Off Topic Great Britain General Election May 7th 2015.

They shouldn't be allowed to use English as their first language nor be able to watch the BBC either. They can keep Murdoch and the Scottish Sun though, as they seem to be so attached to each other now.

 

If Scotland becomes independent their case is going to be worse than that of Greece .

 

You really have no clue do you

Scotland is far more likely to end up like Norway than Greece ROFL. Cost of living will skyrocket in an oil rich small independent Scotland

Scotland has been pillaged for centuries and all the wealth ending up south of the border.

With the oil they'd have as an independent country, given the population a Norway outcome is far more likely, regardless of all the fear mongering used by the BBC and co.

What would be important as a small oil rich nation is they stay the **** out of the EU

 

Oil producing countries are now getting scared because of impending alternatives, don't think Scotland
is going to be excluded.

 

If and when there is another economic crash (and there will be -we're worse off now than in 2007, and we haven't got another half trillion to bail the banks out this time) we -England- have practically no manufacturing base, a balance of payments deficit ratio of three to one, our chief export is the 'services' of pushing other people's money around, and our major financial 'savings' are tied up in a housing bubble in the Home Counties, based upon the buy-to-let principle of over-priced rents to tenants on welfare and rent support that is now about to be capped even further.

With oil prices rising again, if I were the Krauts I wouldn't see Scotland as anything remotely like Greece, AND they have thousands of miles of coastline and the fisheries that the EU would keep, leaving the rump UK a blob in the North Sea and around the Scilly Isles.

I despise the Nats and what they've done, but they made up 15% to go from 30 to 45% in two months before the referendum, and if we vote to leave the EU (or indeed pull out of the ECHR or legislate draconian anti-union laws or welfare clampdowns and don't let the Scots opt out on them ) they'll simply make the issue of the next Scottish parliament a mandate on a new referendum and hold it whether Cameron allows it or not. That should make Murdoch eventually take a side!

Wonder if the Tories will imprison the Nats under these new anti-terror legislations as being 'un-democratic' - or will the Nats do likewise to the Tories?

As my ancestors' curse went 'May you live in an interesting time', and we certainly do.

 

The only caveat though to the above case FOR Scottish independence around oil is the Shetland isles. They voted heavily against independence, and under the same rules being quoted by the Nats, the could break off from Scotland or stay as part of the UK, or independently become part of the EU (though why they'd do that is beyond me). A richer principality than Monaco if they did. I only hope a family up there supports Liverpool, as they'd be in the same league as Arab potentates.

 

Prince Charles's letters published

• 11 minutes ago
• From the section UK

please log in to view this image

The release of Prince Charles's private letters follows a decade-long campaign by the Guardian
Private letters sent by the Prince of Wales to Labour ministers a decade ago have been published after a lengthy legal battle.
Clarence House said the move would "only inhibit" the prince's ability to express concerns.
In one letter to the prime minister, the prince said the armed forces were being asked to do a challenging job "without the necessary resources".
Release of the letters follows a decade-long campaign by the Guardian.
The 27 letters to seven government departments on wide ranging subjects, including the dominance of supermarkets, badger culling and the herbal medicine sector, were written between September 2004 and April 2005.
A government veto on publication was declared unlawful by the Court of Appeal last year - a decision which was upheld by the Supreme Court in March.

please log in to view this image

In one letter to the prime minister from September 2004, the prince expressed concern that the Army Air Corp's ability to deploy equipment was being "frustrated by the poor performance of the existing Lynx aircraft in high temperatures".
He added: "Despite this, the procurement of a new aircraft to replace the Lynx is subject to further delays and uncertainty due to the significant pressure on the Defence Budget.
"I fear that this is just one more example of where our Armed Forces are being asked to do an extremely challenging job (particularly in Iraq) without the necessary resources."
The then Prime Minister Tony Blair replied a month later that he found the prince's letter "constructive and thought provoking" and that the limitations of the existing Lynx helicopters were recognised by the Ministry of Defence.

please log in to view this image

In February 2005, Prince Charles wrote a letter to Mr Blair in which he said the "dominant position" of retailers was the "single biggest issue affecting British farmers and the food chain".
The prince referred to "some particularly shocking examples" of retailers' behaviour, continuing: "If it is not dealt with all the other good work which has been going on risks becoming virtually useless."
'Badger lobby'
In the same letter, the prince said the rising numbers of tuberculosis (TB) cases in cattle were a "most pressing and urgent problem", which had been "caused and spread" by badgers.
He wrote: "I do urge you to look again at introducing a proper cull of badgers where it is necessary.
"I, for one, cannot understand how the 'badger lobby' seem to mind not at all about the slaughter of thousands of expensive cattle, and yet object to a managed cull of an over-population of badgers - to me, this is intellectually dishonest

 

lol, alternatives, impending, hahahahahahaha. Not laughing at you, just the idea of oil being replaced

You're kidding right. Take a look around you, everything has oil in it or in getting it to you. Things like toothpaste, has oil in it, in it's container and making it used oil, the ingredeints cost oil to grow mine or manufacter everything about that tube of toothpaste has an oil cost.

Now that's just toothpaste. dont get me started on cars or some ****, how many tyres in the world? How many combustion engines that cannot be converted and must be replaced? How about the device you use to post here? Think about the oil related to that. Agriculture is utterly dependent on oil.

There isn't a ****ing hope in hell we will stop using oil until it all runs out you mad man


It's pretty ****ing simple though, Scotland would have their own currency, backed by oil. This makes the currency valuable and Scotland would have a good rating internationally in terms of investment, bonds and so on.
Alas the same old problems arise, corruption and mismanagement. But the potential given new oil finds and so on, being an oil producing nation they can tell the EU to like it or ****ing lump it. Scotland would already need to rebuild its economy upon independence regardless of EU membership or not. Those first years would be difficult but given the oil backed Scot pound, there would be no shortage of investment suitors, many of them from good old London's square mile and UK banks.

The fear mongering before the referendum was just that. Such a transition would have difficult years but in the longrun Scots would be paying half what you are for petrol and college and healthcare would be free, if that is how things were done that is.

Lots of potential if you know, poxy politicians weren't so ****ing bent

 

Scotland's heavy reliance on oil as a resource is a huge negative to being a truly successful country as you seem to think it could be. Oil is far too susceptible to market fluctuations that we are currently seeing and fortunately for the SNP they are not having to deal with a budget deficit that would have been brought about with a yes vote.

Years ago when Scotland's oil fields were not proving difficult to tap into then independence would have perhaps been viable, but now it has become much more difficult to extract. This means that without significant investment many of the oil fields would become unviable which is why the combined security of the UK offers great benefits.

Without the security of a shared currency Scotland would also lose much of its financial sector who would have to relocate down south as there would be no lender of last resort. This loss of income would also significantly affect Scotland and the shortfall would have to be made up through other means.

There is also the issue of an ageing society which is especially relevant in Scotland, more so than the rest of the UK. Without a huge influx of immigrant labour (which Salmond clearly indicated as necessary during the referendum) then there would be insufficient people to ensure the necessary growth targets were met.

In short thee are far too many uncertainties with independence which is why the vote was really lost IMO. No doubt the SNP will continue to promote an anti English agenda as they have the power without the responsibility. If the Tories had any sense then they should address this making them as accountable as Westminster is and maybe things would change up there.

 

At present there is a generator that can run on water, solar energy, a plane using solar power just took off recently.Electric cars, they are going to improve on these discoveries, it's only a matter of time.

 

George Osborne to outline city devolution plan for England

please log in to view this image

What is the Northern Powerhouse?

• Should all English cities have mayors?

• Should all English cities be more like Manchester?

• 'Indifferent' reaction to mayor plan

Plans to give English cities powers over housing, transport, planning and policing will be set out in George Osborne's first post-election speech.

Greater Manchester - which will elect a mayor in two years and take on such powers - should become a blueprint for other large cities, he will say.

A Cities Devolution Bill will be in the Queen's Speech later this month.

Labour said the government's "piecemeal approach" would have implications for many areas.

BBC assistant political editor Norman Smith said the chancellor hoped the move would "reignite" areas such as Manchester, not just economically but also to renew a sense of civic pride.

But it is also designed to "wrong foot" Labour in their northern heartlands, and to "re-present" the Tories in the north where they have traditionally been "on the back foot", he added.

'Revolution in government'
Speaking in Manchester later, the chancellor is expected to say the "old model" of running everything from London is "broken" and has unbalanced the economy.

He will say it has "made people feel remote from the decisions that affect their lives", and add: "It's not good for our prosperity or our democracy."

Mr Osborne will also stress that the government will deliver the devolution to Scotland and Wales it promised.

As part of the devolution plan, only cities that elected their own mayor would be given control of local transport, housing and skills.

please log in to view this image

Greater Manchester is due to elect a mayor in 2017
"I will not impose this model on anyone," Mr Osborne will say, "but nor will I settle for less."

"My door now is open to any other major city who wants to take this bold step into the future."

This is a "revolution in the way we govern England", he will add.

Last year, leaders of Greater Manchester's 10 councils agreed to the area's first mayoral election, described by Mr Osborne at the time as "a massive moment for the north of England".

The move came two years after the people in Manchester had voted against having a mayor for the city alone.

'Right approach'
Under the devolution plans, the mayor would lead Greater Manchester Combined Authority, chair its meetings and allocate responsibilities to a cabinet made up of the leaders of each of the 10 councils.

Councils in Greater Manchester currently control about £5bn of public money each year.

This deal is expected to give them control over a further £2bn.

please log in to view this image

Other cities will be able to follow suit in future, if they choose - and Greg Clark, the new communities and local government secretary, told BBC Radio 5 Live that many cities could benefit.

"These decisions - about Hull, and about Manchester, and about Leeds, and about Newcastle, and about Birmingham - should be made by the people of those great cities, who know and love their area, rather than having to troop up to London and plead for crumbs from the table.

"That is absolutely the right approach and that's exactly what we're doing. So rather than it being a new layer of government, what it's doing is taking from central government and putting it in the hands of local people," he said.

'Northern Powerhouse'
Commenting on the plans, Labour shadow chancellor Chris Leslie said: "Labour supports genuine devolution to all parts of England, as well as to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

"But communities have heard promises before and they will be no clearer today about looming decisions on funding.

please log in to view this image

Mr Leslie said the poorest communities have been hit hardest by local authority budget cuts
"Devolution needs to be part of a UK-wide plan not a series of one-off deals done by the chancellor. The government's piecemeal approach threatens to leave many areas behind."

He said cuts to local government budgets in the last parliament hit the most deprived communities hardest, with the north of England faring worst.

Further government plans include creating a so-called Northern Powerhouse, aimed at closing the economic gap between north and south, which Mr Osborne said would be backed by extra funding of more than £18bn to the region by 2030.

The chancellor's speech follows the Conservatives' surprise outright win in last week's general election.

Labour has previously argued for £30bn of spending responsibilities to be devolved to the English regions to boost economic growth, while leaders of councils in the Midlands have expressed concern about their regions missing out on funding.

please log in to view this image

GVA £ millions GVA per head

 

What a pile of crap

The Scottish tax revenues generated from oil is less than 5% of the total revenue generated by the entire country, and even with it, they've got a budget deficit of circa £15bn a year.

That's without factoring in the low price of oil currently and what effect a fluctuating oil market would have on the overall Scottish purse. A $1 fall in the price of crude would cost the Scottish economy £100m a year.

 

Can someone close this **** now? It's depressing and it keeps reminding me what happened.

 

fair enough..... its got some foot traffic.

does anyone want to start a NEW thread as a suggestion and call it "the future of Britain" for RHC's amusement.

Please let me know guys as you always do. If i see a new thread i can close this one.

 

Can I start another one and call it "second coming of Cameron?".

 

do what you like.... its your forum