Search results for query: *

Mosin Nagant said:

The election system sucks in the UK. SNP gets %5 and has 56 seats while UKIP gets %13 and has 1 seat

Click to expand...

Oooofttt!!!  That was a sair yin, especially for me.

Never actually expected to win it outright, but hoped to get around 48% or more.  That would've sent a very clear message, and maybe delivered a long and lingering death blow to the Union.  Didn't happen though.

Salmond isn't taking it well, he's really let himself go in the last few hours:



I was thinking of setting up a small business selling decorative glass bottles, but there are already two million bottle merchants in Scotland. 

Seriously, though, I'm fcuking gutted.  That was our one real chance, and we blew it.

I look forward to paying the House of Lords expenses for Lord Alistair Darling, Lord Jim Murphy, and Lord Gordon Brown over the next twenty years.  Can't wait for the renewal of Trident too, and the coming £25 billion worth of public spending cuts.  It's gonnae be glorious.  Our brave boys will have their boots on the ground in Syria before you know it.  Hurrah for Britain! 

Daniel. said:

Its also practically guaranteed that if Scotland does go independent that the current water boundaries would be changed

Click to expand...

They already have been, a bit controversially, by Westminster, in order to benefit England.  Look up the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order 1999 to see what I mean. 

Daniel. said:

considering legally "Scottish waters" do not exist

Click to expand...

It's probably a bit late to be having this discussion, but the Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order, and the various UK Continental Shelf Acts, define Scottish waters pretty clearly.  They are the waters that fall under the jurisdiction of Scots Law.  The rest of the UK's waters fall under either English or Northern Irish law. 

With the UK having always had a couple of different legal systems operating within it (Scots law, English common law, etc.), the legal territories - including marine territories - are already defined by the extent of their jurisdiction.

The UK Government's own business secretary admitted long ago that there is such a thing as "Scottish waters."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/9959715/North-Sea-oil-is-in-Scottish-waters-admits-Vince-Cable.html 

The final boundary will likely be decided under international law, though, under UNCLOS III.

Daniel. said:

This is how the water boundaries should look.

Spoiler

Click to expand...

I'd be okay with that boundary. 

Sorry if I'm coming across as a bit of a **** here btw Daniel (and anybody else I might've pissed off over the years on this thread).  I don't usually argue like this, but it's an important issue.

Kobrag said:

Unpredictability also scare investors to the point of wearing gas-masks, digging bunkers or committing suicide.

Click to expand...

Foreign inward investment in Scotland is at a 16-year high right now.  Small business start-ups are at their highest level since records began.  Just sayin'.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-27747527

Kobrag said:

The Shetlands want to be independent of scotlandin if there is a yes vote...a large portion of 'scottish' oil is inside the seabed that international law would recognize as The Shetlands x3
This is beautiful, if there is a yes vote I can't wait until Salmond turns into an obvious hypocrite.

Click to expand...

The only poll ever conducted on this issue showed that 82% of Shetlanders want to remain as part of Scotland, whether we become independent or not.  It was in the Press and Journal about a year and a half ago.

The islanders probably know that if they remained with the UK, or became Crown protectorates, they would become "enclaves" in Scottish waters under international maritime law, and the bulk of the oil fields would lie outside the 12-mile limit of their new territorial waters.

Taiwanese news is the best news there is. 

kurczak said:

I'm hopin for a no, because 21st century Europe should be above 19th century romantic nationalism.

Click to expand...

A large part of the No vote is motivated by 19th century romantic British nationalism.  The Better Together campaign has reflected this.  Other parts are motivated by 21st century British nationalism, which is not a very pretty sight either. 

Look at the groups who are supporting the No side, and you will find a far more unpleasant strand of nationalism among them than has ever existed in the Yes camp.

The National Front, BNP, Orange Order, Britannica (a BNP spin-off), Britain First, etc.  These are all unionist groups.  Always have been.

Anyway, off to vote.

Jhessail said:

Private Eye does an expose:

Spoiler

Click to expand...

That's not too much of a surprise.  You should read the stuff he comes out with. 

Here's an example:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11073598/Alex-Salmond-Meet-the-bully-behind-the-mask.html

Sorry, I misspoke.  Public spending per head is £1,200 higher in Scotland than in the rest of the UK, as you pointed out earlier, but Scotland contributes £1,700 per head more to the Treasury than the rest of the UK.  So we lose out by roughly £500 per person from being part of the Union.

We would also have a lower deficit and higher GDP if we were independent, as mentioned earlier, and confirmed by Professor McCrone in his evidence to the Lords' Committee on the Economic Impact of Independence:

Wellenbrecher said:

The inner city of Glasgow doesn't look like what Frankie Boyle told me it would be. I feel betrayed, somehow.

Click to expand...

The city centre's not too bad, it's mainly the outlying schemes that are rough. 

Daniel. said:

The simple truth of the situation is that the UK has nothing to gain in allowing Scotland to use the currency and much to potentially lose.

Click to expand...

The UK has quite a lot to lose from denying a currency union too - at least 10% of Sterling's current GDP backing would go, as well as the backing of the massive natural resource asset in the North Sea which has kept the pound strong for (most of) the last thirty years, plus £100 billion per year in exports that would no longer be counted as part of the UK's balance of trade.  It is ultimately a decision for the Uk Government to make though.

Anybody worried about the Union flag should sleep easy.  It still has St. Patrick's saltire as part of it, though Ireland got independence in 1922.  The blue that's used in the Union flag isn't even the same colour that's on the saltire anyway.  Many Commonwealth countries have miniature Union flags in the corner of their own national flags, though they are not part of the Union.  The UK is still often called Great Britain, even though we lost Little Britain (Brittany, in France) a very long time ago. 

In short, nothing will change with the Union flag, because nobody in a position of power will care enough to change it.

Daniel. said:

EDIT: The UK government has promised even more money to Scotland if it stays, more? more you say?

Click to expand...

They haven't promised more money, only more powers.  It's only the same powers they were promising months ago anyway, and would still leave the national parliament of Scotland with fewer powers at it's disposal than a Canadian province, US state, or German Lander. 

It's unlikely we'll ever get as much back as we contribute anyway.  Annual public spendng per head in Scotland is £1,200.  The tax contribution per head is £1,700. 

There's no way we'll ever be given back anything close to what we put in under the Union - that's not how it's supposed to work.     

Daniel. said:

what a joke and they have now turned down the idea of an English Parliament, the Tories are so far removed from reality its actually hilarious, England is what put them in power but they are OK to shaft the English people with low government funding, how sad. I guess the Conservatives are gonna lose even more seats to UKIP next general election, utter tools.

Click to expand...

I was very impressed by how quickly the English regions, city councils, and Welsh Assembly started demanding more powers for themselves!  As soon as Westminster made the (false) promise to Scotland, everyone else was on their feet demanding better treatement too.  Makes me proud.  Just keep pushing them and you'll get what you want in the end.  We've forced open the gates for you - an English Parliament is actually on the agenda for the first time in 307 years - and now the castle is yours to storm. 

Mage246 said:

Subsidies are life support; they're not a way to keep a company competitive, but just to keep them alive. Zombie companies.

Click to expand...

Yes, but companies, like people, can recover.  They can be kept alive on life support for a few years, then recover and come back stronger and more profitable than ever.  That's what happened in France and Germany.  They subsidized their industrial base during the hard years of unprofitability, and as a result those industries are still alive, and in Germany's case thriving.  They utterly dominate the European market in terms of manufacturing and exported goods.

The UK's decision to turn off the life support machines meant that huge sections of industry died out altogether (no more British steel, etc.) leaving entire communities devastated, generational unemployment rampant, and saddling the country with a burgeoning benefits bill.  All this left Britain much less competitive than it's peers, rather than making us leaner, meaner, and more productive.

This kind of self-destructive short-termism is the curse of business all across the Anglosphere, but particularly in the UK. 

I know that the "managed decline" has happened UK-wide Leifr.  That's what I've been saying all through the thread - the UK state (in other words, the Union) is harmful to the interests of every country that falls under it's governance, and we would all be better off without it - Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland/Ireland.  Scottish independence will hopefully be the first step towards getting rid of it entirely.

I'm not claiming any special victim status.  The Union has screwed us all at one time or another. 

Thought this was funny.  After the poll showing 51% support for independence, the Labour Party sent 100 of it's MPs north to remind us that we are Better Together.  An appropriate welcoming ceremony was arranged:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bGuCGdLxW0

Daniel. said:

Well some things are near enough certain, such as the death of Scottish shipbuilding which is pretty important for the local economy around the Glasgow area, The worst city in the UK by measure of crime would likely get a severe boost in criminal activities if unemployment rises as a result of the shipbuilding industry disappearing.

Click to expand...

There were 30,000 men employed in the Glasgow shipyards back in 1980.  Today there are less than 6,000.  This chronic decline in the city's premier industry happened under the Union, on Westminster's watch, and probably did contribute to the high crime figures we see today.

Luckily, Ferguson's shipyard, which was shutting down, has now been bought up by an independence-supporting businessman (Jim McColl) and will continue to work as a commercial yard.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-29150147

It's a shame that the UK is unable to sustain it's shipbuilding sector like Denmark, Norway, Poland, etc. have, but Scotland may yet be able to salvage what remains.

Madhal said:

if Scotland become independent will it have any effect on Doctor Who Show   Both Steven Moffat and Peter Capaldi are Scottish.

Click to expand...

Perhaps unwisely, Alex Salmond (First Minister of Scotland) chose to answer this question during a Q+A session with members of the Scottish public on Facebook.

Madhal said:

On serious note if polls are this close on voting day i predict some votes will change to No.  its hard to choose a unknown economic future.

Click to expand...

A lot of people will waver, for sure.  But then again, the economic future as part of the Uk is known - more austerity, more job losses, more "managed decline."  That makes the choice a bit easier.

Daniel. said:

Yeah I heard of petitions and such to try to get Scotland to give the Western Isles, Shetlands and Orkney their own referendum, not likely they will get it though, the islands make up like none of the population and also control the North Sea, Almighty Lord Protector Salmond would not risk losing the oil I think.

I also heard that the islands have been increasingly downtrodden by Scotland since it received devolution.

Click to expand...

This is getting embarassing now.  The Western Isles have been an SNP stronghold for several decades - they will likely return a higher Yes vote (per capita) than any other part of the country.

The island councils as a whole have already been promised greater autonomy and increased powers by the Scottish Government, just like what the UK government is offering us now - the only difference being that Holyrood wasn't in an obvious state of abject panic when it made the offer, and has started to deliver on the promise already:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/greater-control-for-islands-if-scotland-votes-yes-in-2014-x.21705519

The movement for independence from Scotland in Shetland and Orkney has never been popular - in the Seventies it was funded and kept alive by the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in an attempt to create uncertainty in the lead up to the referendum on Scottish devolution in 1979.  The UK Government documents about this have been released to the public.  No one is falling for it anymore.  Can't quite believe it's being trotted out again.

Even if Shetland and Orkney were to somehow remain part of the UK through partition, or chose to become Crown Dependencies of the UK, it would not help the Treasury in London to retain control over North Sea oil and gas.  As islands they would become "enclaves" within Scottish territorial waters.  Under the UN Convention on the Laws of the Sea, this would only entitle them to the resources lying within a radius of twelve nautical miles from their shorelines. 

The vast majority of the oil fields are a lot further out than that, and would still lie within Scottish waters.

I support greater autonomy for the islands (Shetland Island Council had the good sense to set up an oil fund way back, when the stuff was first discovered, from which they still profit today - so it's clear they are already better at governing themselves than London ever will be).  I'll also support them if they decide to go for full independence. 

They'll be surprised at all the support and attention they're suddenly getting from unionists though, who have never paid them any heed at all over the past 307 years.

Kobrag said:

Well, it's either we cheer them up or let them go independent and watch them devolve into an anarchic cannibalistic society that we will need to be reclaim in future decades at no large cost or inconvenience.

Click to expand...

Is this you? 



"...we gave them the gift of language..." 

But the point is that you're still wrong now Mage.  You would've been wrong in the 1970s, you would've been wrong in the eighties and nineties (and, if you want to go back before oil was discovered, you would've been wrong then too).  And you're still wrong now.  Scotland is not subsidized by the rUK, the overall evidence suggests it never has been, and the current evidence suggests we would be better of financially as an independent state.

Here's one of Scotland's top economists, a unionist for many years (he voted against the establishment of the Parliament in 1997) explaining the current financial situation better than I can:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8wB6ycSvMU

Mage246 said:

Simple fact: Scotland gets more from the government than it puts in. Nothing else matters.

Click to expand...

You're wrong though:

Mr William Waldegrave, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, has been forced to concede figures in Commons questioning in recent months, which show that if Scotland's share of North Sea revenues had been allocated since 1979, then the net flow in favour of the Treasury from north of the Border ran to £27bn - a figure which the SNP used to refute previous claims that Scotland was subsidised.

As soon as Mr Waldegrave saw the implications of the figures he had released in January, he attempted to backtrack, and Tories in Scotland fell back on trying to question one key figure - Scotland's share of the UK deficit. This was 17.9% in 1994-95, almost double the per capita share

Click to expand...

So not only has there been a higher net contribution from Scotland to the UK Treasury - more than we get back - as admitted by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury himself, but we have also been paying far more than our per capita share towards UK's deficit spending over many decades.

Nae wonder we're too poor to go independent, eh? 

BlackTide said:

You pretty much voted IN the current coalition

Click to expand...

Um, no, clearly not.  Are you saying that the current Coalition relies on Scottish MPs for it's majority?  If it doesn't, then we obviously never voted them in, anymore than the rest of the UK did.  The Coalition came about through party negotiations. 

BlackTide said:

I don't think that the "strength, stability and pooled resources" argument can be written off so easily. Financial stability, to me, comes before any notion of unfair distribution of budget

Click to expand...

What stability does the UK system offer?  In my lifetime alone the UK has needed an IMF bailout (1976), come close to bankruptcy on several occasions, saw a massive devaluation of the pound on Black Wednesday after the Tories tried to take us into the Euro (1992), allowed our interest rates and mortgages to be dicked around with by LIBOR rigging, allowed our savings and investments to be devalued by quantitative easing, and suffered the financial crash of 2008 (Northern Rock, Barclays, RBS, HBOS, etc), plus all the other economic downturns, recessions, shocks and upsets inbetween.  Boom and bust is not stability.  It's especially rocky for the populace at large when the boom times are confined to a single square mile in the City of London.

BlackTide said:

so long as I have a degree of confidence in the existing system, to risk that is to throw away something people in other parts of the world strongly desire.

Click to expand...

There will certainly be people in other parts of the world who desire the stability of the UK financial system - but very few of them are in Europe.  After all, the UK has the highest borrowing costs in the EU (now higher than Ireland's!), a national debt of £1.4 trillion, runs an annual deficit of £107.7 billion (mentioned above) - higher than Portugal's.

BlackTide said:

It's London and the South East that you complain about now but not long after a Yes Vote it will be Edinburgh and South that those in the North or on the Islands complain about.

Click to expand...

Edinburgh might actually listen to them.  London never has.  The UK Gov only show interest in the islands when there's a new oil find.

BlackTide said:

Flanged said:

No nation is better off being governed by another, and no country ever increased it's wealth by sending the entirety of it's revenue to another country's Treasury.

Click to expand...

Unless they get more back.

Click to expand...

But we don't, so why stick around?

BlackTide said:

Under Alex Salmond's currency plans the Bank of England would still control Scottish Interest rates and monetary policy! You'll get the same monetary policy with less consideration given towards the economic requirements of Scotland.

Click to expand...

Less than zero?  Neither Scotland, Wales, or NI have a representative on the Monetary Policy Council of the BoE as things stand.  The MPC sets policy to suit London and the South East (particularly the financial sector).  That's always been the way, and always will be.  We have no sway over fiscal policy even as part of the Union.  So how can we lose out by having less?

BlackTide said:

I believe that the £2 Billion renovation is for the whole of the Houses of Parliament which as the seat of our democracy and as part of the preservation of our culture and history, is a price worth paying.

Click to expand...

I agree with you on that, I'm just not sure why Scotland would want to contribute towards the costs.

BlackTide said:

Blimy that took a while, maybe Alex Salmond has had time to exercised his power to vary income tax whilst I was writing that

Click to expand...

He can't I'm afraid.  HMRC have admitted that they would charge the Scottish Government £7million, plus £50,000 per year, for collecting any extra money that could be brought in under the SVR (Scottish Variable Rate) - so the tax-raising powers we've been given so far are essentially unusable, as they were always intended to be when Westminster granted them.  That's why the Labour governments who preceded the SNP at Holyrood never used them either.