Why do you want them to fail? Did you think the same for the Baltic States, former Yugoslavia countries etc when they got independence? Similar circumstances, forced union but countries which retained their own sense of identity despite political structures. And some of them seem to be doing rather well now. No reason to expect that the Scots would not as well, they have a lot going for them. Lots of nice golf courses for one thing. Shortbread. Some interesting facts in here Col http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-24866266 There's a lot of very biased stuff on the net about this, but I reckon the BBC is a safe-ish source. Revenue, taxation, employment, average salaries etc are about the same once you take oil out of the equation. But the Scots spend about £2k per head more on public services, which is where the 'subsidy' argument comes in. It may be that oil tax revenues have more than covered this in the last 30 years. Not sure why it has to be 'full on', 'once and for all' independence though. It'll be a negotiation in which all sides can win. And it will develop over time. Fashions change, hairstyles change, political and economic circumstances change. Otherwise we'd still be in the Roman Empire. But it's irrelevant because they probably won't vote to leave, people fear change. A gift from Swords, who I am also channelling, apparently. Apologies to his official mouthpiece, Mr DT, but this passed the quality control test. These people are a powerful argument for a fully manned border, visa system, tank traps, minefield and detention centres. Anything to keep these Unionists out of the Union. [video=youtube_share;pmGjiokfQ2A]http://youtu.be/pmGjiokfQ2A[/video]
Impact of a Yes vote: 1. Massive tax rises in Scotland to pay for all the things Salmond has promised, or 630 pages of broken promises 2. The scottish legal system tied up with endless court cases where they have (for example) given free university education to French kids but charged English kids nine grand a year. 3. Major downturn in all public services through lack of revenue 4. Labour in England consigned to the opposition forever (so not all bad) 5. No continuation of sterling (not his decision) 6. No decent BBC services (not his decision) 7. No NATO membership (not his decision) 8. No EU membership (not his decision)..... etc. He's printed a 630 page book of fairy tales, lies and propaganda, which if accepted will destroy Scotland as a nation but will cement his place in history, which is all he's really interested in....... Oh and removing Trident to England will almost certainly mean all that stuff about saving the Clyde shipyards will be reversed, so massive revenue and job losses. But a boost to England.
The problem with Scotland maintaining Sterling, is their main source of income (at least initially) would be oil, which is priced in Dollars. This would cause major issues, where GBP/USD rate changed significanty, which is does on a consistent basis. But for me the major arguments put forward by SNP, is trying to tempt voters saying they would be financially better off. Whereas the major talking point should be, whether Scotland wants its own national identity if there is a cost to pay, that really shouldn't enter the argument. Typical politicians cheapening what should be a potentially historical turning point for the country. I personally think the English should get a vote on whether England should leave the Union. Everyone else seems to have a right, to question their destiny ??
I haven't read the full 630 pages yet, have you? As KPD says, its a real shame that this has been reduced to 'what do we get out of it' politics when it could be a romantic and exciting debate about identity and sacrifice. But thats the politics of negative freedom for you. Come on Uber, I'm sure you have an interesting take on this.
Deep fryers ... Iron Bru, Celtic. keep them. I am only concerned about our underwater ally and the beauty of that country [video=youtube;-XCl3tPSgIA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XCl3tPSgIA[/video]
Couple of things: Firstly the 'oil revenue' is 80% overseas companies, so divide your numbers by 5, then take into account anything more than 12 miles offshore stays where it is as far as ownership goes. Secondly, BBC won't provide services to an independent Scotland becaise they cannot raise taxation in a foreign country - so the thing about license revenue is rubbish. Add to that the fact that the EU and NATO have both already said there's no fast tracking, the Bank of England have said that for Sterling to remain the currency, they will need to remain in control of fiscal policy. Which Scotland would ever allow. So that's also a no. Basically Scotland would be completely screwed by allowing an egomaniac like Salmond to take charge.
1 Scotland ups the tax on the oil piped onto Scottish soil 2 There is a grown up discussion and the BBC keeps its license fee 3 Fast tracking - ever heard of realpolitik? NATO in particular a shoe in. 4. Salmond has already said that he would cede interest rates and inflation targets to the Bank of England 5. I'm right on Labour and the Clyde then, Whoppee. 6. Why does it make you so angry? 7. These practicalities are boring, indicators of small and narrow minds. Do you not see the romance of a country regaining its identity?
I obviously don't know exactly how the question will be phrased on the ballot paper but surely there are many possible steps short of complete separation. Should Britain not be looking more at the possibility of decentralizing power away from London and towards self governing regions, such as South West, North East etc. ? Developing a more federal type of government similar to e.g. Germany, where there is a government and minister president for Bavaria etc. without any suggestion that Germany has ceased to exist as a result. Great Britain has been centred on London for too long - so that not just Scots but also Geordies etc. feel that government is in London, by London and for London, and therein lies the problem
The question is a very simple one: "Should Scotland be an independent country?" Thats all. England has no history of regional government, and all attempts to float it have been met with apathy. Unlike Germany and Italy (and to a certain extent Spain) which are relatively new countries with strong regional identities.
Romance, yes. Any sensible, fiscal, legal, economic... lets face it, sane reason? No. And the only reason it angers me is that I can see the consequences far better from an objective viewpoint than those being hoodwinked by Salmond into signing away their future for his place in history.
And people wonder why i grew up in a Rathcoole and hate Glasgow Rangers,As for the lad in the england shirt i think he may vote no.......... The fact is if they scots vote yes the rest of us are stuck with the Tories forever. That said i did watch the show and think all of the panel was beyond ****e. Worse of all that binlid who gave the world one of the worst songs ever and was rude to everyone and for someone who only made up her mind in may she ranted like a right one on the brave new world of independence without actually making a point .
Right...........I've watched the programme now. It is another example of the institutionally left wing BBC allowing like-minded panellists to interrupt and shout down anyone they don't agree with. I used to enjoy QT, but over time this has become more and more prevalent. Dimbleby continually allows left wing speakers more time to put across their view and lets them interrupt everyone else. Other speakers are cut short and kept more in line. There is also some evidence of the audience being "loaded" in favour of left wing views at times. Thursday night's programme was the same again, with the left wing flame haired woman, incidentally the only non-politician on the show, being allowed to scream and rant and shout down everyone else. Her agenda was clear, as is the agenda of the SNP and that is to gain far reaching left wing control of a Nation that has historically always been heavily in favour of left wing politics. That's fine, but let's not get lulled into believing that this is some romantic cause to become independent. It's a short term agenda to get Salmond into power and never have to "take" it from the Tories. The Scots could well hugely regret voting yes in 50 years' time.
Col - Is there any chance I could enlist your help in setting up a new branch of the Anarcho/Communist Party of Staines, in honour of the great Chairman Mao ?? We could do with an extra pair of hands
The BBC Left wing ok so Nick Robinson was never head of the young tories? Patton was never a tory minister ect its about as left wing as thatcher
