Should Scotland be an independent country?

page: 7
11
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 08:00 AM
link   
reply to post by LeBombDiggity
 


Oh I did not know that, I assumed (i know) that it would be the same rules as all other elections. I wonder how that will work, as you do not get the chance to be on the electoral role until you are 18. How will they know who can/cannot vote?




posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 08:02 AM
link   
No it is a awful idea but i fear it might actually happen.

I would support it if there were a proper plan, that big idiot of a first minister who looks like Jaba the hut had no idea what he is talking about.

We would have nothing if we were independent, zero.

There is not actually a financial plan.

He has this stupid idea in his head that we will turn into Ireland.... that same country that now owes everything to the EU.

Then babbles on about the Oil.... most of which is owned by companies that will stick to England.

But then he says well we still have a massive bank, the Royal Bank of Scotland, funny thing is, its registered in London and funnier still its bail out cost the same amount of cash as the entire Scottish economy.

So desperate is Jaba the hut that he’s letting 16 year olds vote in the referendum, they are voting for a government they won’t be able to actually vote for.

Really the guy is tool.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 08:02 AM
link   
Just as an aside regarding the oil/gas. Even if Scotland do go it alone, a significant proportion of the oil/gas revenue will still have to go to the Union because they have a major stake in the operation to remove it from the ground.

Scotland won't just be given the billions and billions of pounds worth of equipment and research that has been invested in making Scottish oil/gas a viable business.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


Why did the Scottish people vote for him then ? He is obviously loved by the Scots ..



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by KingIcarus
Just as an aside regarding the oil/gas. Even if Scotland do go it alone, a significant proportion of the oil/gas revenue will still have to go to the Union because they have a major stake in the operation to remove it from the ground.

Scotland won't just be given the billions and billions of pounds worth of equipment and research that has been invested in making Scottish oil/gas a viable business.


Scotland will also be given a bill for the deficit - and the bail out of B of Scotland etc



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 08:05 AM
link   
Hey If the Scots do vote out....we can always invade

Joke btw...



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by boymonkey74
Hey If the Scots do vote out....we can always invade

Joke btw...


We will be taking our nuclear subs back - good for Portsmouth or Plymouth



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by HelenConway
 


I know I said we hadn't experience democracy since Thatcher's era - but I was walking on eggshells. I am more inclined to agree with your observation that we have never experienced actual democracy in the UK. The Swiss model of direct democracy (the people vote on every major issue) is much more to my taste.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by KingIcarus
 



Just as an aside regarding the oil/gas. Even if Scotland do go it alone, a significant proportion of the oil/gas revenue will still have to go to the Union because they have a major stake in the operation to remove it from the ground.

Scotland won't just be given the billions and billions of pounds worth of equipment and research that has been invested in making Scottish oil/gas a viable business.


Umm - you think that the UK government owns the equipment?



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by christina-66
reply to post by KingIcarus
 



Just as an aside regarding the oil/gas. Even if Scotland do go it alone, a significant proportion of the oil/gas revenue will still have to go to the Union because they have a major stake in the operation to remove it from the ground.

Scotland won't just be given the billions and billions of pounds worth of equipment and research that has been invested in making Scottish oil/gas a viable business.


Umm - you think that the UK government owns the equipment?


Nope. But the industry has received plenty of government subsidies... that investment doesn't just go away if Scotland becomes independent.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 08:19 AM
link   
reply to post by christina-66
 


Actually you are both wrong, it is the Private Companies given the contract by the UK Government that own the equipment. Anyway the Oil isn't really that significant, it is the oil companies that make the most money, the government is not taking that much money from it in the grander scheme of things. I suspect that the tax take offset with tax spend on Scotland will level will cancel out what the UK would lose out on Oil revenue anyway.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by KingIcarus
 


Is that simply your opinion based on something someone told you down the pub, or do you have evidence to support your assertions?
edit on 26-1-2013 by christina-66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by christina-66
 


You'll have to forgive me for not providing a link here - the issue of oil in the independence talk on the internet is utterly burying the info I'm looking for on Google - but yes, it is true that oil companies working the North Sea receive subsidies in the form of tax breaks.

I sort of wish you could turn blog posts off on Google, it can make finding stuff quite tricky!



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by HelenConway

We will be taking our nuclear subs back - good for Portsmouth or Plymouth


The Ministry of Defence have said it's impossible to do that. The submarines & their nuclear weapons have recently been deemed "too dangerous" to be based in those English ports because of the large local populations who could be injured or killed by radiioactivity. However the "collateral damage" in Scotland was deemed to be an "acceptable risk".

That went down well in Scotland.

www.dailyrecord.co.uk...

So it looks like England will be a non-nuclear weapon power if the Scots go it alone.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeBombDiggity

Originally posted by HelenConway

We will be taking our nuclear subs back - good for Portsmouth or Plymouth


The Ministry of Defence have said it's impossible to do that. The submarines & their nuclear weapons have recently been deemed "too dangerous" to be based in those English ports because of the large local populations who could be injured or killed by radiioactivity. However the "collateral damage" in Scotland was deemed to be an "acceptable risk".

That went down well in Scotland.

www.dailyrecord.co.uk...

So it looks like England will be a non-nuclear weapon power if the Scots go it alone.



Yes I saw that - but that may change. It was about population density ... in Plymouth 150,000 people would be first line casualties [ deaths ] and Scotland in the low 1000's in the event of an accident - that is what the MOD said .

Plymouth has nuclear subs now - so 150,000 lives are deemed as acceptable collateral right now !!!
edit on 26-1-2013 by HelenConway because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by HelenConway
 


There's a difference between a nuclear sub and a nuclear weapon.

You'll see from the map below that there are currently no nuclear weapons located in England.




posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by HelenConway
 


The truly horrifying thing is that British nuclear weapons are transported by road in Scotland through some very populous places ... the nuclear weapon convoys regularly negotiate the M8 freeway straight through Glasgow City Center (population 600,000), even in rush hour traffic ! And the M8 & Kingston Bridge in the rush hour, well, that is a horrific prospect at the best of times !

The radiation from an accident there would be carried on the prevailing winds to the nation's capital Edimbourg, leaving the entire central belt of Scotland uninhabitable.

They claim that's an acceptable risk ! You have to wonder what planet the contingency planners come from.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeBombDiggity
reply to post by HelenConway
 


The truly horrifying thing is that British nuclear weapons are transported by road in Scotland through some very populous places ... the nuclear weapon convoys regularly negotiate the M8 freeway straight through Glasgow City Center (population 600,000), even in rush hour traffic ! And the M8 & Kingston Bridge in the rush hour, well, that is a horrific prospect at the best of times !

The radiation from an accident there would be carried on the prevailing winds to the nation's capital Edimbourg, leaving the entire central belt of Scotland uninhabitable.

They claim that's an acceptable risk ! You have to wonder what planet the contingency planners come from.


I thought Plymouth had nucs but i guess I am wrong, And yea I AGREE,



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by christina-66
 




You were born in 1965 right? Perhaps it’s because the SNP have had a parliamentary presence since 1967 that you've been hearing the Scottish call for independence whispering in the background of your entire conscious life.


You may well be correct there.

I think the fact that many associate The British National Party with English Nationalism ironic, inaccurate and proof of the demonisation of the latter.

Displays of Scottish / Welsh / Irish culture and heritage are actively encouraged and promoted whilst similar displays of English culture and heritage are suppressed and vilified.
Look at the difference in the way St Andrew's / St David's and St Patrick's Days are promoted in contrast to the mute celebrations of St George's Day which is very much down played for fear of 'offending' our fellow Brits or immigrant communities.
Many non-English Brits view any celebration of Englishness or English pride as proof positive of our arrogance and sense of superiority yet wallow in the self same celebration and pride of their own respective nationality.

But I fear I digress.

The vote in 2004 was a complete farce.
There was a total lack of publicity and public debate.
The only opinion that I can recall viewing on TV and reading about in the local press was anti the Assembly which as you correctly guessed was portrayed as yet another unnecessary level of bureaucracy.

I think the North East will really come to rue that vote once the full extent of Cameron's policies are realised - but again, I digress.

The relevant thing for this discussion is the negative effect Scottish independance will have on regions like North East and North West England, Yorkshire etc. (Not that that will be, or should be, a consideration for Scots when deciding which way to vote - Scotland must do as Scotland see's fit and right for itself).

Two things are clear to me - the party political system is outdated and is no longer fit for purpose and the London / Home Counties / South East England domination of The Union needs to be rectified.

I know we have previously discussed the merits of Direct Democracy - it seems that the majority aren't quite ready for such radical reform but I'll continue doing what little I can to try and convince people of the benefits of such a system.

I genuinely believe we will be better able to bring about such reform if we maintain The Union and work together towards mutual goals that will benefit all the people of The Union regardless of social strata or geographic location.

LeBombDiggity stated that the real discussions surrounding Scottish independance are taking place in bars / clubs / workplaces etc and that's how it should be.
I haven't been up to Glasgow for three or four months - something I'll have to address shortly.

The more I think about it the more I think you are right, I guess I am suffering from some sort of 'referendum envy' - but that doesn't alter what I believe or how I feel.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by LeBombDiggity
 




So it looks like England will be a non-nuclear weapon power if the Scots go it alone.


LOL.
I very much doubt it.

I'm sure they'll find somewhere expedient away from Southern England.

ETA.
I didn't know that about the transportation of nuclear weapons through Glasgow etc.
If true, and I can't see any reason why you would fabricate something like that, then that is a disgrace and needs more national exposure etc.

For the record, I'm no anti-nuclear, tree hugging, kum ba yah singing pinko liberal - but wrong is wrong.
edit on 26/1/13 by Freeborn because: Add ETA





top topics
 
11
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join