It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Scottish independence: Barack Obama backs 'strong and united' UK

page: 7
25
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: alldaylong

I'm still sticking to my guns over the territorial waters. After all, it is politicians who are making the noises not international maritime lawyers, and from what I've read and deduced from the legalities, somebody of that ilk and not an mp should be making the clear definition of how the legalities will pan out.

Not having an argument with you btw, I'm finding the whole investigative stuff between us fascinating


Rainbows
Jane




posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 05:33 PM
link   
Scots Independence is an issue that will not be decided until September but it seems from the people for or against that it's a gamble whichever way you vote. Because as usual politicians want to spin the best case scenario in their favour and accentuate the negatives of their opposition.

If Scotland becomes independent then it would, on the face of it, free the people from the reigns of a distant Westminster. But it seems Scotland still wants to remain tied to NATO, the EU, the British Pound and the Queen as Head of State. It probably will if the independence vote goes through.

Ultimately large corporations will have a major influence on an independent Scotland and decide if it can be used to improve their profitability or not?

My guess is that a number of these large companies will not enjoy the extra costings involved in paying staff and billing customers either side of the 'new border' in two separate currencies. But then again maybe Mr. Salmond and his pals have already made a number of concessions to ease the changeover?

The underlying problem in the most of the UK is that we are totally disenchanted with our London-centric political system. Many of us live in constituencies where we are ignored because the key marginal constituencies are the focus. So a minority of people's views often shape policies that are not necessarily those of the majority.

That and the fact that politicians are under a heavy influence from the large multi-national corporations whether we like it or not.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 05:38 PM
link   
a reply to: mclarenmp4

All seems a bit like wanting to have your cake and eat it to me.

Independence with everything on your terms?
Life and the world has a tendency not to work that way.

Guess we'll just have to wait and see.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: angelchemuel

It surprises me how The U.K. claimed some of these oil fields in the first place. Some are nearer to Norway that Britain.

A couple of examples are Brent and Bentley fields. Take a look at their locations.




edit on 6-6-2014 by alldaylong because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Freeborn

Why is that everything on our terms? We don't yet know if we'll even be allowed to use the pound so we have to look at all other options but one thing for sure is that we will never join the Euro.

But I think it was prudent of the SNP to suggest these measures so that a transition goes much smoother and doesn't affect the economy as much. If we gain independence I am sure we will get a vote on the EU, the recent elections showed the SNP that people aren't happy with their pro EU stance, so I think like the UK we will get a vote on the EU.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: alldaylong

I believe if you look back historically that UK 'wielded a bigger stick' and Norway didn't have much of a clue or the technology to drill those areas. They are incredibly deep water oil fields.

When I lived up in Aberdeen between '85 and '95, I was fortunate enough to be put in charge of the business section of the Evening Express, the first MSN source to break the dreadful Piper Alpha disaster. I dealt with the large multi national company's to the small independent ones. As you can imagine what goes on 'behind closed doors' is sometimes a far cry from what politicians bleat on about.

Oil apart, and as my goodnight statement, I have no doubt at all Scotland does have a huge and diverse economy and can make a success of their independence, and being the ingenious and inventive folk they are will continue to stay one step ahead in many fields and areas.

Rainbows
Jane



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Freeborn

Hi Free,

No-one has made any serious attempt to answer this question; why would an independent Scotland want to keep a currency that it would have absolutely no say or control over?

I'll have a stab if I may?

By far and away Scotland's biggest export market and trade partner, would be the remaining members of the UK.
It makes no sense whatsoever to "upset the applecart" by introducing a different currency which would then create barriers and costs to free trade.
The future economies of Scotland and the rest of UK aren't expected to be radically different in the immediate aftermath of an Independence YES vote, so it seems to make sense that the GB pound sterling would and could remain a viable currency for all nations currently using sterling. AND crucially that Scotland wouldn't NEED control over sterling to happily use and trade with it, so long as the economies of Scotland and the rest of the UK did not become radically different.
Many nations in the past have "adopted" a major currency, or pegged their own against a major currency, mainly to encourage stability. Scotland does not need the UK's permission to keep (or adopt) sterling, or to peg their own Scottish Pound against sterling if they so desire.
IMHO it makes some sense for ALL of the current members of the UK to keep sterling, until such times as the economies of Scotland and the remaining UK differ greatly, at which point it can be re-visited.

My view on the wider Independence debate is very simple.
I believe that the government of an Independent Scotland would look after Scottish affairs, Scottish resources, wealth and relationships with the rest of the world, in a better more responsible manner, that much more precisely matches the wishes of the Scottish people, than that of the current westminster based UK government.

Scotland would not be leaving Great Britain.
We would still be a crucial, integral part of these Islands.
The union Jack could still fly!
We would just be in charge of our own political affairs, and could still work VERY closely with the rest of the current UK in terms of the economy, military etc.
That's why the SNP are saying we could stay in the EU and NATO too.
Keep everything as it is, just give us greater control, freedom and independence over the best use of our own resources and economy.

All the talk of Not being allowed to "join" the EU is nonsense by the way. It stemmed from a loaded question that was given to the Spanish chair of the EU - "If Scotland declared Independence.... and applied to join the EU... would they automatically get in?"
To which the correct answer was - "No."
BUT - Scotland is NOT declaring independence, then asking to join the EU.
Scotland is voting on Independence.
If they get a yes vote, they will inform the EU of their INTENTION to declare independence, and will have the best part of 2 years BEFORE declaring independence, to negotiate their CONTINUED membership of the EU.
Simple.

I'd also like to knock on the head this lie about it all being "anti-English".
It is not.
It is about Scotland.
It is about Scotland being in charge of her own affairs. Her own resources and her own destiny.
We are SICK of being dragged into illegal wars.
We are SICK of paying through the nose for "UK" schemes that do not in any way benefit Scots.
We are SICK of getting governments that we did not vote for. (Did you know that in each of the last 8 UK general elections, if you remove the Scottish vote entirely... The result would be the same?? The same government would have got in! Even though Scots traditionally vote very differently from the rest of UK.)

I personally think that we are stronger as a union. But I don't see why we cannot continue to work closely as a union of nations after independence. We can still have common goals, common aspirations. We can share costs where appropriate, in any area that would be mutually beneficial to do so.
But I also think that a STRONG Independent Scotland would greatly benefit and strengthen that union.
A union is only as strong as the member states who make it up.
Stronger member states make a stronger union. It does NOT have to be a political union to work.

The doom mongers and Naysayers would have us believe that the relationship would abruptly end with a YES vote!
That Hadrians wall would be re-built, and passport & currency controls would immediately be put in effect!

The truth is that it makes MUCH more sense for us to continue with our close, friendly, collaborative relationship, but on more equal terms than before.

Sorry this has turned into such a long post!

regards,
G



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 06:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: crazyewok

An American president is against "independence" of a nation ruled by the British throne.

Oh the irony!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


By the British government....



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 06:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: TritonTaranis

originally posted by: 23432

Imagine the vulnerability of NATO if Scotland leaves UK.

Obama spoke for a reason perhaps .



The yes camp play on the trident nuclear deterant with disinformation and scaremongering

They paint Scotland with a target because the UK nuclear deterrent is based in Scotland

Basically they have put up a picture "not from the UK" of a nuclear bunker storage complex and said the UK basically stockpiles them here in silos so we get hit and die rah rah rah fearporn fearporn

Not realising the UK has a submarine based nuclear deterrent and preying dumb uneducated nationalists won't know what MAD means..... Mutually assure destruction, infact the lucky ones will die first and the planet will be uninhabitable...

And then goes on to dribble how much safer Scotland will be free of nukes... Lol about as safe as anywhere else in the world when the nukes start flying, not only that but they totally ignore what just happened In Ukraine and domt even want consider how Ukraine got ram raided by Russia by giving up its nuclear arsenal and being in a tug of war between two powers

But all in all Scotland will be buzzed regularly by Russia without the UK defences and will likely be in the middle of a tug of war with the EU and the UK while Scotland deteriorates into poverty

Salmomd should be shot, he cares about 1 thing, more money for Scotland's elites and suffering for the average scot

Wake up Scotland, it's a campaign of lies based and preying on HATE money and greed




Russia eat small nations , literally .

I know from first hand .

Can't bring myself to damn Salmond for what he is , so he doesn't get shot , hopefully.

MAD doctrine probably will not play out .

Conventional war is more likely unless Clancy is behind some of those thoughts.

This independence issue is a principal issue ; right of self determination . So it's not negotiable therefore it should not be an issue .

City of London has a new competitor , how does the UK deals with it ?

UK carries on with Wales , NI & England .

Scotts gonna have to ask for a desk in Nato.

Land Reform for whole of UK would ensure the continuity while dispersing the power base to people for real .

The British Dream where every one has a real stake .



If scotts want to go solo , good luck to them but i have to say the timing sucks .



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 07:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Gordi The Drummer

Great post and straight to the point, especially on the Anti English point. It's a common misconception that the Scots hate the English, some of my best friends are English and having worked for 20 years in Aberdeen throughout the oil industry there is probably just as much English working here than there are Scottish.
I'm pro British at heart, I know that's hard to believe being that I am pro Independence as well. I just feel that the English political system is a failure and corrupt to the core and I maybe naive in my thinking but I'm hoping that a new political class in Scotland rises. I actually think that the politics of old are redundant and that we have a chance to make the political system one that works in a 21st century world. I dare to dream and that's why I am pro independence.
edit on 6-6-2014 by mclarenmp4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 07:10 PM
link   
not sure why OB is sticking his oar in there.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 07:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: RoScoLaz
not sure why OB is sticking his oar in there.

Most heads of state are opposed to the breakup of a country, as it sets an example they don't want to happen to their own country. If anything, Obama interfering in British affairs will have the opposite effect of what he wants. He didn't listen to his advisers.
When the US South votes to secede the second time, maybe the British can offer moral support.



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 03:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: RoScoLaz
not sure why OB is sticking his oar in there.

Because CaMoron asked him to.



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 04:35 AM
link   
I was going to stay out of this one, because quite frankly I am sick of all the bullcrap that get's posted about this independence malarchy.. However...


originally posted by: mclarenmp4
Why is that everything on our terms? We don't yet know if we'll even be allowed to use the pound so we have to look at all other options but one thing for sure is that we will never join the Euro.



If you want in to the EU and unless you can somehow convince the EU to allow you to retain the special exemptions currently afforded to the UK and not offered to new member states, you have to commit to the Euro as per Treaty and accession obligations.

Just another of the BS lies Salmond has fed you guys...

Also, I thought I'd chime in too about your bollocks comments about Englands "only industries" being Aerospace and Banking. Not true in the slightest - Pharmaceuticals, automotive manufacture, mining, offshore energy (far, far larger than Salmond's wet dreams for Scotland, by the way) telecoms, IT, Steel, Chemicals and Space technology being just a few off the top of my head that do very nicely in England...



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 05:00 AM
link   
a reply to: mclarenmp4

None of which will come to pass if Scotland does go independent - although that looks highly unlikely in the best of circumstances.

What Salmond wants is his name in the history books, that's all it is. His plan for Scotland is to remove you from a larger and heavy hitting EU member state which can protect you from their excesses and instead, sell you down the river by joining as a small and largely irrelevant state which will be dictated to by Brussels and unable to resist.

To put it simply, while the rUK is negotiating it's new relationship with the EU, including repatriation of powers prior to the 2017 referendum, Scotland will be told what to do to rejoin the EU as a new state - including the aforementioned requirement to commit to the Euro and further integration.

In a nutshell, you'll be "independent" in name only



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 05:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: mclarenmp4

None of which will come to pass if Scotland does go independent - although that looks highly unlikely in the best of circumstances.


Why does it look highly unlikely..?



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 06:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Soloprotocol

Just by going on the latest polls - there had been a slight uptick in the Yes campaign which got them close to 40% but has since slipped again the mid-30's. As it stands, there will be probably be a 60/40 split in favour of remaining in the UK, at best.

Of course, I know you're stance on this and don't seek to debate this point - the only real poll that matters is the one on the 18th September and anything can happen - all the Nat's or the Unionists will be too cocky about victory and not bother to turn out - or it might actually be Sunny in Scotland and everyone will be hiding in fear come polling day of the fearsome Fire God in the Sky come to bring vengeance on the fair of skin.

We'll just have to wait and see, but if I was a betting man, I'd wager come the 19th September, Salmond will be feeling a bit of a twonk.



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 06:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: Soloprotocol

or it might actually be Sunny in Scotland and everyone will be hiding in fear come polling day of the fearsome Fire God in the Sky come to bring vengeance on the fair of skin.

.

Lol'd .....not violently or anything...just a little "lol" snuck out.

I believe the Polls before the last Scottish elections had SNP heading for a Coalition....Guess what Happened.



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 07:05 AM
link   
a reply to: stumason


Hi Stu *waves*




all the Nat's or the Unionists will be too cocky about victory and not bother to turn out

It's for the very opposite reason the Welsh got their assembly, because the NO voters were the cocky ones who stayed at home.....and it's for the very same reason, why the YES vote might very well blip it at the post, no matter what the weather.




If you want in to the EU and unless you can somehow convince the EU to allow you to retain the special exemptions currently afforded to the UK and not offered to new member states, you have to commit to the Euro as per Treaty and accession obligations.


Firstly,you are jumping the gun...you are making the same mistake and assumption that others are that Salmond will be the PM...he might not be after the referendum and general election 16 months later. Somebody else might not want Scotland to join the EU........rolling stone gathers no moss as they say.
Secondly, show me where in the Treaty where it says a succeeded state which benefited from the 'privileges' afforded when they were part of the UK cannot keep the same privileges. It's a legality which has yet to be tested.

I do agree with you though that all Salmond wants is his name in the history books, I've never made any bones about that when this subject has cropped up in other threads of this ilk. BUT given that UKIP won a seat up there....I think he's been sent a little smoke signal that there are also Scots who don't want to be part of EU.

Rainbows
Jane


edit on 7-6-2014 by angelchemuel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 07:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: angelchemuel
Hi Stu *waves*



Bonjour!


originally posted by: angelchemuel
It's for the very opposite reason the Welsh got their assembly, because the NO voters were the cocky ones who stayed at home.....and it's for the very same reason, why the YES vote might very well blip it at the post, no matter what the weather.


It's a tough one to call, but I personally hope that, given the importance of the vote, the maximum amount of people will turn out, at the least so whichever the way the vote goes, it has legitimacy. The worse that could happen would be a sub 50% turnout and a victory one way or the other, which would then lead to acrimonious claims of invalidity owing to the low percentage.


originally posted by: angelchemuel
Firstly,you are jumping the gun...you are making the same mistake and assumption that others are that Salmond will be the PM...he might not be after the referendum and general election 16 months later. Somebody else might not want Scotland to join the EU........rolling stone gathers no moss as they say.


True, can't argue with that! But a Scotland not in the EU would be a very different place to the one being sold by the Yes camp now - they are basing their entire package on being in the EU. Isolated from Europe and the trade it brings could be harmful.


originally posted by: angelchemuel
Secondly, show me where in the Treaty where it says a succeeded state which benefited from the 'privileges' afforded when they were part of the UK cannot keep the same privileges. It's a legality which has yet to be tested.


Indeed, as a successor state and not a new accession, this would be tested, but there are vested interests at play in the EU where they wouldn't want to be seen to be giving Scotland an easier ride than an "normal" new entrant would get - all new entrants must commit to further integration and the Euro - not least because several member states have their own secessionist movements and doing so might fan those flames as well. There is no reason to believe Scotland would get a free pass on anything and would most likely be forced to commit to the same things everyone else is.


originally posted by: angelchemuel
I do agree with you though that all Salmond wants is his name in the history books, I've never made any bones about that when this subject has cropped up in other threads of this ilk. BUT given that UKIP won a seat up there....I think he's been sent a little smoke signal that there are also Scots who don't want to be part of EU.


Personally, I wouldn't be surprised - I also find it very odd that the Pro-Independence camp seem to very Pro-EU - it seems to be swapping one institution you can at least have an element of control (Westminster) to one that you have no control over at all (Brussels) and not really having gained independence at all, but instead surrendered even more sovereignty to a foreign power.
edit on 7/6/14 by stumason because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join