The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Original post by a729
Within 40 years when the reality of losing the support of London taxes and the UK support and the oil runs dry .. the people of Scotland will rue the day they undid the 1707 act


Prove the claims YOU have made about the PRESENT / RECENT situation.

IS England bankrolling Scotland?

Are the Scots being 'fed' by England?
Reply 1181
Original post by Left Hand Drive
To cut a very long story short, island enclaves contained entirely within another country's exclusive economic zone (200 nautical miles) get territorial waters (12 nautical miles) but no EEZ of their own. So Shetland would be quite entitled to declare independence from Scotland, but since none of the oil is within the 12 mile territorial waters limit they'd get bugger all in that regard. They could of course charge oil companies a fee for the use of facilities on Shetland (e.g. the big terminal at Sullom Voe) but they wouldn't be entitled to any control or any tax revenue from the oil/gas itself, all of which would be located in Scotland's Exclusive Economic Zone.

Why do unionist purposely lie?


That's not the case. Firstly, maritime boundaries between states are set by states on whatever basis they like. It is only where there is no agreement that other mechanisms exist for their settlement. At these points, there are strict rules, but an overriding concept of equity. This is what has led to significant litigation in this area - and indeed few maritime boundaries follow precisely the UNCLOS guidance.

If Shetland was to remain part of the UK, it would be the UK Government who would establish its boundaries before Scotland became independent. This may be part of negotiations between the Scottish and UK administrations, but ultimately it'd be a UK Government decision.

Taking into account the geography, it would certainly be equitable to allow for a relatively considerable economic zone for Shetland. For one, it would stop any other neighbouring states seeking to redraw the Scottish boundaries, which would be based on holding Shetland. Essentially, the likes of Norway and Iceland would have a claim for moving further south.
Original post by CartoonHeart
X


University of Dundee students don't ask such questions on the internet, University of Dundee students go to the library and drown themselves in books :colone:
Original post by Maths Tutor
I am challenging the claims that England is bankrolling Scotland and the Scots are biting the hand that feeds them.

Learn to read and understand before making your wild claims: As a xenophobic isolationist yourself, you think that England= the English. Unlike you, I know the difference between the two.


I don't care who's bank rolling who. It all goes into one big pot and split. It's like a diversified portfolio. Returns may not be as high, but there's less risk.

If we want to start going on about who's bank rolling who, shall we just cut Wales, Northern Ireland and the North of England adrfift. We could use the Hs2 link as a corridor to get all of oil money down to London for investments.

After all, how far do we go down the line. I've paid into a Health service that I've never used, so I'm bank rolling somebody else. I'm paying into a state pension I'm never likely to receive. I'm paying into a welfare state that I've never claimed benefits.

I'm no xenophobe. I've made it perfectly clear that other than regional nuances I see no difference between anybody. I don't make claims about the English taking our money. Although I do like the subtle way in which you do it in public. But I've met too many hardcore SNP supporters (Supporters, not voters) who are driven by this belief that we are somehow different and victimised.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Maths Tutor
When did the Scottish people make the decisions how money collected in Scotland is spent?

Taxes collected in Scotland go directly to the UK Treasury and WESTMINSTER decides how the money is spent. WESTMINSTER is therefore 100% responsible for creating the ONE TRILLION POUNDS PLUS national debt. When we vote in the Westminster elections Blair/Brown/Darling? The money is equally split with us getting a higher per capita spend.

The current Scottish government with its very limited powers can only spend the money it receives from Westminster, and the SNP government has done a very decent job in allocating the money.

It has tax raising powers which it chooses not to use so has to play the victim.

Can you tell me why the additional funding for shovel ready products hasn't been spent? Why isn't it being spent? Why has Holyrood chosen to stall the economy now to give out freebies next year?



I have made my point very clearly - the TRILLION POUNDS PLUS national debt has not been created by the Scottish government, the SNP or Alex Salmond - the three entitities who are blamed for everything by the anti-Independence axis. It is YOUR comment that IS "absurd".

I'm not blaming the SNP for any of that. I will however have a go that they were very vocal in their support of RBS's takeover of ABN Amro and then have the audacity to claim that they wouldn't have allowed it to happen and that that car crash wouldn't have impacted us had we been seperate.



Again another "absurd" comment totally unrelated to what was being discussed. But tell me:

What % of the vote did the SNP get and what % of seats in the Scottish parliament?

Well we only had a 50% turnout

What % of the vote did the Conservatives get and what % of seats in the UK parliament?

You do love you're percentages don't you? I reckon you've been counting how many times the word Scotland/Scottish has been used tonight on Comic relief. Anything under 8.6% of the time and we're oppressed. Anything above 8.6% of the time and we can stand on our own two feet.

Seeing as you love percentages so much. Can you tell me why with 50% of the vote in Holyrood and only 6 of the 59 seats in Westminster. Support for seperation has consistemtly remained at 30% for so long?

How many people therefore voted for the SNP that don't want to seperate? Riddle me that.

http://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Images/Scotland/KeyTrends/Scotland_SPOMKT_IndyTrend_Feb13_lrg.jpg

Support for them only seems to grow for their pipe dream in times of economic downturn. But that's figures as people vote for non main parties. It would appear that they are a regional party that at best can be said to represent regional issues in a regional devolved environment.




See above in bold

Tell me Maths Tutor. You're not one of these luvvies are you?

http://nationalcollective.com/about-us/
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 1185
Original post by L i b
I don't think 16 year olds should have babies and get married. If I had a 16 year old child, I'd make it clear that sort of behaviour isn't remotely acceptable. They are simply not mature enough to make those decisions.

I'd support raising the age of marriage to 18, but for one thing. I do not wish to see the age of consent raised, because I don't like the criminalisation of adolescent development: to an extent, we even accept that among children younger than sixteen - very few prosecutions result from two 15 year olds having sex.

Now, given that there is still a faint idea of the old Christian value in sex being linked to marriage, I don't think we can reasonably have a different age of consent from the age of marriage. So, as much as I don't accept marriage for that age group, I still feel it has to be legal.

So no, I don't think voting should be tied to some marriage age set in the 1920s.


16 years old should be given the vote they are the future if the government lets them have a child and get married then they should have the right to vote.
Reply 1186
Original post by MatureStudent36
In what area's do you disagree? Megan you're going to have to explain yourself. you can't just say I disagree. you need to explain why. You were going on that I have no emotion or passion in my arguments. You're the one who is acting like an Ostrich.


See how annoying it is? And I think 16 year olds are the future they should be given the vote , if the government give them a right to get married and have a baby , then they should have the right to vote in for who they want I agree with SNP.
Original post by Megan1234567
16 years old should be given the vote they are the future if the government lets them have a child and get married then they should have the right to vote.



Well said. I look forward to 16 year olds being able to drink and smoke.

i look forward to new born baby's being given the vote as they are our future.


i look forward to our future being told what to vote as they've had little experience of life. The trials and tribulations. The ups and downs. The sense of common purpose and achievements. Not just some snap moment in time.

i look forward to the slightly socially awkward nature of politically active 16 year olds attempting to change my future as well.

we all get a vote in this, but I'd much rather the vote is based on fact and reality. Not some emotionally charged sense of perceived difference and victim hood.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Maths Tutor
Yes, even a six year old would understand that.

What you need to understand is that comparitive statistics refer to PER HEAD of the population. In other words, the National debt per person in England is quite a bit higher than the the National debt per person in Scotland


Your point being?
Original post by Maths Tutor
When did the Scottish people make the decisions how money collected in Scotland is spent?

They don't. They're part of union, which takes into account the needs of every area of the United Kingdom. Are you suggesting that Scotland has not benefited from the union?

Taxes collected in Scotland go directly to the UK Treasury and WESTMINSTER decides how the money is spent. WESTMINSTER is therefore 100% responsible for creating the ONE TRILLION POUNDS PLUS national debt.

There is absolutely no need to capitalises Westminster. As you should be fully aware in how the UK government is made up, the Scottish, welsh, Northern Irish and English people all get equal say in how they are governed. However in terms of representation in the UK government, the Welsh and Scottish get unfair representation in the UK government in comparison to the English.

You're absolutely right, the national debt is 100% responsible of the United Kingdom government. :angry: That includes Scotland. Who were the people responsible for overseeing the finance of the United Kingdom? The PM and Chancellor of the Exchequer? and where were they born? oh wait Scotland :eek:



Chancellor of the Exchequer
Alistair Darling - Chancellor of the Exchequer 28 June 2007 11 May 2010
Gordon Brown - Chancellor of the Exchequer 2 May 1997 27 June 2007

Prime Minister
Tony Blair
Gordon Brown


I have made my point very clearly - the TRILLION POUNDS PLUS national debt has not been created by the Scottish government, the SNP or Alex Salmond - the three entitities who are blamed for everything by the anti-Independence axis. It is YOUR comment that IS "absurd".

My comment is not "absurd". I said that the Scottish people contributed to the debt of the United Kingdom. However to suggest that the Scottish government and the SNP are this peace lovely party is *******


What % of the vote did the SNP get and what % of seats in the Scottish parliament?

Can you please refrain from being patronizing, it does not add to the debate.

What % of the vote did the Conservatives get and what % of seats in the UK parliament?

You should clearly be able to see the point I am making. You continue to shout down the conservatives in Scotland due to the fact of how many seats they have in the Scottish parliament but that does not remove the fact that over 245,967 voted for them in the last election.


Above. The "Scottish people" are just as much to blame (if not more) for the current situation we are in now.
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 1190
Original post by MatureStudent36
Well said. I look forward to 16 year olds being able to drink and smoke.

i look forward to new born baby's being given the vote as they are our future.


i look forward to our future being told what to vote as they've had little experience of life. The trials and tribulations. The ups and downs. The sense of common purpose and achievements. Not just some snap moment in time.

i look forward to the slightly socially awkward nature of politically active 16 year olds attempting to change my future as well.

we all get a vote in this, but I'd much rather the vote is based on fact and reality. Not some emotionally charged sense of perceived difference and victim hood.


Please tell me when I said I agreed with 16 year olds getting married and having a baby? Go tell me the fact is its legal and there is nothing anyone else can do about that , I feel the SNP's are doing the right thing , as if the government has made that legal , then 16 year olds should have the RIGHT to vote , ALSO please tell when I stated about 16 year olds drinking and smoking , I am talking about the vote , don't know what your talking about , so stop twisting what iam saying to suit you , and start facing reality.
Original post by Megan1234567
Please tell me when I said I agreed with 16 year olds getting married and having a baby? Go tell me the fact is its legal and there is nothing anyone else can do about that , I feel the SNP's are doing the right thing , as if the government has made that legal , then 16 year olds should have the RIGHT to vote , ALSO please tell when I stated about 16 year olds drinking and smoking , I am talking about the vote , don't know what your talking about , so stop twisting what iam saying to suit you , and start facing reality.



you never said 16 year olds should smoke or drink. I'm merely highlighting inconsistencies. Legally you can do done things at one age, but not the other? It's wreaks of hypocrisy. A government should always have a balanced approach. If they don't then something is flawed. The flaw is they want to give 16 year old the right to vote to support them, but do not trust them to smoke, drink, drive or serve on jury's. all I'm saying is there should be consistency.

at 16 though you're being asked to make choices on your future when you've experienced very little of the present. Have you worked? Have you paid taxes? Have you had to arrange a mortgage or fill out official adminstrative paperwork? The answer is probably no. And therefore although emotionally 16 year old should have the right to vote, why are we stopping at 16. Why not 15, 14, 10, 5 or 1 because the arguments still stand for those age groups. It's their future too.

its a promise by exploitative politicians who do in an attempt to win votes. Nothing more, nothing less. At some point once 16 is the norm then somebody will come along and say 14 just in an attempt to gain more votes. I feel that in this case exploitation is the key word, not empowerment.


you didn't implicitly say that 16 year olds should marry. But you have linked the age of marriage here of 16 as the right to vote. People have just questioned that many people think that 16 is too young to marry.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by FinalMH
.


Should the "Better Together" campaign be trusted considering it is being spearheaded by Alistair Darling?

Anyway, I wonder how Ireland (who by the way, scored better than the UK in the prosperity index) will cope with the sudden realisation of a **** ton of oil off their coast.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/9824252/Hopes-of-third-big-oil-find-off-Irish-coast.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-19889948
http://www.irishnews.com/business/ireland-could-be-hiding-huge-stores-of-oil-and-gas-1220827
Original post by Midlander
Your point being?


I think he's trying to point out it's an English problem....Conveniently forgetting the Welsh, Northern Irish and the rather large Bank located in Edinburgh that seemed to be the initiator for this chaos and collamity, whilst also convieniently forgetting that the SNPs future growth strategy depends on borrowing as much as possible to and then giving away economic levers to brussels.

He seems to not realise that he had as much right to vote in Westminster parties as his English, Welsh and Northern Irish Bretheren.

He seemed to forget when the going was good it was wrapped up as a Scottish Success. But now it's bad it's a British failure. (Reversal of the unproven Andy Murray syndrome anybody that the Yes campaign like to grief whore about. :smile:)

He seems to forget that when the going get tough, you can all work together as part of a team to better the situation for yourself and those all around you. Or you can pull the duvet covers over your head and wish your problems away......the problem is they won't go away.

He seems to have a porocial voew of the world no doubt fed by his distrust, and failure to have an open mind.

He seems to forget that Politicians can break promises in the future and when there's huge upheavel have a perfectly good reason to explain their mistruths away.

Incidentally. I'm no labour supporter, but Alistair Darling although looking quite odd, did actually strike me as one of Labours better cabinet postings. After all, he did do a decent job as Chancellor. And to be honest, he hasn't exactly been caught out telling any huge whoppers in his career. Entry to Europe, secretive reduction in spending post divorce.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by cowsforsale
Should the "Better Together" campaign be trusted considering it is being spearheaded by Alistair Darling?

Anyway, I wonder how Ireland (who by the way, scored better than the UK in the prosperity index) will cope with the sudden realisation of a **** ton of oil off their coast.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/9824252/Hopes-of-third-big-oil-find-off-Irish-coast.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-19889948
http://www.irishnews.com/business/ireland-could-be-hiding-huge-stores-of-oil-and-gas-1220827


Yes. This is great news for the Irish. It almost makes up for the 70 year flawed economy they had based on populist nationalist drivel.

Lets look at the English shall we. And this is just one county. (But they do have their own flag, culture, history etc. They can start to re introduce the identity politics of the Kingdom of Rheged.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-21296679

How long till some dreamer in Ireland near the oil fields starts claiming that Cork is some how different to the rest of Ireland. Feed the greed. It happens everywhere near oil fields. Short sighted muppetry. Coming to a location near you. Supported by every extreme left wing fringe grouping whilst failing to realise that they're following a right wing agenda.

But remember all of it will be wrapped up in a fluffy surroundings of a social union.

Tell me Cowsforsale. Was that post driven by an indepth dislike of the English, as the Shal gas story has been all over the news? Infact PWC have also highlighted that Shale Gas exploitation is going to impact on North Sea Oil Prices in the wrong direction.

http://standpointmag.co.uk/node/4361/full
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-21447025

I'd like access to all revenue streams that the UK can produce to build a farer, more economically stable environment.

Anyway. Nobodys been able to answer why we don't have the lowest cases of Child poverty in Scotland with an increased spending per head.
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 1195
Original post by MatureStudent36
you never said 16 year olds should smoke or drink. I'm merely highlighting inconsistencies. Legally you can do done things at one age, but not the other? It's wreaks of hypocrisy. A government should always have a balanced approach. If they don't then something is flawed. The flaw is they want to give 16 year old the right to vote to support them, but do not trust them to smoke, drink, drive or serve on jury's. all I'm saying is there should be consistency.

at 16 though you're being asked to make choices on your future when you've experienced very little of the present. Have you worked? Have you paid taxes? Have you had to arrange a mortgage or fill out official adminstrative paperwork? The answer is probably no. And therefore although emotionally 16 year old should have the right to vote, why are we stopping at 16. Why not 15, 14, 10, 5 or 1 because the arguments still stand for those age groups. It's their future too.

its a promise by exploitative politicians who do in an attempt to win votes. Nothing more, nothing less. At some point once 16 is the norm then somebody will come along and say 14 just in an attempt to gain more votes. I feel that in this case exploitation is the key word, not empowerment.


you didn't implicitly say that 16 year olds should marry. But you have linked the age of marriage here of 16 as the right to vote. People have just questioned that many people think that 16 is too young to marry.


I agree with you with the concept that getting married at 16 is way too young as for having children forget it. But like it or not we live in a world where 16 year olds are having children and are getting married and at the age of 16 is when life begins if you like it's when you do your higher so I feel the SNP is looking into account of all these factors and simply giving 16 year olds another right to elect who they want. However if you ask me the law makes no sense at 16 you can marry and have children yet not watch an 18 rated film or drive to me it makes no sense and they will always be people opposing against the rights and wrongs of the law.
Original post by FinalMH
Above. The "Scottish people" are just as much to blame (if not more) for the current situation we are in now.


That's not fare. It was British politicians........and realistically it was a global economic meltdown.

I remember discussing this with my father. As a die hard socialist, he still seems to think that the Torys, whilst in opposition managed to screw over the whole world......Kind of goes against his argument that the UK is a declining power if the opposition party has that much of an impact on the global eceonomy.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Megan1234567
I agree with you with the concept that getting married at 16 is way too young as for having children forget it. But like it or not we live in a world where 16 year olds are having children and are getting married and at the age of 16 is when life begins if you like it's when you do your higher so I feel the SNP is looking into account of all these factors and simply giving 16 year olds another right to elect who they want. However if you ask me the law makes no sense at 16 you can marry and have children yet not watch an 18 rated film or drive to me it makes no sense and they will always be people opposing against the rights and wrongs of the law.



Yet if you can vote at 16 why can't you have children at 16? Inconsistencies Megan. Inconsistencies. You'll have to explain yourself.

Why the delay in repsonding? Is it shift change or something?
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by MatureStudent36
That's not fare. It was British politicians........and realistically it was a global economic meltdown.

I remember discussing this with my father. As a die hard socialist, he still seems to think that the Torys, whilst in opposition managed to screw over the whole world......Kind of goes against his argument that the UK is a declining power if the opposition party has that much of an impact on the global eceonomy.


I am fully aware that my comment is not fair, but life is not fair (However I did say if). I just get annoyed with these Scottish people saying its the English fault, and we are to blame... etc (Which such assertion is unfounded.)

:laugh: Well it was thanks to the Torys that the war in Iraq went through parliament.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by MatureStudent36

Tell me Cowsforsale. Was that post driven by an indepth dislike of the English, as the Shal gas story has been all over the news?

Actually no. I posted it in jest, considering how much hysteria is surrounding Scotland and oil. I wonder if the scaremongers will be out in full force against Ireland ala "ooo oil is going to run out", "can't trust oil" "volatile prices" etc..etc..

I don't even know where you get this idea that I hate England?
My first post in this thread even mentioned that the vote was for independence, and not necessarily to be ruled by SNP. Not to mention I even asked why are people pointing fingers at the independence campaign considering how little is being spent on the North of England compared to London. Seems like it's you who has the cloudier outlook considering you're constant jibes at Alex Salmond, SNP and co and nothing else.

Infact PWC have also highlighted that Shale Gas exploitation is going to impact on North Sea Oil Prices in the wrong direction.

http://standpointmag.co.uk/node/4361/full
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-21447025


Did you even read the articles fully or did your confirmation bias distort your reading comprehension skills?

From the standpoint mag

1) "A lot of nonsense is talked about the prospects for shale gas in Britain, both for and against. Advocates claim that there are gigantic reserves just waiting to be tapped, and that the North American phenomenon could easily be replicated here. Opponents and they are in the vocal majority say that fracking (hydraulic fracturing)poisons the water supply and causes earthquakes; they also worry that renewing Britain's search for hydrocarbons will divert investment away from renewables.

The truth as usual lies somewhere between."

2) "Last September Cuadrilla announced that it had identified reserves in place of 200 trillion cubic feet roughly 20 times the proven reserves of conventional natural gas in the North Sea. Even assuming only a 10 per cent recovery rate very conservative by North American standards this one find potentially trebles Britain's gas reserves, and provides George Osborne and his successors at the Treasury with an enormous opportunity."

3) ""Any development must sit with our plans for a strong portfolio of energy sources as we move to a low carbon economy, including renewables, nuclear and clean coal and gas."


I wonder why Westminster are so against Scotland wanting independence :eek:

BBC article and from Mr PWC spokesman himself,


"Alastair Geddes, director of PwC's oil and gas team in Aberdeen, said: "Shale oil represents another exciting opportunity for the industry, particularly oilfield services companies.

"However, if we are to become a key international player in this market, a move that could positively impact investment, employment and economic growth across the region and the UK, then we need to grasp the opportunity with both hands.

"We can't afford to be in the slow lane".

BBC really do try and remain impartial don't they?:rolleyes:


Fracking 'could benefit Scottish energy sector'
"The British Geological Survey estimated only 10%-20% of the UK shale gas reserve may be recoverable. Mr Dixon said the Scottish oil industry has large opportunities in catering to the renewable sector, notably wind power, and from decommissioning old North Sea oil fields.

He said: "There really is not any need to think about stuff that is difficult to extract and potentially contaminating.".

Kevin Forbes, chief executive of jobs portal Oilandgaspeople.com, said
there has been little competition from the new energy industries for experienced North Sea employees but the oil industry is losing graduates to the renewables sector.


So potential investment in both sectors, win win for independent scotland?

PWC estimates exploitation of shale oil could push global oil prices down by up to 40%.


And yet

This would benefit oil importers and could add up to 5% to UK GDP."
(edited 11 years ago)

Latest