Jump to content

Nick Clegg and ALF ( all Labour's Fault )


Laurence

Recommended Posts

In 1979 we were promised a better deal if we rejected devolution (This is now referred to as "Jam tomorrow" in nationalist circles). The majority of votes were for devolution but the Westminster government deemed that 50% +1 of the registered voters were needed. 40% of the electorate voted for devolution.

Win or lose, the political landscape has changed, Westminster can of course reverse devolution and the new Scotland Act but that would just be antagonistic. That however might not stop them.

It would be good to be able to make our own decisions though without any interference from Westminster or waiting for jam tomorrow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do people get so wound up when a party so overwhelmingly voted in for their policies in an area of the uk, try to implement those policies. Makes a refreshing change from those who promise change and then never ever try to deliver.

Charles, my thoughts on this are that we would be better off, as it would provide more opportunities. Personally, I know it would be better for my business, but we are also good without. My main thoughts are with all of my children and what it can bring for them. One half of our family is Danish, and we see and hear about the differences all the time, and my wifes family visit here often and cannot believe how backwards the uk is, compared to what they accept as standard.

  • Agree 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of us seriously know how good or bad remaining in the UK would be, we can make an educated guess though.

Are you seriously suggesting a party formed from a movement for independence shouldn't even discuss independence when they are elected into government?

Are you also suggesting that the Scottish government have the powers to run the country? Only devolved matters are governed in Holyrood, but you already know that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find the currency thing particularly amusing. All but £3M of Scottish notes is underwritten by the issuing banks either holding baring bonds or Bank of England notes/coins in stock. Last time I saw a figure it suggest that their were around £2 Billion of Scottish notes in circulation...so if the Bank of England wanted to stop supporting Scottish notes then they would also have to return that money. The simple answer then for the Scottish Notes system would be for the banks to put that money on deposit with the Scottish Treasury, thus securing the currency and allowing it to continue unhindered.

Furthermore, given how heavily "invested" Scottish based banks are south of the border...I can't see the Bank of England being in a hurry to cut us loose.

Check any Scottish banknote and you'll see we still promise to pay the bearer in sterling.

Possible best result, Scotland votes YES, and then get someone the majority wants in place. SNP want us to become like Denmark, Sweden and Norway,

Couple of points here.

Firstly IF Scotland were to vote for separation, the SNP would become completely redundant because they're only, to echo Billy Connolly's reference to the "wee pretendy parliament", a "wee pretendy political party" - inasmuch as they are in effect only really a single issue pressure group and simply don't give a toss about anything apart from separation and their referendum. Absolutely everything they do and think is governed hook, line and sinker by their sole objective of a yes vote. As a result in their book the best interests of the Scottish people in their every day lives are totally secondary to the SNP's sole raison d'etre.

Which brings me on to what would happen after a yes vote. There would now be no need for an SNP so politics would revert to a contest among the "real" parties whose priorities, whether you agree or disagree with them, revolve round proper mainstream politics and not the SNP's single issue.

So you are back where you started - so a yes vote would change absolutely nothing in that respect.

Secondly, I would also endorse yngwie's point that it doesn't seem all that long since the separatist lobby was singing the praises of Ireland and Iceland from the "arc of prosperity" :lol:

So... "you're not singing.. you're not singing... you're not singing any more" on that one because these countries have now become classic examples of small population bases finding it so easy to become financial basket cases when the going gets tough.

Instead you quote Norway (finite oil reserves are just for Christmas... separation is for life) Denmark and Sweden.

Right... so that'll be Norway where the standard rate of income tax is 28% (20% here), petrol is 25% dearer than it is here (see what having so much oil does for them!) and drink is so expensive that even if Salmond's EU challenged price hike were applied here, ours would still seem dirt cheap... etc etc....

Somebody also mentioned dictatorship. I really can't think of a more complete dictatorship than the SNP where all the party gofers and apparatchiks from Sturgeon downwards are all clones of Salmond (in mind if not in body :lol: )... right down to that silly patronising little giggle which he affects and which all the acolytes sycophantically copy.

I see your adopting the anti-brigades use of selective journalism Charles. You forgot to add that the average salary in Norway is almost £4000 a month. UK is just over £2000. The Norwegian government also uses its cash wisely and to the full benefit of its people hence Norway has the best standard of living in the world. Full years maternity / paternity leave paid. free kindergarten for children from 1 year old to allow parents to return to work if they so choose. Free healthcare for all. Free education and supported higher education. Free care for the elderly. Average lifespan of 78 for males and 83 for females. Norwegians on the whole are a lot better off than we are. And if they want a drink, which is not a cultural importance to them, they jump on a plane to Aberdeen airports duty free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you want Charles? How do you see Scotland developing within this "Union"? Do you have any thoughts on what you want Scotland to be like in the future? Any ambitions at all? No? Fine, vote for the status quo then and get what you deserve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Norway has oil granted, they now have standards of living and society we could have had. Sweden and Finland dont have oil, yet they have higher living standards. Denmark has some natural gas, but has extremely high standards and they are the happiest country in the world. Coming from the education background you would have to agree their schooling system really puts ours to shame, standards and conditions. But with all their better standards they are all extremely proud of their nations, and respect everything they have to a greater degree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you want to be clones of Norway now rather than the previously much vaunted "arc of prosperity"?

Which model will you want to follow next when the oil runs out?

I dont want us to be clones of any other nation. I want us to be a nation setting the standards. And Charles when the oil runs out you'll not be in a position to worry. You'll have been buried for a very long time. The oil running out argument is about the only one left that the anti's have but they dont seem to understand that it cant actually run out. When new reserviors were found in the sixties and seventies the estimated recoverable was around 20%. Now, due to advances in technology, that estimate is around 40%. That leaves a hell of a lot of oil and gas still in the ground that, as technology develops further, will be recoverable. There are also vast area's of land and sea that have been unexplored and undeveloped as yet. Scotland will be producing oil and gas well into the next century.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The world knows that oil is a finite resource and everyone is rapidly trying to move away from being so dependent on it. So surely we'll all have stopped using it long before it actually runs out?

Still a long way off though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We may stop using it as an energy source but we'll still need it for many of its other properties. Synthetics, lubricants, drugs, adhesives, plastics etc. Indeed many of the materials used in the building and running of our wind farms are from oil derivitives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have two nephews who are very highly qualified in geology, working for oil exploration companies all over the world, but more recently in the North Sea and Altlantic. They have more discoveries west of Shetland, and further north towards the Faroes, and also west of Greenland. One of my nephews is with bp and they already think that they have found more deposits than the North Sea held. London want to syphon of the proceeds of that via unbreakable contracts as soon as possible. The oil is not going to run out for a few generations, but we should be looking to prosper without that income, its just a very plump cherry on top

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Charles when the oil runs out you'll not be in a position to worry. You'll have been buried for a very long time.

I'll probably be buried, but not for all that long in relation to the length of time to which a yes vote would condemn my successors to spearation.

So isn't that a highly immoral and irrepsonsible argument, inciting the current generation to vote yes on the basis of claims of a short term fix and giving no thought at all to the interests of the many generations to come who would have to live with the consequences of a yes vote in 2014?

It's also interesting to see that SNP "thinking" really hasn't evolved at all from the bogstandard "it's Scotland's oil" sloganising of the 70s.

Meanwhile from post 37, I see we are also being invited to vote yes on the basis of oil that bauhaus' nephew "thinks" might have been discovered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the arguments about oil is that in an independent Scotland there is likely to be a more responsible attitude to the exploitation of this valuable finite resource. Far from people voting on the basis of a short term fix, the vote for an independent Scotland can be argued as a vote for responsible exploitation which, contrary to Charles' assertion, is actually in the interests of generations as yet unborn.

UK Governments have been grossly irresponsible in their energy policy over the years, burning coal and oil as if there was no tomorrow. The extent to which both the Tories and Labour have continued to rubbish the green movement who have been pushing for a focus on energy conservation and investment in alternatives has been quite extraordinary over the last 40 years. The SNP has been the only party (aprt from the Greens, of course) that has taken anything like a responsible approach in these matters.

Just as important as how much oil there is and who owns it, is how responsibly it is used. We have some of the poorest insulation standards in the world and waste energy in so many ways as a consequence of UK government policy, but if the oil is to last as long as possible we need to reduce our energy consumption and then utilise renewable sources as much as possible. The oil may run out at some point but the wind and waves will not stop pounding us with their energy. The question is, will future Governments in an independent Scotland adopt a more responsible energy policy than a London based UK Government. The evidence suggests they will.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Charles when the oil runs out you'll not be in a position to worry. You'll have been buried for a very long time.

I'll probably be buried, but not for all that long in relation to the length of time to which a yes vote would condemn my successors to spearation.

So isn't that a highly immoral and irrepsonsible argument, inciting the current generation to vote yes on the basis of claims of a short term fix and giving no thought at all to the interests of the many generations to come who would have to live with the consequences of a yes vote in 2014?

It's also interesting to see that SNP "thinking" really hasn't evolved at all from the bogstandard "it's Scotland's oil" sloganising of the 70s.

Meanwhile from post 37, I see we are also being invited to vote yes on the basis of oil that bauhaus' nephew "thinks" might have been discovered.

What a patronising neutral BBC journalist you are. Don't let facts get in the way of a good scaremongering, will you?

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charles, with regards to the oil reserves found west of Shetland, thinking it is more than the North Sea held is an absolutely vast amount, considering, that was shared with Norway. And that is for the areas that they have explored, their are many more companies than BP looking.

Regards being compared to the Republic of Ireland, we are a much more diverse nation with a population more like the Scandanavians, than our Gaelic neighbours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regards being compared to the Republic of Ireland, we are a much more diverse nation with a population more like the Scandinavians, than our Gaelic neighbours.

You seriously believe that? The large number of Scots originated from the Emerald Isle, although there are a significant proportion originating from the Nordic countries with the highest concentrations in the Northern Isles due to their previous status of being an extension of Norway and populated accordingly.

However, the culture of the Scots is far more akin to our Celtic brothers than our Nordic cousins, due primarily to proximity and inter-breeding. Our attitudes and behaviours are much more British than Scandinavian, due primarily to the fact that we are a part of the same geographical location and not separated by almost 400 miles of sea. Hence the reason we speak English and Gaelic and not Norwegian and Danish.

Edited by FoolPhysio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

http://www.facebook....205845256186787

Interesting Euro - Here we come

If you are going to answer the above please make it sensible

http://conservativef...-eu-assertions/

Answer what exactly?

More speculation?

Personally I'd like a referendum on EU membership, I'm sure it's been promised before now but we're still waiting for Westminster's Government.

The Scottish Government have indicated that following a Yes to Independence, a referendum on Europe will follow.

Which do you think will happen first?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Scottish Government have indicated that following a Yes to Independence, a referendum on Europe will follow.

Which do you think will happen first?

Of course, it is always that simple.

The EU membership is not automatic and although Salmond would have you believe that he is right and the EU Commission is wrong and will at some point learn the error of their ways, promising a referendum on EU membership may be to ask if we want to join, not if we want to leave! It is a hollow promise, since they can't lose either way and they will expect most Scots to vote Yes to EU!

I presume there will be another one on whether or not we want to remain a part of / join NATO?

Whatever happened to the concept of representational government? When did this idea that all "big" decisions need a referendum start to exercise the chattering classes?

If that is the way we are moving then I would like to vote on the National budget every year please, since that has a direct bearing on my life. Will I get that in an independant Scotland?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EU membership will need to be applied for if Scotland were to become independant. Contrary to what the press says Alex Salmond has no power, at this time, to promise a referendum on membership. He can put it in his party manifesto but that is all. A referendum, if called for, will be called by the party in power in Scotland after the independance vote. There is no guarantee that that party will be the SNP.

As for NATO my understanding is that Scotland and the rest of UK will operate joint armed forces and so will remain NATO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for NATO my understanding is that Scotland and the rest of UK will operate joint armed forces and so will remain NATO.

Is it actually as simple as that? It might be but do we really know? I think there is a lot of the detail that needs to be discussed and agreed as fact by both sides so that the implications of a "yes" vote can be clearly understood.

I know it is agreed SNP policy that in an independent Scotland armed forces would be operated jointly with the remains of the UK. At the moment the UK is a member of NATO but would an independent Scotland automatically have membership and if not, would NATO accept the UK as a member sharing its armed forces with a non NATO member. Would a future Scottish or UK Government have the legal power to decide that they no longer wanted a joint arrangement? And how would any future shared arrangement actually work? Would Scotland and the UK be equal partners and if so, who actually will make the decision when the partners don't agree, Or would Scotland be subservient to its bigger neighbour with the result that those with the power to decide military policy for our armed forces would have absolutely no democratic accountability to the Scottish people?

I'm not saying this to argue either for or against independence. All I'm saying is that it is important that the potential constitutional and operational complexities are identified and that the politicians can agree as much as possible on the facts. This is where we also need high quality journalism to explore the issues and come to evidence based conclusions. We might then be able to have informed debates about the pros and cons of the implications.

I live in hope, but what I expect we will get is ill informed diatribe based on strongly held prejudices. One thing I am fairly sure about though is that the debate will be able to go ahead without the distraction of how the Scottish football team is going to fare in Brazil in 2014. :tongueincheek:

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

DD, perhaps we could adopt the Irish way. Declare total neutrality. Do not become a member of NATO but be part of the NATO Partnership for Peace framework. Have our own small defence force that performs peace keeping duties under United Nations control. With the breakdown of the Warsaw Pact and many of those eastern block countries now members of or affiliated to NATO, including Russia who are members of the Partnership for Peace framework, does this small country of ours have anything to fear from invasion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. : Terms of Use : Guidelines : Privacy Policy