Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Scottish Call for Independence!

page: 3
13
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ste2652
But this is far from guaranteed. The SNP have basically assumed that they will be given automatic entry to the EU upon independence, but as this story from January shows, there's uncertainty over this issue.

The SNP have categorically stated they would adopt the Euro and join the EU.
No membership isn't guarenteed but it expected.


And the Euro isn't anywhere near strong enough to overtake the dollar as the global trading currency just yet - the dollar has endured a number of economic crises over the years whereas the Euro has been lucky so far in that it hasn't been pressed. Most countries and businesses will probably stick with the dollar until the Euro has proved itself to be robust enough to weather any economic storms that head its way. That is part of the reason why the United Kingdom hasn't adopted the Euro (I emphasise the word 'part' before you all start coming at me with the other reasons
)


If you sit back and look at the Euro, it is incredibly strong. The queue of countries applying to trade in the Euro is getting longer..
The dollar may be stronger at the moment (only just though) but the American economy is poor, America has lots of personal debt (trillions), they owe a billions to the world bank! Billions to the UN, they are stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan with no end in sight..The dollar is going to collapse soon and trade will be affected, other countries are trying to cut their losses.
Sterling will go down with it.
The UK doesnt want to adopt the euro because of Imperialism.

mod edit: corrected quote formatting

[edit on 4-3-2007 by UK Wizard]




posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
its not popular anymore since the EU said that Scotland would not get automatic membership and would to have to apply to all international organisation, which takes years.

Plus North Sea oil is in British waters, not Scottish. The water will still stay British even if Scotland leave meaning you would not get the oil money. That is another thing Salmond will not tell you.

[edit on 23-2-2007 by infinite]


Unless it is off coast touching the Scottish soil. England would not be able to control the waters around Scotland.

If the majority of Scots want independance, I would support them, as I would the Welsh and North Irish, but that is a view from an American who sees the UK as England and their crown dominating other once independant states with their own culture and history for the exploitation of resources and goods.



posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Unless it is off coast touching the Scottish soil. England would not be able to control the waters around Scotland.


I think the Royal Navy would disagree.



Originally posted by Rockpuck
If the majority of Scots want independance, I would support them, as I would the Welsh and North Irish, but that is a view from an American who sees the UK as England and their crown dominating other once independant states with their own culture and history for the exploitation of resources and goods.


Much like the US domination of Native Nations and the HUGE landgrab you guys did against Mexico? Hmmm?



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 04:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Unless it is off coast touching the Scottish soil. England would not be able to control the waters around Scotland.

If the majority of Scots want independance, I would support them, as I would the Welsh and North Irish, but that is a view from an American who sees the UK as England and their crown dominating other once independant states with their own culture and history for the exploitation of resources and goods.


A couple of points relating to your response, Rockpuck. With regards to oil: It's simply not viable to base an independent Scottish economy on North Sea oil - it's running out, and fast. North Sea oil peaked in 1999 at 6million barrels per day and, by 2020, is expected to be just a third of that. No one will buy it because it will be so expensive, and add to that the desire by many governments to move away from oil and towards newer sources of energy and it means that the oil market for an independent Scotland has a very uncertain future. Would you gamble your nation's prosperity on that? I know I wouldn't.

My second point is regards to you claim that you would support the secession of Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland due to this perceived English dominance. Then would you support Hawaii becoming independent, because that's been dominated by the US and is clearly different from America. Why not give Guantanamo Bay back to Cuba? Perhaps the Confederacy might have gained your support during the American Civil War because the Unionists were trying to 'impose' their ideas on the southern states? Could you stand idly and watch your country try to break apart, becoming fifty separate nations?



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 06:59 AM
link   

A couple of points relating to your response, Rockpuck. With regards to oil: It's simply not viable to base an independent Scottish economy on North Sea oil - it's running out, and fast. North Sea oil peaked in 1999 at 6million barrels per day and, by 2020, is expected to be just a third of that. No one will buy it because it will be so expensive, and add to that the desire by many governments to move away from oil and towards newer sources of energy and it means that the oil market for an independent Scotland has a very uncertain future. Would you gamble your nation's prosperity on that? I know I wouldn't.

Scotland have their own established industries and comerce with or without oil. They have known for along time that the oil will fail but they still have North Sea gas.
They have confidence that they can stand on their own 2 feet with or without oil.


My second point is regards to you claim that you would support the secession of Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland due to this perceived English dominance. Then would you support Hawaii becoming independent, because that's been dominated by the US and is clearly different from America. Why not give Guantanamo Bay back to Cuba? Perhaps the Confederacy might have gained your support during the American Civil War because the Unionists were trying to 'impose' their ideas on the southern states? Could you stand idly and watch your country try to break apart, becoming fifty separate nations?

Everyone has the right to have their own identy and "land" considering most countries with an identy of others and under jurisdiction of others did so under-duress and at the threat of war or as a result of war. Which can be boiled down in basic terms to greed and breech of Human rights and civil rights! Ever wonder why the Hague ever came into being.
In Europe some nations live together, some don't, some nations even live in several neighbouring countries. There are political, historic and economic reasons for Scotland to become independent but at the end of the day a nation doesn't become independent for those reasons but because it wants to decide for it's own future.



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ste2652

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Unless it is off coast touching the Scottish soil. England would not be able to control the waters around Scotland.

If the majority of Scots want independance, I would support them, as I would the Welsh and North Irish, but that is a view from an American who sees the UK as England and their crown dominating other once independant states with their own culture and history for the exploitation of resources and goods.


A couple of points relating to your response, Rockpuck. With regards to oil: It's simply not viable to base an independent Scottish economy on North Sea oil - it's running out, and fast. North Sea oil peaked in 1999 at 6million barrels per day and, by 2020, is expected to be just a third of that. No one will buy it because it will be so expensive, and add to that the desire by many governments to move away from oil and towards newer sources of energy and it means that the oil market for an independent Scotland has a very uncertain future. Would you gamble your nation's prosperity on that? I know I wouldn't.

My second point is regards to you claim that you would support the secession of Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland due to this perceived English dominance. Then would you support Hawaii becoming independent, because that's been dominated by the US and is clearly different from America. Why not give Guantanamo Bay back to Cuba? Perhaps the Confederacy might have gained your support during the American Civil War because the Unionists were trying to 'impose' their ideas on the southern states? Could you stand idly and watch your country try to break apart, becoming fifty separate nations?


First off, Scotland would not need to "base its economy" off of oil, or anything for that matter.. it apparently runs fine now, unless you think England fully supports Scotland?

Secondly, I would fully support the succession of any American state if they are dissatisfied with the Union, they are independent nations united in the Union much like members of the EU are independent, because we have such a short history there is little "nationalism" for the states, and what there was was destroyed by the Federal Government after the Civil War.

Guantanamo is actually a leased land, controlled by Cuba? Please, do not bring petty politics which you no doubt gathered your intelligence on the matter from a Liberal.
Guantanamo is paid for by the United States with GOLD given to Fidel. Fidel, in arrogance, each year literally refuses to accept the Gold, and has not done so since we leased the property. If Cuba where to decide they want the land back then we would be packing up and leaving, offering our Gold to another country.

Third, you assume that material wealth is the source of happiness. Western countries suffer the highest rates of suicide, depression, mental anxiety disorders. Material wealth robbed the people of spirituality, soul and self, leaving them morally bankrupt, and mentally unhappy. But hey, as long as you got your big screen TV, fancy sports car and a house 5 times the size you need.. your king of the world right?



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
First off, Scotland would not need to "base its economy" off of oil, or anything for that matter.. it apparently runs fine now, unless you think England fully supports Scotland?


A lot of Scottish tax money does come from the oil revenues, with £11billion more coming from the rest of the UK.


Originally posted by Rockpuck
Guantanamo is actually a leased land, controlled by Cuba? Please, do not bring petty politics which you no doubt gathered your intelligence on the matter from a Liberal.


I'm aware of the situation with regards to the US and its acquisition of Guantanamo Bay, yes. That's why I included it (and for the record, I'm referring to the geographical area as opposed to the facilities there - the naval base and detention facility).

The point was that Cuba (that is, the current Cuban government under Castro) believes that the current US presence there is illegal because the treaty which gave the US an 'unlimited lease' over Guantanamo Bay was signed as part of a deal to get remaining US troops to leave Cuba after the conflict there in 1898 as part of the war between the US and Spain. Now, the deal was signed in 1903 (a year after Cuban independence), and Castro's government came to power in 1959 (the previous Cuban government accepted the US lease on the Bay). For the record, I despise Castro and his government before you start accusing me of being a commie



Originally posted by Rockpuck
If Cuba where to decide they want the land back then we would be packing up and leaving, offering our Gold to another country.


So if you were the President of the United States, would you hand back Guantanamo Bay based on what Castro is arguing?


Originally posted by Rockpuck
Third, you assume that material wealth is the source of happiness.


No, I don't - far from it, in fact, but it helps. We all know what happens when people become deprived... crime levels increase as opportunities decrease and certain areas become virtual no-go areas. It's a spiral of decline and it's extremely hard to get out of. Look at any of the low-income areas in virtually any major city in the world for proof of this. A good economy is one way to ensure that this is kept to a minimum - it's far from a perfect way, but it's certainly a necessary foundation for lifting others out of poverty.



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Murphs
They have confidence that they can stand on their own 2 feet with or without oil.


Is that including the huge amounts of English tax money that flows North of the border to help them pay for all their "wonderful" health services and "free" university education?

Without English tax revenue's, the Scottish Government would have to severely cut back on public spending, to the point where they would be lucky to have a state run hospital, let alone a full blown NHS.


Originally posted by Murphs
Everyone has the right to have their own identy and "land" considering most countries with an identy of others and under jurisdiction of others did so under-duress and at the threat of war or as a result of war. Which can be boiled down in basic terms to greed and breech of Human rights and civil rights! Ever wonder why the Hague ever came into being.
In Europe some nations live together, some don't, some nations even live in several neighbouring countries. There are political, historic and economic reasons for Scotland to become independent but at the end of the day a nation doesn't become independent for those reasons but because it wants to decide for it's own future.


Indeed. And the majority of Scots dare not even dream of an independant Scotland as they know full well that they are better off in the Union.

At least they got a good deal out of it.

Wales has a crappy assembly which can only put up road signs in Welsh and Cornwall doesn't even have the choice of it's own assembly!

At least wales was formally annexed, mind you, whereas us Cornish just got rolled over without anyone even noiticing enough to formally unite us with England.... I digress....



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Unless it is off coast touching the Scottish soil. England would not be able to control the waters around Scotland.


I think the Royal Navy would disagree.



Originally posted by Rockpuck
If the majority of Scots want independance, I would support them, as I would the Welsh and North Irish, but that is a view from an American who sees the UK as England and their crown dominating other once independant states with their own culture and history for the exploitation of resources and goods.


Much like the US domination of Native Nations and the HUGE landgrab you guys did against Mexico? Hmmm?


And then you'd have an ethnic war on your little island...so that's about that...

Really the arguments are pointless unless scotsmen are willing to fight because war is what would happen.

And no the dollar will not collapse, the WORLD BANK is owned by the US it owes itself money.

It's like you said "ok instead of buying a donught I'm going to put this money into a bank and buy the donught on credit...later I'll ask for the money back from that bank. In the mean time I may over-draw that bank putting that money and its credit elsewhere".

Learn to balance the US reported debts and you'd see most of it is to ... gasp...the US.



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 04:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by Murphs
They have confidence that they can stand on their own 2 feet with or without oil.


Is that including the huge amounts of English tax money that flows North of the border to help them pay for all their "wonderful" health services and "free" university education?

Without English tax revenue's, the Scottish Government would have to severely cut back on public spending, to the point where they would be lucky to have a state run hospital, let alone a full blown NHS.


I will answer the rest of your post later but this will do for no! (I am going to a funeral)
If you look and it is easy to find..The Scottish people pay more in taxes per head of Capita than their Southern conterparts. It is easy to find and who is fleecing who? Don't blame a failing health service on those North of the Border Stu..They maybe the very ones holding it together!



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Murphs
I will answer the rest of your post later but this will do for no! (I am going to a funeral)
If you look and it is easy to find..The Scottish people pay more in taxes per head of Capita than their Southern conterparts. It is easy to find and who is fleecing who? Don't blame a failing health service on those North of the Border Stu..They maybe the very ones holding it together!


Not at all. Income from taxation that goes into HM Treasury is then divided using the Barnett Formula between the home nations. Spending per head is actually far higher in Scotland than England:

England £5,940
Scotland £7,346
Wales £6,901
Northern Ireland £7,945

Also, how exactly do Scots pay more tax per head, when income tax is uniform across the UK? They certainly don't earn more, on average, than English, so I fail to see how they pay more tax. Or is that the extra duty they pay in cigarrettes and whisky
?

What the barnett formula amounts to is, in relation to the revenue generated by taxation in Scotland, the Scots get far more money to spend per head from Central Government (Westminster), than any other of the nations, bar NI.

What this amounts to is Scotland has a fiscal deficit above taxation from Scotland alone, meaning that they rely on money coming from South of the border in order to maintain the expenditure levels illustrated above, which in turn enables them to have their NHS, free Uni, Education and other such pleasantries. Without English taxes, the revenue generated by ANY of the 3 other nations by current levels of taxation would not even come close to matching the current expenditure.



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Murphs
If you look and it is easy to find..The Scottish people pay more in taxes per head of Capita than their Southern conterparts. It is easy to find and who is fleecing who? Don't blame a failing health service on those North of the Border Stu..They maybe the very ones holding it together!



So assuming you are correct regarding the jocks paying more per head (which I don't believe you are).... do I have to point out the OBVIOUS difference in population size?



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 11:48 AM
link   
Actually, Scotland pays less tax than the rest of the United Kingdom. This is part of the devolution issue - the Scottish Parliament has the power to put taxes in Scotland up 3% above the UK income tax, or 3% below it. As far as I know, for most of the last few years (i.e. since a devolved Parliament had been granted to Scotland), tax had remained pretty much below that of the rest of the UK. Add to that the £11billion or so that comes from taxes collected in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and you have a nation which has lower taxes than anywhere else in the UK and the second highest amount of tax revenue spent per head. So if it becomes independent, either Scotland finds a way to raise an extra £11billion (i.e. tax everyone in Scotland an extra £2,159 - it'll be more, since you can't tax everyone [children, unemployed etc.]) in addition to the taxes they pay now, or you find £11billion to shave off the budget - considering the NHS in Scotland cost £8.1billion in 2006, that's a lot of money that you've got to find from somewhere else. And now you see why the United Kingdom is better remaining united - because discrepancies such as this can be sorted out. It doesn't bother me at all that this extra £11billion goes to Scotland... but it does bother me that people seem to think Scotland will be able to find an extra £11billion somewhere else without risking the living standards of ordinary Scottish people if it became independent.



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 11:12 AM
link   
A fair portion of the stated £11 billion would be shaved off from savings on the defence budget. Scotland would reduce its armed forces to a very small army intended only for repelling invasion. The navy would probably have to be larger. We would no longer be part of the 'war on terra' either.

All civilised countries find their financial happy medium eventually, and so it would be the case for Scotland. England would also find its happy medium once they arranged for new areas for their armed forces to practice. And new nuclear power stations. Oh, and extremely expensive de-salination plants to address the impending water crisis in the south. And a drop of 5 million in the population. And new border control to stop up whisky guzzlers coming south to pillage your women. While we're on the subject of whisky, surely it must be one of the most profitable businesses for the government. I work in the whisky industry, and it makes billions for the UK government and shareholders. The company I work for has an annual trading PROFIT of £4 billion+.

Would the tax revenue from that go to offset some of the £11 billion? You see, Scotch can't be produced elsewhere. Try taking that with your navy.

I don't want a split, but it annoys me when the thought that a nation which has invented so many revolutionary technologies during the industrial revolution is scorned upon for being too inept to run itself.



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
I think the Royal Navy would disagree.

Actually stu, the territory does not belong to you, after 13 miles it is international waters, which even though it would still be inside the 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone it would still be under a scottish banenr therefore only the ones off england would be aplicable.

And can you seriosly say that the RN is in any condition today to "stop" any scottish fleet from taking thier share?




Much like the US domination of Native Nations and the HUGE landgrab you guys did against Mexico? Hmmm?

On this we agree stu , scotland is not being dominated by any crown nor is england dominating anyone (last time I checked the act of union was signed in scotland while it was a soverign country, yes/no?) If anything england is on the lower scale of power, if you look scotland does have powers in defence if you look under the emergancy powers act



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 02:05 PM
link   
From BBC...


"Since he became chancellor, Gordon Brown has pocketed £27.5bn in North Sea revenues, and over £5bn from the whisky industry.


That was in 2004. But what more could you expect from a Labour government than tax and spend? Show me a more profitable English industry than whisky and oil and then we'll talk about who subsidises who.



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by boyg2004
Would the tax revenue from that go to offset some of the £11 billion? You see, Scotch can't be produced elsewhere. Try taking that with your navy.


Well, I dunno - I'd assume that'd already be included in tax revenues from Scotland. The £11billion is extra investment from the rest of the UK, in addition to what is collected from Scotland's taxes (which would include the Scotch industry).

Nor am I implying that Scotland is inept at running itself - it isn't. It managed to govern itself right up until 1707, when it voluntarily joined the United Kingdom. Even now, it has its own parliament which Scottish people seem happy with. And by the looks of things, we're about to have a Scottish Prime Minister (who has managed to run the economy pretty successfully over the last decade as Chancellor) not to mention numerous cabinet officials such as the Home Secretary, Defence Secretary and Transport Secretary. What I am saying is that Scotland is in a far more advantageous position by remaining in the United Kingdom than it is by leaving it - and I stand by that.



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 03:32 PM
link   
And I completely agree with you.



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 03:49 PM
link   
As you live in Scotland, boyg2004, how does support for the SNP look from where you are, especially with regards to the May elections? Are they likely to be forming the next government in conjunction with the Lib Dems? Will they get an overall majority? Or do you think the Lib-Lab coalition can endure?



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 06:44 AM
link   
I think the tories are resurgent at the moment, something which has been unheard of for many a year in the north. The nation is fed-up with immigration. Glasgow is rapidly turning into a new Birmingham or Bolton. The BNP are placing enough candidates in enough wards so as to secure government funding (around £1/2 million) for leaflet drops and TV and Radio party political broadcasts. Such a move can be diluted in a very large population, but can be dangerous in a smaller population like Scotland.

Apparently the SNP always seem to do well at the polls just prior to an election, but they are always regarded as a single policy party. This is their downfall. They will do OK, but a combination of one policy and one smug leader will fail them again.

Labour will lose seats due to the policies of the UK government, regardless of it being a separate issue. Vehicle tracking, road pricing, and ID cards are VERY unpopular. Unpopular to the point where people are saying they will not vote for a government which upholds these plans.

Massive inceases of house prices in the north will swing many previous Labour voters further to the right in the hope that a Tory government will reduce the tax burden on working families.

My tip is... Watch out for a very unusual, but probably short lived, swing to the right in Scotland. How this will affect the outcome of the forthcoming election is anybodys call. People will still be considering the old 'waste of my vote' issue when contemplating SNP, Tory or Liberal.






top topics



 
13
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join