Scottish Independence and other political topics.

  • 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!
Reading the Sainsbury's Christmas catalogue, I came across this monstrosity: Scottish salmon with cranberry and apricot stuffing and a honey and citrus glaze.

If they'd advertised that three months ago, the Scots would have unanimously voted for independence when seeing what the English were doing to their produce.
 
All very defeatest reading these comments but nothing positive
The Tories are simply managers of finance beyond the capability of any previous labour government
The labour party simply does not offer a viable option

To be positive and gain a party that actually considers and plans and impliments for the entire population we need a challange from a genuine socialist party

It can happen for instance the only ever truly socialist party succesful in Government occured in Sweden but it took the vast majority of the population to to understand the need and the across the board losses and gains
 
[video=youtube;5ZrtOM7CicM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZrtOM7CicM&feature=player_detailpage[/video]
 
http://www.heraldscotland.com/polit...bc-ahead-of-tv-seven-leaders-debate.121898550



Alex Salmond ramps up pressure on BBC ahead of TV seven leaders' debate

A Scottish Liberal Democrat spokeswoman said: "The BBC is respected across the globe for its reporting - except for Alex Salmond and his conspiracy theorists.

"It is time for time Alex Salmond to stop hunting for excuses for losing the referendum and move on to building a stronger economy and a fairer society."

A BBC Scotland spokesman said: "Our coverage of the referendum was fair and balanced and our coverage of the General Election is fair and balanced."
Click to expand...
 
Nick Robinson querying Salmond on how well an independent Scotland would be doing
right now with the price of oil + the Euro as their currency.

Comedy gold in the making.
 
The RDBD said:
Nick Robinson querying Salmond on how well an independent Scotland would be doing
right now with the price of oil + the Euro as their currency.

Comedy gold in the making.
Click to expand...

It's a very stupid question as Scotland would not be Independent right now even if a yes vote had prevailed.
 
The RDBD said:
Nick Robinson querying Salmond on how well an independent Scotland would be doing
right now with the price of oil + the Euro as their currency.

Comedy gold in the making.
Click to expand...

The answer is of course if Scotland were Independent (which it actually would not be atm even if it had voted YES) it would be considerably better off and that, as was explained MANY TIMES during the course of the referendum is because the Scottish economy is not reliant on oil. We would be better off even if we had NO oil, the oil is a bonus.

Right now we would have to borrow to prop the industry up just as the UK is doing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DevAdvocate
NowsufferinginSpain said:
I don't wish to reopen this whole debate again as nobody is going to change anybody else's point of view. However, in my view, this is far closer to the facts.

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article49032.html
Click to expand...
If you say you don't want to debate this and then post an extremely biased site you can expect there to be a comeback.

The problem of the oil price fall in Scotland is the effect in Aberdeen the oil capitol with oil companies backing off because of fall in profits. With a change in the tax regime this has been stopped. A Scottish government would have reacted quicker than Westminster did as has been made clear by the SNP as soon as the price fell. Scotland is not dependent on oil but Aberdeen is atm.

This site prints very clearly the spending per capita throughout the British Isles highlighting that SCotland spends more it fails to mention that Scotland raises £800 pounds per capita MORE than England, this means that Scotland would have been £8.3 Billion better off if Scotland had been an Independent country. Scotland has generated more tax per person for the past 33 years. The bias is clear and to talk of lies from the SNP is rich conisidering the spin on this article. Any intelligent person can look up the figures for themselves provided by central government. The argument that Scotland would be poorer Independent is simply untrue and a reversal of the true position. Westminster has cost Scotland £64 Billion in UK debt interest that it did not need in other words Scotland has been financing Westminster mismanagement. Over the last 5 years Scotland had lower deficits than the UK. Scotland's average deficit has been 7.2% while the UK deficit has been 8.4% Scotland's public spending is 42.7% of Scotland's GDP the UK in the same 5 years has spent 45.4% of it's GDP. And on and on in nearly all measure of public finance Scotland would be better off as an Independent country.
 
Spurf said:
If you say you don't want to debate this and then post an extremely biased site you can expect there to be a comeback.

The problem of the oil price fall in Scotland is the effect in Aberdeen the oil capitol with oil companies backing off because of fall in profits. With a change in the tax regime this has been stopped. A Scottish government would have reacted quicker than Westminster did as has been made clear by the SNP as soon as the price fell. Scotland is not dependent on oil but Aberdeen is atm.

This site prints very clearly the spending per capita throughout the British Isles highlighting that SCotland spends more it fails to mention that Scotland raises £800 pounds per capita MORE than England, this means that Scotland would have been £8.3 Billion better off if Scotland had been an Independent country. Scotland has generated more tax per person for the past 33 years. The bias is clear and to talk of lies from the SNP is rich conisidering the spin on this article. Any intelligent person can look up the figures for themselves provided by central government. The argument that Scotland would be poorer Independent is simply untrue and a reversal of the true position. Westminster has cost Scotland £64 Billion in UK debt interest that it did not need in other words Scotland has been financing Westminster mismanagement. Over the last 5 years Scotland had lower deficits than the UK. Scotland's average deficit has been 7.2% while the UK deficit has been 8.4% Scotland's public spending is 42.7% of Scotland's GDP the UK in the same 5 years has spent 45.4% of it's GDP. And on and on in nearly all measure of public finance Scotland would be better off as an Independent country.
Click to expand...

It's late here. I'll go through the figures tomorrow. But the basic figures given on that site tie in pretty much with what my contacts in The City tell me.

In short, I don't believe it to be particularly biased.
 
NowsufferinginSpain said:
It's late here. I'll go through the figures tomorrow. But the basic figures given on that site tie in pretty much with what my contacts in The City tell me.

In short, I don't believe it to be particularly biased.
Click to expand...

Sorry NSIS you can't get much more biased than the CITY when it comes to Scotland. <laugh> The City is one of the major reasons for wanting Scottish Independence.

Two major reasons Westminster & The City. Not necessarily in that order. <laugh>
 
Two very bad ideas were to create a monetary union without a national one, and to respond to a crash with austerity measures.The dollar and China have skyrocketed because Europe has taken careful aim and shot itself in the foot, twice, with those two policies. Without a world government, capital will continue to play one country off against another.

I'll get off my soapbox now. :emoticon-0147-emo:
 
humanbeingincroydon said:
The Standard report that Londoners are strongly opposed to the SNP holding the balance of power.

A bit rich for people who have repeatedly voted for Boris Johnson...
Click to expand...

Why? It's fairly
Spurf said:
Sorry NSIS you can't get much more biased than the CITY when it comes to Scotland. <laugh> The City is one of the major reasons for wanting Scottish Independence.

Two major reasons Westminster & The City. Not necessarily in that order. <laugh>
Click to expand...

From my personal experience, there are also very, very good and highly intelligent economists working there too. The vast majority of these guys are not biased in any way. They simply interpret what the figures and trends are indicating.

In our discussions of some six months ago, when I was over there, the opinion was that with oil at $100+ Scotland would struggle, at today's price, it would be an economic basket case.
 
NowsufferinginSpain said:
Why? It's fairly


From my personal experience, there are also very, very good and highly intelligent economists working there too. The vast majority of these guys are not biased in any way. They simply interpret what the figures and trends are indicating.

In our discussions of some six months ago, when I was over there, the opinion was that with oil at $100+ Scotland would struggle, at today's price, it would be an economic basket case.
Click to expand...

<doh> and as has been pointed out twice already, Scotland would not be Independent TODAY. The handover would take 2 years.
 
DevAdvocate said:
<doh> and as has been pointed out twice already, Scotland would not be Independent TODAY. The handover would take 2 years.
Click to expand...
We can only comment on today's prices, unless you know what the price of Oil will be in 18 months? The flaw is that Oil could be at today's price and the discussion is therefore what the impact on self government would be IF that was the case on Independence day. If we accept Spurf's view, that the Oil revenue has no bearing, then fine. If you think the new State would rely on the revenue from Oil, then the fact that it MIGHT be as low as today is worth discussing. Surely?
 
SpursDisciple said:
We can only comment on today's prices, unless you know what the price of Oil will be in 18 months? The flaw is that Oil could be at today's price and the discussion is therefore what the impact on self government would be IF that was the case on Independence day. If we accept Spurf's view, that the Oil revenue has no bearing, then fine. If you think the new State would rely on the revenue from Oil, then the fact that it MIGHT be as low as today is worth discussing. Surely?
Click to expand...

On the contrary, its not me who's guessing what the price of oil will be in 18 months, I'm merely stating a simple fact, today's prices are irrelevant <ok>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back