Wouldn't make a difference Scully - the oil reserves would still be in Scottish waters. Independence, or 'moving back' to Norway, for either Shetland or Orkney would only entitle them to claim the surrounding 12 miles of waters & the oil reserves lie outside of that in both cases.
Now that doesn't make much sense - the poor and those on benefits don't actually pay any tax... I think you've missed the point with Thatcher - the hatred of her has little to do with the Poll Tax. It stems mainly from a) the 1979 referendum in which certain powers were promised by Westminster in return for a No vote, promises that were totally reneged upon when the No vote was delivered, and b) the complete decimation of Scotland's mining, shipbuilding and steel industries for no reason other than spite, and then walking away leaving a virtual industrial wasteland with hundreds of thousands unemployed. To rub salt into the wounds, she then started what IDS & Cameron have so ably continued - the branding of those unemployed as lazy, feckless scroungers. Nice or what?
"It seems that people living in Scotland can't lose, whichever way the vote goes, with politicians in Westminster promising them the earth if they vote no and the SNP promising them a new golden age if they vote yes! For me, the word politician means lying, cheating, thieving confidence trickster so I doubt that it will make much difference which way they vote, they will still be screwed by those they vote into government. We live at present in something called The United Kingdom, i.e. a union of Nations. Why is it that only one (relatively) small part of this Kingdom is being allowed to vote on whether or not to dissolve the union? Where's my say? Personally I'd vote yes, if only so that the BBC wouldn't have to report on their useless third rate football teams!" To quote onme edson from the Spurs thread I reckon this is the opinion which most closely matches mine except that I remain in favour of the Union. It's also the one comment you answered, regardless as to whether I agree with your overall opinion or not, with a somewhat unsatisfactory response. As I've taken the time to trawl through 8 pages of debate, perhaps you might give this a bit more of a considered answer rather than just a critique of the voting options in England?
This is the classic England centric view and and a source of greivance among some of my Scots friends. You will need to set aside your England hat for the moment and consider what this referendum is about. Should Scotland be an Independent Country? This is a question for the people of Scotland, those that live and work there. Yes it will effect the rest of the UK but nevertheless it is not for them to decide Scotland's future. Let's look at another example: Cameron says he will have a referendum on 'IN OUT for the UK in the EU' This will effect the rest of the EU but you would not expect Germany or France or Belguim, etc to have a vote in this referrendum would you? Scotland is a Country, it is not a region of the UK. Scotland being able to make it's own decisions is what this is all about.
Should the same apply to Cornwall in your opinion? Where does this all end? As I said in my very first post I think it is a shame that Westminster has driven Scotland to this but I do have a sincere distrust of politicians and although I accept that some go into these things for the noblest of reasons most are corrupted in some way by the power. And ultimately I suspect that you see an independent Scotland as advantageous for you personally but it may not turn out to be necessarily so for the whole of the people these islands. Not really sure that the EU and the UK really stands up to much comparison except in the most superficial of terms. And either way it appears to me that Scotland is on a win-win here: brave new world if it's a YES, the goalposts moved significantly if it's a NO. All that said, I'm outta here. Nice debating with you but as my opinion doesn't actually count for anything it seems then I'm done.
I don't really give a monkey's which way the vote goes. What I do care about is a fundamental question which I have never heard discussed, either because it has been avoided or because I don't really listen to the debates unless the radio happens to be on when they are talking about it. My concern is this: Should there be a yes vote for independence is my assumption that all Scottish MPs will immediately resign from Westminster and never be replaced. It would seem ludicrous to have representatives from one country voting on issues which don't concern them. I am wondering if the reason I have never heard this issue being debated is because there is no intention for this mass resignation to take place. To continue the theme of a previous post, we don't have German or French MPs at Westminster, so in the aftermath of a yes vote, why should there be any from Scotland? Please can someone clarify the situation for me.
Before I get my head bitten off, this already happens when the House of Commons debates purely English topics. It was the former MP Tam Dalyell who coined the phrase "the West Lothian Question" to cover just this eventuality. The Scottish Parliament, The Welsh Assembly and the Northern Irish Assembly has almost removed the reverse from happening where MPs from the rest of the UK don't vote on "local to NI, Scotland or Wales" issues, it still happens but not to the level of total Westminster control of pre-devolved power days.
I suspect no one south of the border (unless they are Scottish (and they cannot vote)) really cares very much. Would I be right in supposing that the rest of the Union are fed up with the wingeing that we get from Scotland? - as someone who lives here, I am. As I live here I have a vested interest in this I am wary of living in a socialist state under the leadership of Alex Salmond (or subsequent Scottish labour governments). I am also very concerned about the value of my pension and investments should there no longer be a currency union. The biggest difficulty is actually knowing what this all means if it's a Yes - there are so many issues to be resolved from the minor ones mentioned by Leo to extremely important ones such as tax, currency, NHS.... As Leo says I doubt if anyone has even started talking about them yet, even the big issues other than chuck out sound bites. If Scotland leaves the Union, so be it, but surely better to get over the chip on the shoulder thing and set up a dialogue with Westminster to air the issues and hopefully come to some consensus? Oh we are talking about politicians here and nobody trusts them.
Absolutely, no one has ever addressed this issue and if anything the English ought to be really P****d off with this, especially as Scotland has a very distorting effect on the make up of the Westminster parliament.
The more I hear in this debate the more I realise that some Scots do not care at all about the Union. For them it is Scotland first last and always. That is a reasonalbe opinion. It is a shame though that if the vote is Yes then a vast number of Scots who are fiercely proud of their country but also value the Union will lose it. They account for at least half of the population unless the polls are very wrong. They will never ever get another chance to link in with the rest of the UK. However if there is a NO vote we know that the next referendum will be only a few years away. I see what Spurf means when he says that they will win eventually. The Yes campaigners will carry on until they wear everyone else down. I smile when I hear argument s from the likes of Spurf. He claims to use facts and that others don't but in reality all he does is use favourable quotes and ignores or denigrates the people who oppose his view. He talks of the No campaign being based on questions -well it has to be doesn't it. If I know my house is standing up well and sombody proposes removing a wall is it not correct to ask questions about the future safety and to ensure that those proposing to pull the wall down have thought it through fully and know the answers to important questions. Instead the Yes campaign seem to be arguing that it is fine to pull the wall down and then discuss what to do about the house's future. I almost hope the Yes campaign succeeds as we will then have an end to the whingeing of the Scots about how every evil comes from the nasty bankers and Westminster. However I suspect they will still find a way to transfer blame after independence if it all goes belly up - when did they ever accept personal responsibility - after all the Union was forced on them - was it? My brother lives near Aberdeen and has built up his own successful business there over the last 25 years. He fears a Yes vote will harm his and many other small businesses in Scotland as especially uncertainty over currency and other fiscal and financial matters will make getting the necessary continuing support of the banks there much moree expensive and harder. The Scots had better hope he is one of a minority who will move their businesses south of the border after independence. I know the Scots will say good riddance to people like him and blame him for still being English but they may think again if they see their economy suffering.
Wales has historically returned many more Labour MPs than the other parties, be they Conservative, Liberal, Liberal Democrat, Plaid Cymru and others, combined. Scotland on the other hand has seen a drift to the left, in 1951 for example the Labour and Conservative parties had 35 seats each and now the representation is 41 to 1. Strangely Wales has maintained a constant number of MPs and Scotland's number is slowly reducing (1951 - 71 and 2010 - 59). You can argue it's democracy that a Conservative England holds sway through a huge popular vote in England or Labour has the same but their representation is spread throughout the UK. Come Scottish independence we are likely to see more Conservative governments in what is left in the UK and more left wing governments north of the border, which may in time become more central on the political scale, who knows?
It's already ludicrous as you have Scottish MPs voting on English issues as well as their counterparts voting on the same devolved issues in Edinburgh. I hope we are to receive repatriation rights and expenses if independence happens, I for one will not live under a Salmond socialist regime whilst Scotland slides into disarray which will be the result. It'll take about 20 years to turn Scotland into a third world country but you know Salmond can and will do it.
I am surprised the Tories don't want a yes vote... as it will see the BBC in big trouble! http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...sh-independence-bbc-scotland-income?CMP=fb_gu
I would just like to say that Edinburgh full of nasty bankers it being an important financial centre. The Yes campaign makes a big point of this when pointing out many of Scotland's strengths. Some of the worst "nasty" bankers are in fact of Scottish origin - RBS, Bank of Scotland, didn't they do well?
But the Yes argument is that if Scotland was already independent their bankers "maybe" would not have demonstrated the excesses of the bankers in London and their friends in Westminster and a Scottish government would have "maybe" established stronger controls over said bankers. But as you state the worst excesses where by Scottish banks in collusion and support from a Scottish PM. Funniest claim I have read by the Yes campaign was that after independence Scotland would receive all of the Income Tax receipts from RBS employees - ignoring the fact that most of their employees are based in England working for Nat West (whatever did happen to the plan to re-brand all Nat West branches with RBS?)
I saw an arguement that said if Orkneyjar and Hjaltlandseyjar, which are obvious with Katanes, Suðrland and Suðreyjar also, go to Norway they have 12 miles of territorial water and Scotland 200 miles. Surely all would have to half distance to the nearest land or 200 miles what ever is smaller. With the usual division from international marine law. If Scotland are planning to base their expense on oil what happens when it expires. Holland has spent their gas money and are in trouble because they made too much spending on welfare for their people.
Fair point - but the expiry date is somewhere well into the future. The current oil fields around the Shetlands - west and east - are estimated to last until 2050. After that, there is the question of the oil find to the west of Scotland - estimated to be the largest in the world. Westminster have kept that under wraps because tapping in to it would apparently interfere with access in and out of the country for their nuclear submarines. As for any forward thinking country, you'd like to think that proper management of that resource will allow ample time to create and build other industries, something that has been sadly lacking in this country for quite a while now. An equally valid question from this side of the fence might be 'The UK government place most of their eggs in the financial services industry basket - what would happen when that folds?' The US banks, for example, are already drawing up contingency plans which involve moving from London to Dublin - if that happens, what have the UK got to fall back upon?
Please don't fall for that rubbish!! I wish we had found this super field off the shetlands but fact is we haven't. I know guys who were on the rig, forget the conspiracy theory. We're suffering from investment hold back already because of the uncertainty and the fact is Salmond will need a bigger future tax take to fund his crackpot socialist ideas hence we will be doomed to a Venezuelan style slide in output and ever declining tax takes. It really is a disastrous scenario and in the event of independence you'll see me changing handle to rockyhornet if I get my way I'll be off stateside along with a vast swathe of oilfield talent....
