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 Independance & Possible Huge Oil Discovery

page: 7
14
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 07:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Soloprotocol



Christ almighty...IT'S NOT ENGLANDS POUND. Get it,? got it? good.... Scotland has as much right to use the pound as England, NI or Wales...we helped build it.


Err, we know its not 'Englands Pound' - it is the Great British Pound.
As an independent Scotland will no longer be a part of Great Britain it foregoes its right to use that currency - pretty straight forward.

And why would you want to be reliant on a currency you have absolutely no control or say over?

And why should rUK, not just England, underwrite your independent nation?

Seems you want everything on your terms - life doesn't work that way.



We will be keeping it.


I very much doubt it.

Plan B anybody?




posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 07:39 AM
link   
a reply to: TritonTaranis

It doesn't have to be like that. I don't know any scots that hate the English. There are morons everywhere.

I think one of the issues that fuels resentment is that we are governed from Westminster. Independence might bring us closer together in the long run.

Nothing is about to get real ugly it is people like you that cause division with such statements.



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 07:43 AM
link   
a reply to: TritonTaranis
Trust me, we dont need to go back 800 years for a reason to hate Westminster..(Not England)...we only need to look at the here and now. the whole set up is rotten to the bloody core. Rotten to the point where they do whatever they want, when they want and stick two fingers up to us while they are doing it.

More threats, "rUK will have a vote on whether Scotland gets to keep the pound"...Aint gonna happen buddy.
rUK would be cutting their own financial throats if they tried.

We hold all the Aces up here. Westminster has a busted flush with regards as to what they can and cant threaten us with.

Who the bloody hell do these morons think they are dealing with... France?



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 07:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Freeborn

Plan B = have our own currency. Should be plan A really.

There is a sort of reverse psychology with this pound thing. They keep saying you can't have it...when all the time the last thing they want is for you not to have it. It's a mad topsy turvy world we live in.



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 07:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Freeborn
Sterling is a fully convertible currency, this means that if any country in the world wants to use sterling it can....



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 07:52 AM
link   
a reply to: midicon



It doesn't have to be like that.


Even the most amicable of divorces have less than amciable aspects to them.
No matter what Scotland decides there will be some bitter recriminations in the aftermath.



I don't know any scots that hate the English.


Oh I know a few....and there are a couple who display those sentiments here on ATS too.
Fortunately I know far more Scots who don't hate us bastard English.



There are morons everywhere.


Most definitely, and of every race, creed, colour, size, nationality etc - we all have our fair share of arseholes.



I think one of the issues that fuels resentment is that we are governed from Westminster.


Probably.
Like I've said previously, large parts of England feel exactly the same about Westminster / Whitehall etc.



Independence might bring us closer together in the long run.


Maybe.....but I don't think so.
I think there will be more than just a little bit of bitter resentment and recrimination regardless of the outcome - and that will do no-one any favours.



Nothing is about to get real ugly it is people like you that cause division with such statements.


Emotions run high - many English are sick of being portrayed as the bad bastards all the time and the cause of all Scotland's woes, and The Nats have done absolutely nothing to eliminate those sentiments.


edit on 6/8/14 by Freeborn because: grammar and spelling



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 08:00 AM
link   
a reply to: midicon



Plan B = have our own currency. Should be plan A really.


Makes perfect sense to me.
Simply call it The Scottish Pound.

I don't even see a problem with having a linked exchange rate if it benefits Scotland and has no potential threats to Sterling. I'm by no means a financial whizz and I barely understand the basics of currency's and exchanges etc, but I'm sure there's some out there who would be able to work something out.....but that may not be politically expedient for all concerned parties.



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 08:03 AM
link   
a reply to: TritonTaranis

There seems a lot more anti Scots feeling here than anti English. Certainly more bigotry in your one post than all the others put together.
personally i am only anti English to a select group of 15 for about 80 minutes once a year.



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 08:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
a reply to: TritonTaranis


More threats, "rUK will have a vote on whether Scotland gets to keep the pound"...Aint gonna happen buddy.
rUK would be cutting their own financial throats if they tried.

We hold all the Aces up here. Westminster has a busted flush with regards as to what they can and cant threaten us with.

Who the bloody hell do these morons think they are dealing with... France?






Whilst i fully applaud the nationalistic fervour that some Scots possess (absolutely nothing wrong with being proud of your country) i really believe that we need to inject some realism here. Scotland really doesn't hold all the aces at all, except in the theoretical world. Which is all fine and dandy but doesn't convert to the real world.

Trident is a perfect example. Quite simply, even if Scotland does vote for independence and wants Trident out, it will only happen if the rUK government decides it is in the interests of the rest of the nation, regardless of an iScotland. The precedent for this is actually decades old (US / Soviet / Chinese bases wherever they fancy).

Rhetoric is all well and good but if you actually look at the reality, the P5 members pretty much do what they want in matters such as this.

The same goes for oil. It may be mainly in Scottish territory but the majority of the infrastructure was paid for by private investment and UK taxpayers. So whilst Scotland may "own" the oil it would not be able to access it without agreements with the rest of the UK. Again, there is international legal precedent backing this up. It would i imagine be settled fairly quickly (extremely favourable rates, etc) but it is an issue that just seems to get glossed over by the "yes" campaign.

I will again say that i have no particular axe to grind here. I am in the No camp but i am not Scottish so have no say. I am from a family of Northern England (Yorkshire / Lancashire / Cumbria) gong back to at least the 11th Century (probably longer but struggling to find records farther back) and anyone that knows there history will know that whilst those counties may be England rather than Scotland, the reality for people in the border lands was cross trade, co-operation, marriage, etc, etc). I have sympathy with the Nationalist position, even if i don't agree with it. However, by not being honest about certain aspects of this debate, how can anyone trust them? They appear even more vague than the lot at Westminster and that is saying something!

Regardless of the outcome, the people of Scotland at the very least deserve honesty from the politicians allegedly representing them.



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 08:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Freeborn
You know, the Words "English Bastards or "Bastard English" has only been used in this forum by one person that i can see....Now i wonder who that person is..And what is His/Her Agenda??



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 08:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: midicon



Plan B = have our own currency. Should be plan A really.


Makes perfect sense to me.
Simply call it The Scottish Pound.

I don't even see a problem with having a linked exchange rate if it benefits Scotland and has no potential threats to Sterling. I'm by no means a financial whizz and I barely understand the basics of currency's and exchanges etc, but I'm sure there's some out there who would be able to work something out.....but that may not be politically expedient for all concerned parties.



I agree with this but the issue would be whether or not it was Sterling backed. If it was, then ultimately England would be responsible (a bit like being the guarantor on a loan) and that would not be acceptable either to Westminster or to the majority of the rUK public.

Again though, this is something that could be sorted within a matter of years. It just requires some honest debate and the recognition that it could lead to a few painful years before it sorts itself out (instead of what we get which is the Yes campaign ignoring the issue and the No campaign shouting doom at every available opportunity).



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 08:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Flavian

Hate to tell you this but rUk is not really comparable with china or the US. If Scotland goes independent trident will go, only the time frame is open for negotiation.

With regard oil it is where the tax goes that is relevant. Production and revenue would not be affected.



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 08:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Soloprotocol

Yes, that would be me - but that's the impression some, and I stress SOME, Scots love to give without actually saying it so they can come out with posts like that.
And if you haven't got the honesty or balls to admit that well, that's more of a reflection of you than it is me!



And what is His/Her Agenda??


Most definitely a 'he' - if you haven't worked that out by now well, what can I say?
And please, just what is my agenda?
Come on say exactly what you think my agenda is.
I'm guessing you won't - come on prove me wrong.



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 08:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Flavian

Hate to tell you this but rUk is not really comparable with china or the US. If Scotland goes independent trident will go, only the time frame is open for negotiation.

With regard oil it is where the tax goes that is relevant. Production and revenue would not be affected.


Of course rUK is comparable. It has a large nuclear stockpile and it will situate them wherever it feels best to situate them. As long it is national interests the government of the UK will ride roughshod over whatever opposition there may be, international or not. There are so many aspects of the behaviour apparent - just do a little bit of research into the numerous examples you could find. Hell, even look at UK position on the Falklands. I don't like to put it in these terms but basically, what could Scotland actually do if rUK government said no we will not move them? And be realistic, not nationalistic please.

Regarding oil, taxation is the major aspect but revenues also play a key part, particularly as most wells would be foreign owned. Production is entirely reliant on the quality, not just the quantity, of the oil available. New oil well finds are all well and good but if the quality is poor then production will significantly drop off.



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 08:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Flavian



I agree with this but the issue would be whether or not it was Sterling backed. If it was, then ultimately England would be responsible (a bit like being the guarantor on a loan) and that would not be acceptable either to Westminster or to the majority of the rUK public.


Exactly the point I made earlier - why would or should rUK underwrite a fledgling nation like an independent Scotland?



It just requires some honest debate and the recognition that it could lead to a few painful years before it sorts itself out (instead of what we get which is the Yes campaign ignoring the issue and the No campaign shouting doom at every available opportunity).


Again, very similar to something I said in an earlier post, (I think it was my first post in this thread).



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 08:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Flavian

You really think the UK will base its nuclear arsenal in a foreign country against that countries will??? Does that in any way sound wise or realistic to you?

with regards to oil that is exactly what i am saying. Most of the oil is extracted by foreign firms and production should nit be affected one but by independence. All that changes is that the tax is paid to Edinburgh not London.



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 08:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: Soloprotocol

Yes, that would be me - but that's the impression some, and I stress SOME, Scots love to give without actually saying it so they can come out with posts like that.
And if you haven't got the honesty or balls to admit that well, that's more of a reflection of you than it is me!



And what is His/Her Agenda??


Most definitely a 'he' - if you haven't worked that out by now well, what can I say?
And please, just what is my agenda?
Come on say exactly what you think my agenda is.
I'm guessing you won't - come on prove me wrong.



OK. You are as anti Scottish as they come.



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 08:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Flavian

You really think the UK will base its nuclear arsenal in a foreign country against that countries will??? Does that in any way sound wise or realistic to you?

with regards to oil that is exactly what i am saying. Most of the oil is extracted by foreign firms and production should nit be affected one but by independence. All that changes is that the tax is paid to Edinburgh not London.


But the infrastructure was paid for by the UK taxpayer so they will receive a huge cut of the revenues - that is the point i am trying to get across. The theory being that an iScotland will receive all the tax money is therefore wrong - they will have to compensate the rest of the UK and as Scotland comprises approximately 10% of the population, that means that rUK taxpayers have provided 90% of the infrastructure costs. That is a lot tax revenue to compensate to the rUK...........

It is a simple legal matter. Like i said above, it would no doubt be sorted very amicably with some simple negotiations as to future rUK revenues from the oil fields but it would have to be resolved, otherwise rUK could put a bar on an iScotland even getting the oil in the first place. Ignoring the issue won't make it go away so i do not understand why the Yes campaign have not addressed the issue. You would have though it would be quite a high priority?

As to Trident, be realistic. Even if you gain independence, do you think you would be viewed as a foreign country? It is still mainland UK and if they decide that is the best site to safeguard the rUK with its nuclear arsenal then that is exactly where it would stay. More than likely this would involve negotiation and compensation but ultimately they would do what is best for the rest of the country, not Scotland.



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 08:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
We have known this for a few years now, but according to anyone from the Better together camp "the oil is all but run dry" Been hearing this bollocks since the 70's when Thatchers and the Labour Governments lied through their collective teeth to convince us the the Oil is a Burden. 24 trillion £££ worth of oil

BP drilled in the Clyde basin in the 70's, found some serious Gas and oil reserves...MOD Blocked any drilling operations, well they need to get those WMD's in and out. West coast oil Bonanza

Is it Scotlands Oil?...As soon as it touches shore in places like Aberdeen, Grangemouth, The Shetlands (and quite possibly Faslane in the near future) after Independence, all the revenue generated will be Scotland's to share the Wealth within Scotland and Scotland alone. London can go .... themselves.

London and the English based Main stream media are doing their very best and will stop at nothing to feed us more BS....Well, Fool me once, springs to mind.
Anyone living in Scotland needs to have their heads examined if they intend to Vote to stay part of this Rotten, Corrupt, on it's last legs Union.. Alba Ga Brath...Judgment Day is upon us. SAOR ALBA..


This is good to hear man. I'm glad the Scots still have their balls intact, and they aren't anymore easily cowed by the powers to the south than they were in 1745. I hope for the absolute best for you guys, I hope this # goes through, I hope you come out strong. I hope you emerge so strong that those haughty pricks- who have the arrogance and insolence to say you can't make it on your own- end up eating their own words.



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 08:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Flavian

I think you might want to look up a little on how infrastructure depreciates and howv this is dealt with in accounting (and tax) . Also decommissioning costs would need included as again these are discounted from taxable revenue yearly not as a lump sum. Possible rUK could owe Scotland not the other way round.

Far more realistic is a clean separation of geographical assets, unless Scotland is entitled to a share of all tax revenue from property in London?

For trident if Scotland is independent and the Scots parliament says no nukes then no nukes ut will be. There is of course a lot of negotiation to be done on the details but the age of empire is over and rUK is not going to annex part of Scotland in order to base a few submarines.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join