cope, just more that they feel we are better off in the union.

Only really an idiot unionist would suggest we wouldn't cope. Even if we were worse off, we'd still cope. By the same token of appreciation, only an idiot nationalist would be of the opinion that we should separate the union sheerly on the basis of national pride.

[Scary Bear]

Siol Nan Gaidheal being your source, forgive me if I'm a tad cynical in saying that they don't provide a balanced account of the financial implications of independence.

But as for the points:

1st One: relative tax contributions. relative to other parts of the UK (London, Northern Ireland and some parts of North East England excepted) we also receive more public expenditure.

2nd point: why not then just get rid of the Barnett formula and find a "fairer" way of redistributing the tax revenue?

3rd point: It's no more Scotland's oil than it's the UK's oil.

4th point: It's no more Scotland's oil than it's the UK's oil.

5th point: But Switzerland and Norway are internationally irrelevent on a military scale. Why shouldn't Scotland be part of a pro-active role in places like the Balkans (and Afghanistan) along with other NATO troops when trouble flares up?

6th point: How much of this surplus depends on oil (the price of which is falling, and to which Scotland are no more entitled than the rest of the UK anyway)?

7th point: Scotland's economy has a large dependence on the financial sector. It would be less well equipped to deal with economic crises like the one we presently face on its own, with Banks going bust like they did in Iceland as opposed to staying afloat (just) with UK Treasury intervention.

8th point: remind me what just happened to their economy?

9th point: And therefore one of the most vulnerable to an economic crash.

10th point: I wouldn't argue that in the first place.

And anyway, quite a bit of this evidence only suggests that Scotland could cope on its own. It doesn't show that we would be better off on our own, and doesn't address the issue that greater devolution could achieve the same goals without having to separate.

f**k me! You are Tory Boy!

If you come out with this stuff at uni you'll never get your hole. unless you find a suitable nigella.

Are you the b*****d child of John Reid?

[Colkitto]

Greenlanders voted by 3-1 in a referendum for independence last week from Denmark.

A colony of Denmark for three hundred years, its population is tiny – a mere 57,000 (less than Guernsey), but if it gains full independence, it will be the 13th largest state in the world.

Strange how this story didn't appear on TV or even reported in the press......perhaps' they didn't want to give us upstarts in the north idea's.......

[Paco]

Greenlanders voted by 3-1 in a referendum for independence last week from Denmark.

A colony of Denmark for three hundred years, its population is tiny – a mere 57,000 (less than Guernsey), but if it gains full independence, it will be the 13th largest state in the world.

Strange how this story didn't appear on TV or even reported in the press......perhaps' they didn't want to give us upstarts in the north idea's.......

Yep, I hate how Gordon Brown quite obviously controls the media in this country. The way he makes them print stuff showing his inadequacies to cover it up is cunning.

[centralparker]

Greenlanders voted by 3-1 in a referendum for independence last week from Denmark.

They're oor seals ye ken.

[Ad Lib]

Greenlanders voted by 3-1 in a referendum for independence last week from Denmark.

A colony of Denmark for three hundred years, its population is tiny – a mere 57,000 (less than Guernsey), but if it gains full independence, it will be the 13th largest state in the world.

Strange how this story didn't appear on TV or even reported in the press......perhaps' they didn't want to give us upstarts in the north idea's.......

When Greenland becomes a world economic superpower call again.

The reason it didn't appear in the press is, quite simply, because hardly anyone outside of Greenland even cares.

[xbl]

They're oor seals ye ken.

But what will they do when the seals run out??

[Ad Lib]

They're oor seals ye ken.

Thank you. You've cheered me up after a rather depressingly bad choir concert.

[Ad Lib]

But what will they do when the seals run out??

Come grovelling back to Denmark.

Obviously

[capybara]

Ive got a hangover,just to let you know. No shouting please.

[Ad Lib]

Ive got a hangover,just to let you know. No shouting please.

OKAY MR CAPYBARA SIR! I'LL BE QUIET

[capybara]

OKAY MR CAPYBARA SIR! I'LL BE QUIET

Shhhhh.

[Gordon EF]

3rd point: It's no more Scotland's oil than it's the UK's oil.

4th point: It's no more Scotland's oil than it's the UK's oil.

But if the UK didn't exist anymore, then it would be Scotland's oil. Isn't that the point?

5th point: But Switzerland and Norway are internationally irrelevent on a military scale. Why shouldn't Scotland be part of a pro-active role in places like the Balkans (and Afghanistan) along with other NATO troops when trouble flares up?

I don't think being internationally irrelevant on a military scale is neccesarily a bad thing. An independent Scotland would obviously have a smaller army than the UK does but I don't see why that would stop us playing an active role within NATO/UN when neccesary.

8th point: remind me what just happened to their economy?

But that's not because they're far away from the centre of Europe, which was the point.

[Ad Lib]

But if the UK didn't exist anymore, then it would be Scotland's oil. Isn't that the point?

Why would the Oil belong to Scotland? Aren't the rest of the UK every bit as entitled to it?

I don't think being internationally irrelevant on a military scale is neccesarily a bad thing. An independent Scotland would obviously have a smaller army than the UK does but I don't see why that would stop us playing an active role within NATO/UN when neccesary.

Unless we are part of a reasonably large force, we will have token influence in these areas.

But that's not because they're far away from the centre of Europe, which was the point.

How does Iceland being geographically further from Europe excuse or explain the fact that their economy was vulnerable to a credit crisis such as the present one? It's an irrelevent point.

The Nats need to explain why whe should be Independent, not just explain away reasons why we can't or shouldn't.

[xbl]

Why would the Oil belong to Scotland? Aren't the rest of the UK every bit as entitled to it?

I understand that tourism to London brings in a fair wedge. In an independent Scotland, are we entitled to a percentage of it?

How does Iceland being geographically further from Europe excuse or explain the fact that their economy was vulnerable to a credit crisis such as the present one? It's an irrelevent point.

Oh, please! Its a good job the UK economy wasn't vulnerable eh, with banks going under and all that. We are lucky to be part of such a strong economy that is immune to the recession.

[Michael W]

Oh, please! Its a good job the UK economy wasn't vulnerable eh, with banks going under and all that. We are lucky to be part of such a strong economy that is immune to the recession.

No-one claimed it was.

[centralparker]

But if the UK didn't exist anymore, then it would be Scotland's oil. Isn't that the point?

Yes, I assume the oil fields would be part of Scotland's territorial waters.

Regarding military strength, is it really that important? We would be allied with the rest of Europe alongside other small nations.

[Pink Freud]

I understand that tourism to London brings in a fair wedge. In an independent Scotland, are we entitled to a percentage of it?

Oh, please! Its a good job the UK economy wasn't vulnerable eh, with banks going under and all that. We are lucky to be part of such a strong economy that is immune to the recession.

Honest question. Do you think that Scotland as a country would have been more or less affected by the recession than if she were part of the UK?

If you think less, please explain.

Re the oil - I'm pretty sure that the map means we wouldn't get all of it anyway. Anyone confirm that?