Is Scottish independence a 'good or bad' thing? Watch

Poll: Should Scotland be an independent country?
YES (299)
32.12%
NO (632)
67.88%
This discussion is closed.
Kaiser MacCleg
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#461
Report 6 years ago
#461
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
But the economies coming back up. Labour had 13 years to promote sustainable job creation but didn't, it created unsustainable public sector growth, and yet the Tories are promoting. And Cameron is pushing to get back fishing rights from Europe, and reduce on a whole host of legislation that is holding Business's back in job creation. The only war they've started has been removing a dictator who was responsible for bringing down a fully laden 747 down over the Scottish Borders.

It would be a sad day if such a monumental decision is based on who got elected next in Westminster when most of the issues people have with the Tories are devolved matters.

Maybe it's time that we forgot about Labour spin from 30 years ago and looked at the here and now.
You don't need to tell me that. I'm only reporting what the poll had to say. :dontknow:

Incidentally, try having a chat with a Plaid Hardcore supporter, not a voter, but the ardent supporter. If you can get to the five minute mark without Owain Glyndŵr being mentioned you've done well. But hey, that's why we have democracy. People can vote for and however they wish to.
Don't need to have a chat with one. I am one. Got the card and everything. At what point did I mention Glyndŵr in this thread?

I promise you that, while I most certainly am interested in Glyndŵr and the wider history of Wales during the middle ages, I would not bring him up in a discussion about Welsh independence (slight chance if the convo veers into the constitutional status of Wales, past and present...i.e., where his story would be of relevance). The distant past doesn't concern me where the issue of independence is concerned - I've reached where I stand now politically through consideration of the economic prosperity of Wales over the past 100 years or so (or rather the lack of it), and through a consideration of what is most likely to get us out of the rut we find ourselves in.
0
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#462
Report 6 years ago
#462
(Original post by Kaiser MacCleg)
You don't need to tell me that. I'm only reporting what the poll had to say. :dontknow:

Don't need to have a chat with one. I am one. Got the card and everything. At what point did I mention Glyndŵr in this thread?

I promise you that, while I most certainly am interested in Glyndŵr and the wider history of Wales during the middle ages, I would not bring him up in a discussion about Welsh independence (slight chance if the convo veers into the constitutional status of Wales, past and present...i.e., where his story would be of relevance). The distant past doesn't concern me where the issue of independence is concerned - I've reached where I stand now politically through consideration of the economic prosperity of Wales over the past 100 years or so (or rather the lack of it), and through a consideration of what is most likely to get us out of the rut we find ourselves in.
Apologies. I got cornered by 4 Plaid supporters at a wedding last month, a sveral others over the past years. That's the impression I get/got.

Do you know what I'd really like though. MPs that put their constitiuents first and not party politics.
0
marcusfox
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#463
Report 6 years ago
#463
(Original post by Scott006)
I get my information from as many sources as I can find, I don't simply assume or make things up as many people here seem to be doing.
Examples of UK Government underspending on things that aren't split up by region, have you been to London? The headquarters of every ministry is there, that's not cheap and provides a great deal of employment.
But if what you were saying is true, that Scotland is subsidised by England, then I'd take that as a reason for independence. Scotland has a brilliant education system, amazing natural resources and a diverse economy. There is no reason why Scotland can't fund itself, our welfare is nowhere near as extensive as in scandinavian countries who manage to do well economically. I'd argue that Scotland needs independence to get control of the fiscal levers necessary to drive our economy forward.
But of course, what you are saying is not true, again I'll go back to the Treasury's worse case scenario that every Scot would be £1 worse off.
LOL, is that the best you've got? You are actually hilarious. Sources?

You: "Scotland isn't subsidised, we have 8.3% population and create 9.4% of revenues."

Me: "Scotland is subsidised", and I provide figures that show they are subsidised to the tune of £624 per person.

You then google, and post a copied paragraph from an opinion piece written by a like minded author who without using statistics, calculations or any other evidence does a hatchet job on those figures and says

You: 'So what, it makes up for decades of underinvestment on defence.'

As though that is intended to completely rebut my point that Scotland isn't subsidised. LOL.

1 - Make up your own mind. If it is to make up for decades of underinvestment, then it is a subsidy, a subsidy that Scotland would no longer receive on independence.

2 - Where is the evidence of defence underspending - or indeed any other type of underspending?

You haven't the first idea and are making it up as you go along. You wholly ignored the points put to you in my last post - why does the author of that article later contradict himself and go on to say "...the likely defence expenditure of an independent Scotland would...be roughly £1bn less than what the UK currently spends on its behalf".

You then completely ignore everything else I have written and instead prefer to believe that an independent Scotland would not be £624 worse off per person, but £1, yet provide no source as to what gives you that idea.

(Original post by Scott006)
No one is campaigning on the platform that Scotland is subsidised, because it is frankly untrue and just incredibly insulting. But, as I have said before, by all means continue to say it again and again as if it will become true, from what I've seen it only serves to increase support for independence.
The SNP is campaining on the platform that Scotland is not subsidised.

Be insulted all you like, I have just proven to you that it is. Your copy and paste comment...

"The remaining £624 is easily accounted for by decades of UK government under-spending in Scotland on defence and on other items which are not routinely broken down by region, such as foreign office services."

is actually evidence of a subsidy existing. Whether this £624 extra per person going to Scotland is indeed due to previous underspending or not, what you cannot rebut is that Scotland does receive a subsidy, and on independence, they would no longer receive it.

The Scots in support of independence like to believe that no subsidy exists. However if (like you) all they have are cheap attacks and soundbites, it does nothing to rebut that argument. Lets have some evidence that no subsidy exists.

(Original post by Scott006)
And Scotland is somehow incapable of putting the infrastructure in place? The Scottish Government is currently rapidly expanding it's renewables infrastructure, they set a target that by 2011 to generate the equivalent of 31% Scotland's electricity needs from renewable energy, they not only met but exceeded that target by 4%.
I don't call that wishful thinking, do you?
I do indeed call it wishful thinking much of what you say that Scotland hopes to achieve. Indeed anyone can say that. As to your example above, I call it cherry picking.

31% of Scotland's electricity needs by renewables? Scotlands electricity needs are dwarfed by the rest of the UK, and even Europe. It would be easy to use renewables to provide a significant portion of electricity to such a small population, as long as they are counting all that renewables infrastructure which was paid for and put in place by the taxpayers of the UK, which includes England, and not solely Scotland's investment.

Someone said it earlier, it is the UK that pays for all that renewables investment, and come independence, Scotland would have to pay for that all on it's own.

Interestingly, how is Scotland going to pay for that, and re-imburse the UK for it's share of infrastructure already in place that will be in Scottish territory come independence?
0
marcusfox
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#464
Report 6 years ago
#464
(Original post by Scott006)
Yes that is a lot of treaties. And?
You are talking as if no country has ever become independent before, the Scottish Government have set out a timeline of roughly two years from referendum to independence which when you look at examples set in the past, is actually quite a generous amount of time.
Don't be obtuse. It has been provided so that people are able to base their opinions on actual fact, not SNP "of course we'll be in the EU" soundbites and wishful thinking.

Indeed the legal advice that has been given uses as examples the situations of other countres that have become independent recently.

(Original post by Scott006)
But really, when the argument stoops to "look at all that work, wouldn't it be easier just not to become independent." I know it's going well for the Yes campaign, what do you expect me to say? Oh that does look like a bit of work, meh lets just leave it be.
Really?
This really is a stupid argument. The point of giving the legal advice has nothing to do with

"look at all that work, wouldn't it be easier just not to become independent."

it is more to do with telling the Scottish people:

"Look at all those treaties you would be out of come independence. The SNP is wrong in their assessment, in spite of what you say, Scotland would not be in the EU, NATO or a host of others. Scotland would be much worse off being out of those treaties or in a disadvantageous position having to re-negotiate these treaties if they were to become independent."

Which isn't even remotely comparable to what you are trying to equate the argument to.
0
marcusfox
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#465
Report 6 years ago
#465
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
The Welsh like to claim it as theirs. I think the loosing 2000 men the day before might have put a damper on it though.
Of the 122 soldiers of the 24th Regiment present at the Battle of Rorke's Drift, 49 are known to have been of English nationality, 32 were Welsh, 16 were Irish, 1 was a Scot, and 3 were born overseas. The nationalities of the remaining 21 are unknown.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rorke%27s_Drift
0
marcusfox
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#466
Report 6 years ago
#466
(Original post by Midlander)
Alex Salmond said it himself.

Oh, and while we're on the subject, Scotland is the only nation in the world to have explicitly Anglophobic lyrics in its national anthem. Nice way to not have a chip on your shoulder eh chaps.
On the contrary, when translated from the original Gaelic, the Republic of Ireland anthem talks about getting ready to kill the English (Saxon foe)
0
marcusfox
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#467
Report 6 years ago
#467
(Original post by Scott006)
Most of the oil is Scottish, there is absolutely no precedent for a foreign nation to retain control of another's natural resources after independence, so don't even try to go down that route. Unless you think it's all English oil, because Britannia rules the waves, hence every drop of oil under those waves is British! Are you also going to lay claim to all Scottish water, all Scottish gold in it's mountains. In fact, should England not reclaim every building in Scotland constructed post 1707?
You might well be surprised. Those other resources you speak of so facetiously (water/gold/buildings) are very easy to define and have a precedent in that the land borders already exist. If the Scottish oil deposits were found on land, or even within waters less than 12 nautical miles off the coast (i.e. territorial waters), then there would be little dispute. Sadly, deep sea marine borders are much more fluid (no pun intended) which is why there's such a wealth of international law and previous cases to define how marine borders should be divided up.

Any existing marine boundaries have little bearing on the finalising of maritime borders in the event of independence. They would be defined by agreement between the two parties who would probably start from the basis of historical borders and then get down to the legal business.

The relevant rules and principles are set out in Article 6 of the 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf and the second is the customary solution (be effected in accordance with equitable principles and taking account of all relevant circumstances) stated by the International Court of Justice in 1969. As for the UNCLOS III regulations, they only managed to assert the substantial elements of the aforementioned two sets of rules and principles.

-The delimitation of the continental shelf between States with opposite or adjacent coasts shall be effected by agreement on the basis of international law, as referred to in Article 38 [...] blah blah blah.

So that leaves us with the ICJ...

The International Court of Justice "Convention on the Continental Shelf" which is the relevant international law used to determine marine boundary disputes. It mentions (Article 6, para 1) the three principles involved in drawing up a marine boundary:

1) a boundary line shall be determined by agreement between both parties
2) a boundary line justified by special circumstance
3) a boundary line drawn in accordance with the equidistance principle

Given that all the pro-Scotland arguments seem to hinge on point 3, you might be a little disappointed to read that, after many international cases, the International Court of Justice ruled that the equidistance principle was not "either a mandatory legal principle, or a method having some privileged status in relation to other methods."

Jagota, 209

There are also plenty of blogs and forums out there mentioning redrawing the borders, but I'll not cite them as they are hardly respected references. However, it does all show that I am certainly not the only one to be suggesting that the current border may be subject to change.
1
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#468
Report 6 years ago
#468
(Originally Posted by Scott006)
Most of the oil is Scottish, there is absolutely no precedent for a foreign nation to retain control of another's natural resources after independence, so don't even try to go down that route. Unless you think it's all English oil, because Britannia rules the waves, hence every drop of oil under those waves is British! Are you also going to lay claim to all Scottish water, all Scottish gold in it's mountains. In fact, should England not reclaim every building in Scotland constructed post 1707?

I guess the people of Shetland are questioing that one.

http://www.shetnews.co.uk/news/6137-...n-independence

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ependence.html

How long do you think it'll be before some smooth talking politician in the Shetlands starts saying 'It's our oil.'?

It happens throughout the world. The nearer people are to Oil supplies the more they think they're being cheated as it'll solves all of their problems looking after the revenues and they'll all be able to buy Sports cars courtesy of the government.

Shetland also has a distinct cultural heritage and could make it as an independant nation state.

But agree with Marcus. Salmond has only highlighted one of many options relating to boundary disputes.

Also, as the UK helped Finance the Rigs. What Share of 'Scottish Oil' does that take. Who's responsible for the decommissioning costs? I've seen it argued by SNP supporters that rUK should be footing the bill for that as it was the UK Government that allowed it.
0
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#469
Report 6 years ago
#469
(Original post by Tycho)
That's the way referenda always work, i.e. in the same way as other elections. It's absolutely the correct way for it to work. It would clearly be ridiculous if the Scottish wanted Independence but the English didn't want them to have it and on this basis alone they didn't get it (because there are more English than Scottish). In reality that's just one country dictating how another should exist.
Well, no, it's the same country doing that. As for words like "dictating" - yes, true, but entirely democratically.

I would remind at this point that the union and the constitution are matters reserved to the UK Parliament. Ultimately, the referendum is consultative - it will be for democratic representatives of the whole UK to decide Scotland's future.

(Original post by Kaiser MacCleg)
And what was that line in the last verse of God Save the Queen again?
Take your pick:

"Thy choicest gifts in store,
On her be pleased to pour;
Long may she reign:
May she defend our laws,
And ever give us cause
To sing with heart and voice
God save the Queen!"

Or are you perhaps trying to peddle a Nat lie that there's some sort of anti-Scottish words in our National Anthem?

Supporting independence categorically does not mean you can not be pro-European.
Supporting secessionist nationalism, however, would render you a hypocrite in such circumstances. Which is precisely what I'd accuse pro-EU SNP types of.

I am a (Welsh) nationalist. I'm also an internationalist, pro-europe and supportive of multiculturalism.
Oh really. Well, for one, your political ideology is dependent on cultural homogeneity. A genuine multiculturalism would cause this "Wales" of yours to disappear as a nation.

To claim to be a nationalism and an internationalist is nothing more than double-think.
0
Scott006
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#470
Report 6 years ago
#470
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
The SNP are, amongst other things, showing a striking lack of solidarity with their anti-English allies in Wales by stampeding through their own vote rather than trying to negotiate some kind of UK-wide vote on federalism. In effect, Wales will end up being the loser of this if "independence" goes ahead for Scotland. Although in the long run the Scots poor will also be big losers, as their government won't be able to maintain the high levels of public spending they are currently engaged in to win their votes.
You really don't have a good grasp of devolved politics, do you.
The SNP was elected to the Scottish Parliament which has a mandate from the Scottish People. Wales has it's own devolved administration, the Welsh Assembly.
While the SNP and Plaid Cymru are clearly friendly and cooperate in Westminster, they do not try to interfere and wouldn't be able to.

If you want a UK Wide Referendum on Federalism, that would have to be decided in Westminster, where Plaid and the SNP have very few MP's. The real "villains" in this case are Labour, the Lib Dems and the Conservatives, they are the parties you should be complaining to.
1
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#471
Report 6 years ago
#471
(Original post by Scott006)
You really don't have a good grasp of devolved politics, do you.
The SNP was elected to the Scottish Parliament which has a mandate from the Scottish People. Wales has it's own devolved administration, the Welsh Assembly.
While the SNP and Plaid Cymru are clearly friendly and cooperate in Westminster, they do not try to interfere and wouldn't be able to.

If you want a UK Wide Referendum on Federalism, that would have to be decided in Westminster, where Plaid and the SNP have very few MP's. The real "villains" in this case are Labour, the Lib Dems and the Conservatives, they are the parties you should be complaining to.
I think my grasp is better than Plaid! They should be cursing your party, not co-operating with it. It doesn't surprise me that they aren't, they are allowing emotion to trump reason.
0
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#472
Report 6 years ago
#472
(Original post by Scott006)
You really don't have a good grasp of devolved politics, do you.
The SNP was elected to the Scottish Parliament which has a mandate from the Scottish People. Wales has it's own devolved administration, the Welsh Assembly.
While the SNP and Plaid Cymru are clearly friendly and cooperate in Westminster, they do not try to interfere and wouldn't be able to.

If you want a UK Wide Referendum on Federalism, that would have to be decided in Westminster, where Plaid and the SNP have very few MP's. The real "villains" in this case are Labour, the Lib Dems and the Conservatives, they are the parties you should be complaining to.
I don't think anybody has a good understanding of Devolved Politics. Most of the key issues that people care about are devolved, yet still fingers are pointed at those Nasty Tories and Westminster Controlled Labour.

I mean we've had Nicola Sturgeon claiming credit for a UK Government brokered EU funding deal for High speed Internet recently.

I don't want a Federal UK. It's creates more levels of red tape, because let's be honest it's only fair that England gets several Regional Assemblies. Even Federal Germany is moving towards a more centralised model. They'll keep their federal set up to keep Politicians in jobs, but they're told what to do by Berlin.

We struggle to get enough decent, capable Politicians into Westminster. Holyrood as a few, and one of them is treated as great as a great Politician due to his inability to answer a straight question. Not withstanding the huge degree of extra red tape for companies investing and trading in the UK. The only people who benefit from that are the Lawyers and Politicians.

Remember Federal equals Tax raising.
0
Scott006
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#473
Report 6 years ago
#473
(Original post by marcusfox)
LOL, is that the best you've got? You are actually hilarious. Sources?

You: "Scotland isn't subsidised, we have 8.3% population and create 9.4% of revenues."

Me: "Scotland is subsidised", and I provide figures that show they are subsidised to the tune of £624 per person.

You then google, and post a copied paragraph from an opinion piece written by a like minded author who without using statistics, calculations or any other evidence does a hatchet job on those figures and says

You: 'So what, it makes up for decades of underinvestment on defence.'

As though that is intended to completely rebut my point that Scotland isn't subsidised. LOL.

1 - Make up your own mind. If it is to make up for decades of underinvestment, then it is a subsidy, a subsidy that Scotland would no longer receive on independence.

2 - Where is the evidence of defence underspending - or indeed any other type of underspending?

You haven't the first idea and are making it up as you go along. You wholly ignored the points put to you in my last post - why does the author of that article later contradict himself and go on to say "...the likely defence expenditure of an independent Scotland would...be roughly £1bn less than what the UK currently spends on its behalf".

You then completely ignore everything else I have written and instead prefer to believe that an independent Scotland would not be £624 worse off per person, but £1, yet provide no source as to what gives you that idea.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politi...idend.19834112
There's one source, the Scottish Government claimed that every Scot would be £500 better off, the Treasury then used the same figures differently to claim that every Scot would be £1 worse off.

Not even the Better Together campaign are claiming that Scotland is subsidised, perhaps you should contact them with your expert knowledge, I'm sure they'd love to know that they are also wrong.



(Original post by marcusfox)
I do indeed call it wishful thinking much of what you say that Scotland hopes to achieve. Indeed anyone can say that. As to your example above, I call it cherry picking.

31% of Scotland's electricity needs by renewables? Scotlands electricity needs are dwarfed by the rest of the UK, and even Europe. It would be easy to use renewables to provide a significant portion of electricity to such a small population, as long as they are counting all that renewables infrastructure which was paid for and put in place by the taxpayers of the UK, which includes England, and not solely Scotland's investment.
There is no shortage of investment for renewables, it is in the interests of Scotland and the rest of the UK that Scotland continues to increase it's output of green energy.

(Original post by marcusfox)
Interestingly, how is Scotland going to pay for that, and re-imburse the UK for it's share of infrastructure already in place that will be in Scottish territory come independence?
This is an unfounded argument I hear again and again about oil infrastructure, renewables infrastructure and more.
Is England going to be demanding that everything built on Scottish soil post 1707 is demolished and the rubble promptly sent to London where it can be displayed on a massive plinth? That is not how independence works. If it were then I'd be expecting Scotland to be reimbursed for every pence of Scottish tax not spent in Scotland over the past 300 years. We'll take half of Buckingham Palace and Manchester and call it quits.
0
Scott006
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#474
Report 6 years ago
#474
(Original post by marcusfox)
Don't be obtuse. It has been provided so that people are able to base their opinions on actual fact, not SNP "of course we'll be in the EU" soundbites and wishful thinking.

Indeed the legal advice that has been given uses as examples the situations of other countres that have become independent recently.
Scotland isn't going to be rejected from the EU, everyone accepts that. You can get opinions for both sides on whether membership would be immediate or applied for, but given the rise in Euro-Skeptisism south of the border and Cameron's promised referendum; it has been said pretty accurately that the greatest threat to Scotland's EU membership is staying in the union.

(Original post by marcusfox)
This really is a stupid argument. The point of giving the legal advice has nothing to do with

"look at all that work, wouldn't it be easier just not to become independent."

it is more to do with telling the Scottish people:

"Look at all those treaties you would be out of come independence. The SNP is wrong in their assessment, in spite of what you say, Scotland would not be in the EU, NATO or a host of others. Scotland would be much worse off being out of those treaties or in a disadvantageous position having to re-negotiate these treaties if they were to become independent."

Which isn't even remotely comparable to what you are trying to equate the argument to.
So we shouldn't become independent because we would have to negotiate some treaties. It's hardly a terrifying prospect, the Scottish people aren't afraid of having control over their own Foreign Policy, it might even keep us out of a war or two!
0
Nick100
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#475
Report 6 years ago
#475
(Original post by Scott006)
So we shouldn't become independent because we would have to negotiate some treaties. It's hardly a terrifying prospect, the Scottish people aren't afraid of having control over their own Foreign Policy, it might even keep us out of a war or two!
But the whole exercise is pointless. The SNP aren't proposing anything but superficial changes to how Scotland is governed, or what the government in Scotland does. They want a big welfare state - like we have now - with lots of bureaucracy and government meddling - like we have now; and they appear to what more of each of those things. The fact that they won't fight totalitarians because it costs ~0.5% of GDP and don't care if the Afghan government is overthrown by suicidal religious fanatics isn't a reason for me to vote for them.
0
Scott006
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#476
Report 6 years ago
#476
(Original post by marcusfox)
You might well be surprised. Those other resources you speak of so facetiously (water/gold/buildings) are very easy to define and have a precedent in that the land borders already exist. If the Scottish oil deposits were found on land, or even within waters less than 12 nautical miles off the coast (i.e. territorial waters), then there would be little dispute. Sadly, deep sea marine borders are much more fluid (no pun intended) which is why there's such a wealth of international law and previous cases to define how marine borders should be divided up.

Any existing marine boundaries have little bearing on the finalising of maritime borders in the event of independence. They would be defined by agreement between the two parties who would probably start from the basis of historical borders and then get down to the legal business.

The relevant rules and principles are set out in Article 6 of the 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf and the second is the customary solution (be effected in accordance with equitable principles and taking account of all relevant circumstances) stated by the International Court of Justice in 1969. As for the UNCLOS III regulations, they only managed to assert the substantial elements of the aforementioned two sets of rules and principles.

-The delimitation of the continental shelf between States with opposite or adjacent coasts shall be effected by agreement on the basis of international law, as referred to in Article 38 [...] blah blah blah.

So that leaves us with the ICJ...

The International Court of Justice "Convention on the Continental Shelf" which is the relevant international law used to determine marine boundary disputes. It mentions (Article 6, para 1) the three principles involved in drawing up a marine boundary:

1) a boundary line shall be determined by agreement between both parties
2) a boundary line justified by special circumstance
3) a boundary line drawn in accordance with the equidistance principle

Given that all the pro-Scotland arguments seem to hinge on point 3, you might be a little disappointed to read that, after many international cases, the International Court of Justice ruled that the equidistance principle was not "either a mandatory legal principle, or a method having some privileged status in relation to other methods."

Jagota, 209

There are also plenty of blogs and forums out there mentioning redrawing the borders, but I'll not cite them as they are hardly respected references. However, it does all show that I am certainly not the only one to be suggesting that the current border may be subject to change.
I'll give you that, I'm sure the UK Government could try to change the marine border to encompass more of the oil fields.
But is that really the level that has been slumped to, literally, "vote Yes and we'll steal the oil". I don't think threats are the best basis for a No campaign, and I certainly would hope that Westminster wouldn't degrade itself to that level.

Not that I have much respect for how Westminster has conducted itself over the oil, ever heard of the McCrone report?
0
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#477
Report 6 years ago
#477
(Original post by Scott006)
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politi...idend.19834112
There's one source, the Scottish Government claimed that every Scot would be £500 better off, the Treasury then used the same figures differently to claim that every Scot would be £1 worse off.

Not even the Better Together campaign are claiming that Scotland is subsidised, perhaps you should contact them with your expert knowledge, I'm sure they'd love to know that they are also wrong.


But not the £500 claimed by the SNP. PLus nobody's actually factored in the cost of this divorce. Divorce doesn't come cheap


There is no shortage of investment for renewables, it is in the interests of Scotland and the rest of the UK that Scotland continues to increase it's output of green energy.

Says Who? This is an SNP Pipe dream driven by a desire to see the English subserviant to the Scots as they'll have to buy it back. The same drivle was being spouted out not long ago about the English having to buy water off us. Renewables targets are set for each Country to produce a % of it's power needs through renewables. I'm pretty Sure that the RUK will want to see their money benefitting their economy and not somebody elses. Or do you think Westminster wouldn't want to see a renewables hub in the deprives parts of North of England, Wales of Northern Ireland. Anyway, it's reduced CO2 emmissions we're after. Personally I think Windmills aren't exactly the way forward as they're expensive and unreliable. Nuclear is better, and who knows, due to the doubt about Global Warming now we may even see Coal coming back on the agenda. Cheap power = a kick started economy.

This is an unfounded argument I hear again and again about oil infrastructure, renewables infrastructure and more.
Is England going to be demanding that everything built on Scottish soil post 1707 is demolished and the rubble promptly sent to London where it can be displayed on a massive plinth? That is not how independence works. If it were then I'd be expecting Scotland to be reimbursed for every pence of Scottish tax not spent in Scotland over the past 300 years. We'll take half of Buckingham Palace and Manchester and call it quits.

Oil Infrastucture = UK Asset
Renewables Infrastructure = UK Asset


Hell, even Salmond been trying to lay claim to 8.6% of the Bank of England, Buckingham Palace and British Embassies. If we're claiming that off the UK, do you really think the UK's going to go 'cheers easy' on UK assets geographically located in Scotland. I'm just waiting for a Southern version of Salmond to come up with, 'as I represent 91.4% of the population I want 91.4% of the Oil Fields and Wind mills.

I'm sure you'll like your Tax money back that's been spent in England. I'm equally sure some Southern Salmond will be quite happily requesting the Dorien Scheme bail out with compunded interest of 300 years. back Plus additional fines for the Jacobite rebellion and the Good will earned from Scotlands benefot of the Empire.

Do you realise how petty you sound? The frightening thing is this is exactly the pettiness that the SNP thrives on, plus buying votes with free stuff. This isn't about hopes for the future. This is the real reason for Nationalism. Greed
0
Scott006
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#478
Report 6 years ago
#478
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
I think my grasp is better than Plaid! They should be cursing your party, not co-operating with it. It doesn't surprise me that they aren't, they are allowing emotion to trump reason.
I think the Plaid supporter that has already posted here has answered your questions.
But really, you should stand for Plaid leadership, your platform of opposing nationalism outside of Wales is bound to be a vote winner.
0
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#479
Report 6 years ago
#479
(Original post by Scott006)
I think the Plaid supporter that has already posted here has answered your questions.
But really, you should stand for Plaid leadership, your platform of opposing nationalism outside of Wales is bound to be a vote winner.
Wait till you meet the Cornish Nationalists and the Mercian Successionists for a truer picture
0
Scott006
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#480
Report 6 years ago
#480
(Original post by MatureStudent36)

Oil Infrastucture = UK Asset
Renewables Infrastructure = UK Asset


Hell, even Salmond been trying to lay claim to 8.6% of the Bank of England, Buckingham Palace and British Embassies. If we're claiming that off the UK, do you really think the UK's going to go 'cheers easy' on UK assets geographically located in Scotland. I'm just waiting for a Southern version of Salmond to come up with, 'as I represent 91.4% of the population I want 91.4% of the Oil Fields and Wind mills.

I'm sure you'll like your Tax money back that's been spent in England. I'm equally sure some Southern Salmond will be quite happily requesting the Dorien Scheme bail out with compunded interest of 300 years. back Plus additional fines for the Jacobite rebellion and the Good will earned from Scotlands benefot of the Empire.

Do you realise how petty you sound? The frightening thing is this is exactly the pettiness that the SNP thrives on, plus buying votes with free stuff. This isn't about hopes for the future. This is the real reason for Nationalism. Greed
Wow you've taken a lot of liberty there.
You don't divide things up that way, you are talking as if everything built in Scotland courtesy of Westminster is some sort of benevolent gift that the Scottish people will promptly need to reimburse London for. I think the Scottish Government would gladly pay the Treasury double the cost of all the infrastructure built in the North Sea oil industry if, following the same logic, the Chancellor returns to Scotland every pence of tax revenue Westminster has ever received from North Sea Oil. I would love to turn the clock back like that!
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How has the start of this academic year been for you?

Loving it - gonna be a great year (131)
18.3%
It's just nice to be back! (194)
27.09%
Not great so far... (257)
35.89%
I want to drop out! (134)
18.72%

Watched Threads

View All