Scotch Independence - the countdown

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!

Should Scotland be an Independent Country?

  • Yes

  • No


Results are only viewable after voting.
In the US it has significantly boosted domestic oil production and driven down gas prices. It is estimated to have offered gas security to the US and Canada for about 100 years, and has presented an opportunity to generate electricity at half the CO2 emissions of coal.

The industry suggests fracking of shale gas could contribute significantly to the UK's future energy needs.

Aye it sounds ****e right enough.
 
The geology and geography of the USA and Canada is different to Scotland. Do you think the SNP would have 'banned' fracking if they thought it would make Scotland a rich country?

Or maybe they're waiting for independence so that London doesn't get all the tax revenue to prop up the English economy (like they've been doing with oil for the past 40 years).
 
In the US it has significantly boosted domestic oil production and driven down gas prices. It is estimated to have offered gas security to the US and Canada for about 100 years, and has presented an opportunity to generate electricity at half the CO2 emissions of coal.

The industry suggests fracking of shale gas could contribute significantly to the UK's future energy needs.

Aye it sounds ****e right enough.

Whilst destroying the environment, poisoning water supplies and ****ing things up.

Big Woop.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Void
The geology and geography of the USA and Canada is different to Scotland. Do you think the SNP would have 'banned' fracking if they thought it would make Scotland a rich country?

Or maybe they're waiting for independence so that London doesn't get all the tax revenue to prop up the English economy (like they've been doing with oil for the past 40 years).

We own you, therefore the oil is ours.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Void
The geology and geography of the USA and Canada is different to Scotland. Do you think the SNP would have 'banned' fracking if they thought it would make Scotland a rich country?

Or maybe they're waiting for independence so that London doesn't get all the tax revenue to prop up the English economy (like they've been doing with oil for the past 40 years).
Says on stv news it’s banned.
 
Whilst destroying the environment, poisoning water supplies and ****ing things up.

Big Woop.

If that's the case then I'd be against it.

They don't know yet tho. Scotland might not even be suitable for it.
 
It's an indefinite moratorium on fracking, however the **** that works. It means it's effectively 'banned' but doesn't leave the Scottish Government open to being sued by companies like Ineos.

...so, banned then.

Ya fanny.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Toley Fart
It's an indefinite moratorium on fracking, however the **** that works. It means it's effectively 'banned' but doesn't leave the Scottish Government open to being sued by companies like Ineos.
Says it’ll be defo banned in next month but I’ll take your word for it, squire.
 
...so, banned then.

Ya fanny.

No. If it was banned the Scottish Gov't could face legal challenges from the likes of INEOS. With a moratorium it's not permanently banned so INEOS has no legal footing for challenging it.

The downside is that if another party, say the Tories, get into power they could easily overturn it.

The SNP could ban it but they would likely face a legal challenge. If they lost it would open Scotland to fracking. If they won it would mean fracking would likely be banned forever - if a future government tried to overturn a ban it would face years of legal challenges costing millions of pounds.

So, an extended moratorium is the best they can do at the moment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Void
No. If it was banned the Scottish Gov't could face legal challenges from the likes of INEOS. With a moratorium it's not permanently banned so INEOS has no legal footing for challenging it.

The downside is that if another party, say the Tories, get into power they could easily overturn it.

The SNP could ban it but they would likely face a legal challenge. If they lost it would open Scotland to fracking. If they won it would mean fracking would likely be banned forever - if a future government tried to overturn a ban it would face years of legal challenges costing millions of pounds.

So, an extended moratorium is the best they can do at the moment.

"That's nice, Tarquin.

Now wheres my danish, boy!?"

-Nazi Nic
 
  • Like
Reactions: Void