[Good bloke]

(Original post by Kj91)
http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index...misinformation .I just saw this on OPs web page although it is very good.

Among the rubbish it says is:

Let's assume that the EU decides to support Westminster in its epic sulk, and demands that Scotland reapply to join the EU but England-Wales-Northern Ireland remained a member. This would mean that Scotland is considered an entirely new state. In that circumstance, international law is very clear that Scotland would not be bound by any of the obligations of the UK. Amongst other things, that means that Scotland would not be required to take on a single penny of UK national debt. UK national debt is a UK obligation. The UK ruined the banks, so the UK can pay for it.

The writer seems to think that the accession rules of the EU are somehow linked to Scotland's legal position regarding inheritance of debts and obligations, which is obviously nonsense.

[Llamageddon]

(Original post by ukip72)
Your absolutely right. Independence would be a massive boost for the Tories. However I hope Cameron puts his unionist principles ahead of petty politics, there is a theory Cameron secretly is trying to encourage the Indys

You mean "there's a bunch of people spouting bull**** who think this"?

Losing Scotland would be horrific for his career.

[ukip72]

(Original post by Llamageddon)
You mean "there's a bunch of people spouting bull**** who think this"?

Losing Scotland would be horrific for his career.

I don't think he is but it would certainly help the Tories in 2015.

[Left Hand Drive]

I think Cameron and Tories should lead the campaign to keep Scotland in the union infact use Thatcher as a mascot pleaseeeeee


Roll on the referendum

[Llamageddon]

(Original post by ukip72)
I don't think he is but it would certainly help the Tories in 2015.

How? The damage to their reputation would be huge, not to mention that based on past elections Scotland would only have swung slight labour victories into hung parliaments or most recently a hung parliament into a slight conservative victory.

[Cmca1]

[QUOTE=Good bloke;37613023]You seem to have missed what the PM said about protecting Britain's interests as a first priority. There is no way an independent Scotland can count on England to bail out Scotland's economy any more than any other EU nation. QUOTE]

£7bn to Ireland across the water? why? to protect British interests. So I'm pretty sure if Scotland ever did need bailed out, they'd have support from the UK.

However, worrying about bailouts is such negative campaigning about something which offers a lot of substantive benefits.

[Cmca1]

(Original post by Good bloke)
I'm unclear where the bias lies in pointing out that a small nation - without control of its own currency and with over-reliance on one volatile and reducing source of revenue - will have higher borrowing costs. That is the realistic position.

The bias is, journalism should present the facts to readers and observers. But the Bias-BBC and other elements of the British media are so keen to keep the union that they are prepared to abandon the principles of good news reporting.

That's a reflection of the unionist campaign. So when the SNP write a question which unionists don't like, they know only a little about how it feels, when the nationalist campaign is bashed by the control mechanisms in London.

The article in question in the Economist ignores all the benefits of Scottish Independence.

[Cmca1]

(Original post by Good bloke)
Among the rubbish it says is:



The writer seems to think that the accession rules of the EU are somehow linked to Scotland's legal position regarding inheritance of debts and obligations, which is obviously nonsense.

You should read some of the rubbish in the following:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...did-alone.html

http://www.economist.com/node/21552564

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-17505302

The usual scaremongering, biased crooks of the British media...you can't trust them to deliver a fair debate.

[Good bloke]

(Original post by Cmca1)
The usual scaremongering, biased crooks of the British media...you can't trust them to deliver a fair debate.

Since when has the press been expected to deliver a fair debate? It has always taken sides, and always will.

[Good bloke]

(Original post by Cmca1)
I'm pretty sure if Scotland ever did need bailed out, they'd have support from the UK.

Yes. Just like Greece.

[Cmca1]

(Original post by Good bloke)
Since when has the press been expected to deliver a fair debate? It has always taken sides, and always will.

The BBC?? Which is supposed to represent all of us? We all pay a tv licence, irrespective of our position on the union or our political allegiance, so they should deliver for everyone accordingly.

[Cmca1]

(Original post by Good bloke)
Since when has the press been expected to deliver a fair debate? It has always taken sides, and always will.

So, in response to some other guys comments up there, you agree with me, the UK would bail out an independent Scotland...if it needed.

As for Greece...pretty sure they've been an independent country for centuries, Greece and the Scottish Independence debate are two separate issues. Any country can elect an incompetent and ineffective who can run up debt and badly manage our economy, the UK has one now and had one with Labour.

[Good bloke]

(Original post by Cmca1)
The BBC?? Which is supposed to represent all of us? We all pay a tv licence, irrespective of our position on the union or our political allegiance, so they should deliver for everyone accordingly.

You are the one with bias. The BBC is not the press, by definition, and you linked to one BBC article on the issue, which was a government minister's view. You could have linked to:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17329878

or

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17257663

or

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-17106365

I don't really think that constitutes coverage with a bias against independence.

[Good bloke]

(Original post by Cmca1)
So, in response to some other guys comments up there, you agree with me, the UK would bail out an independent Scotland...if it needed.

As for Greece...pretty sure they've been an independent country for centuries, Greece and the Scottish Independence debate are two separate issues. Any country can elect an incompetent and ineffective who can run up debt and badly manage our economy, the UK has one now and had one with Labour.

What I meant was that England would treat Scotland just like it treats Greece.

[Cmca1]

(Original post by Good bloke)
What I meant was that England would treat Scotland just like it treats Greece.

What about how the UK treats Ireland?

[Aj12]

(Original post by Cmca1)
I'm not missing your point. I'd like to know how reliant the UK economy is on North Sea at present also? What's the UK's plan for the economy when it can no longer export oil and will be forced to import from abroad. Every nation is equally susceptible to market changes in oil prices, imagine the UK having no oil and being reliant on foreign oil prices. So your argument works both ways, what's the UK's plan for when oil runs out?

Secondly, without changing the subject but sticking to spending and the economy, I'd be interested in knowing how much Scotland contributes to defence spending. Would a small independent Scotland need to spend as much on defence as it does now within the UK? I don't think so. That money could be placed into infrastructural projects, business support, renewable energy, education and health spending etc, in other words, it could have a more meaningful contribution to the economy, instead of being squandered in the Middle-East or on Trident.

I don't really see why the UK matters. I am making a point about Scottish independence one advocates of Scottish independence seem loath to answer. How will scotland remove its dependence on oil since its often advocated as the main way Scotland would afford to go it alone.

Given that defence spending in the UK is 46 billion I doubt that Scotlands contribution is going to be enough to afford independence. Speaking of government spending Scotland offers very generous welfare benefits and things like free education all of which cost a hell of a lot. It will be interesting to see if an independent Scotland will be able to afford this

[Cmca1]

(Original post by Good bloke)
You are the one with bias. The BBC is not the press, by definition, and you linked to one BBC article on the issue, which was a government minister's view. You could have linked to:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17329878

or

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17257663

or

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-17106365

I don't really think that constitutes coverage with a bias against independence.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16477990

What about that? A bashing session towards the Independence movement. It starts straight off with the usual "Scotland is subsidised approach" and shows nothing about the benefits of Independence. It's either very unimaginative journalism or blatant bias.

[Good bloke]

(Original post by Cmca1)
What about how the UK treats Ireland?

What about it? Britain protected its interests, no more.

[Good bloke]

(Original post by Cmca1)
It's either very unimaginative journalism or blatant bias.

A third option is that it points out some pertinent facts and diligently points out where the treasury takes a different view from the independence movement.

For instance:

On the Treasury view, the gap between spending and revenues in Scotland for 2009-10 was £3,150 per head. On the Scottish Nationalist view, the gap between spending and revenues was closer to £2,130.

[Cmca1]

(Original post by Aj12)
I don't really see why the UK matters. I am making a point about Scottish independence one advocates of Scottish independence seem loath to answer. How will scotland remove its dependence on oil since its often advocated as the main way Scotland would afford to go it alone.

Given that defence spending in the UK is 46 billion I doubt that Scotlands contribution is going to be enough to afford independence. Speaking of government spending Scotland offers very generous welfare benefits and things like free education all of which cost a hell of a lot. It will be interesting to see if an independent Scotland will be able to afford this

Off course the UK matters. You say Scotland will be over dependent on oil and Scotland will be exposed to volatile oil markets. If Scotland becomes independent, where will the UK get its oil from? Most North Sea Oil is in Scottish waters. Or...if Scotland stays in the UK, as you say, the oil will run out eventually, what does the UK plan to do? Either way, Scotland in the UK or not will equally susceptible to volatile market prices.

You believe Scotland will be entirely dependent on oil, I don't. I've never said Scotland will be entirely dependent on oil, you have. You believe what you want.

And once again, you are missing a fundamental point, that the Scottish oil which Scotland will have control over upon independence, is not considered by the Barnett formula, that's why it's so easy for unionists and English imperialists to knock Scotland down and to say that it won't survive alone.

If you don't think Scotland is strong economically, and you live in England, why is it in the interests of the rest of the UK for Scotland to stay in the union?

You either know Scotland can survive alone and don't want to admit it or you don't believe Scotland can survive alone and are stupid for wanting to hold on to them.

(I don't mean stupid in a personal way, but unionists talk about economics and UK interests, but are contradicting themselves)