An Independent Scotland?

Yeah ok, Trident will move along with other stuff, good luck it will be a good divorce I can't wait now and several months ago didn't want a yes vote but quite frankly i don't care now!
 
Cheers.
 
Hey Hugh do you want your own currency?
 
chivers67 said:
Hey Hugh do you want your own currency?
Click to expand...

Short term CU then our own currency, short term being long enough to ease the transition for both countries.
 
Steep said:
Patrick Harvie ripping into George Galloway, great tv!
Click to expand...

You are joking aren't you? I've now seen it and it was a televised embarrassment from start to finish.

Of course Galloway was dreadful; he had not been adequatelly briefed so he wandered around somewhere near but not on message and, anyway his ranting demagogy doesn't work with an audience who don't already subscribe toi his views.

However, you should go back and tell your handler that Patrick Harvie is an infantile embarrassment to the Yes Campaign. An MSP with a sub-CeeBeeBees maturity of political nous, he even let a great big cat out of the bag. I'm surprised Ruth Davidson didn't pick up on it!

Explaining how only independence would protect the Scottish NHS from [largely imaginary] privatisation, Harvie was dim enough to tell the student audience about the need to protect it from the EU's reciprocal trade agreement with the USA, including big American Health Companies.

So the Yes Campaign obviously knows that an independent Scotland would not be part of the EU in spite of their dissembling bluster to the contrary.
 
In the beginning I didn't really care whether Scotland cut themselves loose......... but what I have developed is an interest to see what happens if they succeed in getting independence.......but I do agree on one point that George Osborne (who I despise) made.....if you get independence and want to maintain the pound etc.....you will not be an independent country.....you will be like Gibraltar.....a colony
 
archangel said:
I do agree on one point that George Osborne (who I despise) made.....if you get independence and want to maintain the pound etc.....you will not be an independent country.....you will be like Gibraltar.....a colony
Click to expand...
I wonder whether Osborne knows that Gibraltar, Jersey, Bermuda etc haven't been called "colonies" for ages? But "British Overseas Territories", which is the correct term, isn't so emotive and doesn't convey the same air of subjugation and dependency.

I wonder whether he knows who makes the laws in these places, who is responsible for defence, and stuff like that. Using the pound and having the Queen as head of state are just about the only things that they have in common with the proposed arrangements for Scotland.

I wonder whether he thinks France and Germany are independent countries. Presumably, since they don't have their own currencies, he thinks not. Or was his argument more subtle than that? (I didn't see it.)
 
Last edited:
Yves Geza said:
You are joking aren't you? I've now seen it and it was a televised embarrassment from start to finish.

Of course Galloway was dreadful; he had not been adequatelly briefed so he wandered around somewhere near but not on message and, anyway his ranting demagogy doesn't work with an audience who don't already subscribe toi his views.

However, you should go back and tell your handler that Patrick Harvie is an infantile embarrassment to the Yes Campaign. An MSP with a sub-CeeBeeBees maturity of political nous, he even let a great big cat out of the bag. I'm surprised Ruth Davidson didn't pick up on it!

Explaining how only independence would protect the Scottish NHS from [largely imaginary] privatisation, Harvie was dim enough to tell the student audience about the need to protect it from the EU's reciprocal trade agreement with the USA, including big American Health Companies.

So the Yes Campaign obviously knows that an independent Scotland would not be part of the EU in spite of their dissembling bluster to the contrary.
Click to expand...
So Galloway, who in my opinion was a complete embarrassment wasn't briefed properly, but Harvie was an infantile embarrassment? :LOL:
 
StewartR said:
I wonder whether Osborne knows that Gibraltar, Jersey, Bermuda etc haven't been called "colonies" for ages? But "British Overseas Territories"
Click to expand...

It all in the name......"British" not independent.......it wasn't too long ago that the British navy went to defend Gibraltar from our Spanish buddies.......they may make their own laws etc but they still carry the crown....
 
archangel said:
but I do agree on one point that George Osborne (who I despise) made.....if you get independence and want to maintain the pound etc.....you will not be an independent country.....you will be like Gibraltar.....a colony
Click to expand...


is rare I agree with Mike, but on this point I do. I have to admit I'm a bit lost by the psychology of the yes campaign. I realise there are pragmatic issues to overcome but it seems to me like proposing a CU and I've seen dual nationality mentioned here to isn't really voting for independence. Surely if thats what you're voting for you wish to be free of the UK. Not hold on to bits of it because your heart isn't quite in it
 
boyfalldown said:
is rare I agree with Mike, but on this point I do. I have to admit I'm a bit lost by the psychology of the yes campaign. I realise there are pragmatic issues to overcome but it seems to me like proposing a CU and I've seen dual nationality mentioned here to isn't really voting for independence. Surely if thats what you're voting for you wish to be free of the UK. Not hold on to bits of it because your heart isn't quite in it
Click to expand...

Someone who agrees with me! whoop! Will you be my friend? Lol:D

Having lived in Northern Ireland most of my life I have seen the leaving the UK scenerio before.... I moved to England not for the love of Westminster or the English....but because I am a British citizen (actually have dual nationality) and I earn more money and have a better life then I did back in Northern Ireland......and the ale is not bad either......
 
Yves Geza said:
However, you should go back and tell your handler
Click to expand...

You disappoint me, that kind of petty attack is way below your usual standard of argument. I said it made great tv not great debate.


George Galloway I thought went over well with the audience, most of whom have no idea who or what he is.
 
Galloway as far as I know was drafted in because Jim Murphy pulled out and labour couldn't or wouldn't find someone to replace him. As I said above, he didn't go over badly with the 16-17 year old audience because most of them don't have any idea who he is.
 
I actually thought Sturgeon did ok but the Green guy spoke quite a bit of sense.

I couldn't help but keep saying meow for some reason...
 
I want to say something, particularly to those of you South of the border regards CU and why I think it's a good idea and this is not posturing or bluster believe me, I'm serious.
If there is a yes next week and the ensuing negotiations go badly, no CU, Scotgov holds out on their promise to help with the debt etc. the hit to rUK economy will be massive, the pound will fall sharply if it doesn't crash and that will have a very real and very bad effect on the new Scots economy as well. As our biggest trading partner if for no other reason, what's bad for rUK economy is going to be bad for us.
The UK right now is relying far too much on North Sea oil to prop up its balance of payments (not my words, economics experts) and if the split goes ahead rUK is going to lose a large part of that prop. You'll have to fill the gap in payments somehow and if you add the above scenario into the mix I see a very hard time coming for you. Petty arguments aside, step back and think what would the UK economy look like tomorrow if Scotland and the North Sea oil simply vanished.


If as I hope CU and a fair agreement on debt share is reached the hit to both economies will be minimised, there will still be a hole to fill but it won't be as bad.
 
Steep said:
North Sea oil simply vanished.
Click to expand...

I've snipped your quote to the bit I'm interested in. Sorry for being a bit (well very) dense here. But how would this work in reality? Aren't the oil fields a UK asset, to be divided up like the rest of the assets, similar to the line there already is between Norway and the UK (not Scotland)

The North Sea is already pretty well exploited, by companies with bases in Scotland and England. I don't see someone like BP (for example) simply giving up the rights to those fields it already holds, nor wishing to renogatiate the terms of those agreements. So presumably that agreement they already have with the UK (and whatever they pay for those fields) would be split as an asset too?

Incidentally, they're already headquartered in London so presumably the majority of tax would also land back in London?. Same to with refining capacity. Scotland only has the one, owned by a Chinese/French company. My point being that the North Sea may well have £xbn worth of oil, but that doesn't mean it will all be revenue for Scotland
 
Steep said:
I want to say something, particularly to those of you South of the border regards CU and why I think it's a good idea and this is not posturing or bluster believe me, I'm serious.
If there is a yes next week and the ensuing negotiations go badly, no CU, Scotgov holds out on their promise to help with the debt etc. the hit to rUK economy will be massive, the pound will fall sharply if it doesn't crash and that will have a very real and very bad effect on the new Scots economy as well. As our biggest trading partner if for no other reason, what's bad for rUK economy is going to be bad for us.
The UK right now is relying far too much on North Sea oil to prop up its balance of payments (not my words, economics experts) and if the split goes ahead rUK is going to lose a large part of that prop. You'll have to fill the gap in payments somehow and if you add the above scenario into the mix I see a very hard time coming for you. Petty arguments aside, step back and think what would the UK economy look like tomorrow if Scotland and the North Sea oil simply vanished.


If as I hope CU and a fair agreement on debt share is reached the hit to both economies will be minimised, there will still be a hole to fill but it won't be as bad.
Click to expand...

Hugh, don't forget to get out there and vote …….. don't get stuck behind your computer
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
So Galloway, who in my opinion was a complete embarrassment wasn't briefed properly, but Harvie was an infantile embarrassment? :LOL:
Click to expand...

Gorgeous George rambled on about only loosely connected irrelevancies of British politocs and history and came over as a man not in command of his arguments.

Harvie, on the other hand, very quickly tried a snide ad hominem attack on Galloway's sexuality in front of an audience of children [GG accused of rape; bad man!] which is the infantile level of argument you get from a political child. Galloway, quite rightly, rebuffed him about the importance of the debate at hand. And then, as I said, Harvie got his post-independence policies mixed up - can you imagine a real cabinet minister blurtuing out that sort of mistake and getting away with it? Or can you imagine this man representing Scotland in negotiations on the world stage?

Last week I saw Harvie get eaten in debate by Ruth Davidson when he suggested Scotland doesn't need any armed forces - "who's threatening Scotland?" His understanding of Realpolitic is local councellor level at best. States are threatened when they're weak, not when they're strong!
 
British bollotics is a far better word to describe what's going on
 
boyfalldown said:
I've snipped your quote to the bit I'm interested in. Sorry for being a bit (well very) dense here. But how would this work in reality? Aren't the oil fields a UK asset, to be divided up like the rest of the assets, similar to the line there already is between Norway and the UK (not Scotland)

The North Sea is already pretty well exploited, by companies with bases in Scotland and England. I don't see someone like BP (for example) simply giving up the rights to those fields it already holds, nor wishing to renogatiate the terms of those agreements. So presumably that agreement they already have with the UK (and whatever they pay for those fields) would be split as an asset too?

Incidentally, they're already headquartered in London so presumably the majority of tax would also land back in London?. Same to with refining capacity. Scotland only has the one, owned by a Chinese/French company. My point being that the North Sea may well have £xbn worth of oil, but that doesn't mean it will all be revenue for Scotland
Click to expand...

There may be some wrangling about it but the internationally recognised dividing line puts about 90% of the oilfields in Scottish waters. It's true that the UK as a whole has paid into building up the fields but it's also benefitted from the profits.
The tax revenue is what we're talking about when we say profits from it and taxes are paid to the country the oil is landed in, again mostly Scotland.

Oil wasn't the point of my post, the UKs over dependence on it is the point.
 
Hugh

You're back to experts again. Some say loss of Oil will be a big issue, some not.
But back to CU. Is it good for us, the UK as well as Scotland? Answer, no.
Firstly, you will no doubt want some form of control, why should the UK have our economic policy dictated by a Government we not only didn't vote for, but can't?
Secondly, your economic policy is dictated by your social policies, which are unaffordable, so you will be mounting debt and expecting the UK to guarantee it? Are you really being serious?
I doubt any UK Government would back the idea, it's a huge vote looser, because of the attitude of the "Yes" camp in Scotland. Sorry Hugh, but the attitude you, the SNP and many of the Yes camp display is annoying a lot of the rest of the UK.
You said the Union is broken, thats fine, leave it, but don't then expect to cherry pick bits to keep. Independence means cutting links. If you vote yes, it should be that, bye thanks for coming.
 
Steep said:
There may be some wrangling about it but the internationally recognised dividing line puts about 90% of the oilfields in Scottish waters. It's true that the UK as a whole has paid into building up the fields but it's also benefitted from the profits.
The tax revenue is what we're talking about when we say profits from it and taxes are paid to the country the oil is landed in, again mostly Scotland.

Oil wasn't the point of my post, the UKs over dependence on it is the point.
Click to expand...


I got your point ;) I'm just a bit confused by the whole thing. I still don't see your tax point though. I'm going to use BP as an example cause there is a bit of a BP mafia in this part of London, and I have a lot of friends work for them in various capacities. But exploration is decided and run from Sunbury, where the stuff that comes out of the ground is refined is decided in Canary Wharf. Buying and selling that is also done at Canary Wharf, (which is also the most profitable part of the business) and they're headquartered at St. James'. Tax revenue from those operations isn't going to move out of London. Same with Shell.

Although a barrel of oil may well be worth $100 or so, that doesn't mean any government will see all of that. Assuming Scotland keeps 90% of government revenue from the North Sea it seems that'd be a lot less then you talk about. And the UK as a whole has been less reliant on it over the years
 
Although a barrel of oil may well be worth $100 or so, that doesn't mean any government will see all of that. Assuming Scotland keeps 90% of government revenue from the North Sea it seems that'd be a lot less then you talk about. And the UK as a whole has been less reliant on it over the years
Click to expand...

More so as the price per barrel is coming down, which is going to make a mess of the SNP's sums.
 
boyfalldown said:
I got your point ;) I'm just a bit confused by the whole thing. I still don't see your tax point though. I'm going to use BP as an example cause there is a bit of a BP mafia in this part of London, and I have a lot of friends work for them in various capacities. But exploration is decided and run from Sunbury, where the stuff that comes out of the ground is refined is decided in Canary Wharf. Buying and selling that is also done at Canary Wharf, (which is also the most profitable part of the business) and they're headquartered at St. James'. Tax revenue from those operations isn't going to move out of London. Same with Shell.

Although a barrel of oil may well be worth $100 or so, that doesn't mean any government will see all of that. Assuming Scotland keeps 90% of government revenue from the North Sea it seems that'd be a lot less then you talk about. And the UK as a whole has been less reliant on it over the years
Click to expand...

Tax is raised in the country the oil is landed in not where the business base ofvthe companynis, otherwise the UK would never see a penny from BP, they'd set up hq in some south sea island they bought.
 
BP as a company pays it's tax on it's profits to the UK. So tax on the actual oil isn't the whole story.
And of course it's up to them where they land their oil. Just because it's Scotland now, doesn't mean it can't be Norway or the North of England.
You mentioned "Old Labour" a while ago, if you get your wish, and there's a return to unions running Scotland, then you may well find that companies prefer to land their oil elsewhere where they aren't being held to ransom.
 
Bernie174 said:
Hugh

You're back to experts again. Some say loss of Oil will be a big issue, some not.
But back to CU. Is it good for us, the UK as well as Scotland? Answer, no.
Firstly, you will no doubt want some form of control, why should the UK have our economic policy dictated by a Government we not only didn't vote for, but can't?
Secondly, your economic policy is dictated by your social policies, which are unaffordable, so you will be mounting debt and expecting the UK to guarantee it? Are you really being serious?
I doubt any UK Government would back the idea, it's a huge vote looser, because of the attitude of the "Yes" camp in Scotland. Sorry Hugh, but the attitude you, the SNP and many of the Yes camp display is annoying a lot of the rest of the UK.
You said the Union is broken, thats fine, leave it, but don't then expect to cherry pick bits to keep. Independence means cutting links. If you vote yes, it should be that, bye thanks for coming.
Click to expand...

You're doing exactly what you accuse me of doing, ignoring the question and/or point.

Address the point of my post if you're willing to but don't just go dragging up the same tired old points which have nothing to do with the post you're answering..
 
Steep said:
Tax is raised in the country the oil is landed in not where the business base ofvthe companynis, otherwise the UK would never see a penny from BP, they'd set up hq in some south sea island they bought.
Click to expand...



Thats not quite the case. Tax is raised in the country you make the profit in.
 
Hugh, you haven't made any point, apart from possibly showing some fear that you aren't going to get CU like the SNP have promised.
As I said, it has to be good for the UK, and it isn't. You will drag us down.
If you had a Government, or a plan that made economic sense, then it would make more sense, but on current plans, it doesn't. Why on earth should the UK be dictated to by Scotland if it's no longer part of the UK.
Next you'll be saying you want to build warships for the Navy still, or sharing in UK eyes only intelligence.
You want independence, then go independent and stop cherry picking what you want to keep.

As for the accusation of dragging out the same arguments', if you answered points that are awkward for the SNP, then no one would have to would they.
 
Last edited:
chivers67 said:
I'm starting to think perhaps the rest of the Uk need a yes vote to move forward and so do Scotland, we can not have the same currency - well eventually. A gradual process is what's needed and when the Oil runs out in 40 or so years time Scotland might realise the grass isn't quite so green after all.

Can't see Labour getting back into power for ages if it's the case though!
Click to expand...

It's not going to take that long. The current spending level is above that generated through taxation. Salmonds figures seem to rely on oil being $150 a barrel, which is about the highest it's been. Currently there's over production so the price has fallen significantly. However point out the deficiencies and you're just scaremongering.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top