The Big Scottish Independence Debate

[MarkD]

Amazing how its oil managed to get on to those Cornish beaches in 1967 then!

 

The last oil spill in the North West Pacific Coast of B.C. was that of the Torrey Canyon over twenty years ago and they are STILL cleaning up the mess settled on the shores of Northern B.C.
 

[The Mantis]

Amazing how its oil managed to get on to those Cornish beaches in 1967 then!

 

The last oil spill in the North West Pacific Coast of B.C. was that of the Torrey Canyon over twenty years ago and they are STILL cleaning up the mess settled on the shores of Northern B.C.

 

Yeah, could have sworn I was in primary school at the time........ Must have been some other Canyon then Pimple!

[Alex MacLeod]

History lesson time Pimple

 

 

The Torrey Canyon departed Mina al Ahmadi with a full cargo of crude oil in February 1967, reached the Canary Islands in March, with an intended destination of Milford Haven in Wales. On 18 March 1967 it struck Pollard's Rock on Seven Stones Reef between the Cornish mainland and the Scilly Isles and spilled 32 million gallons of crude.

 

 

 

Two oil spills that occurred hundreds of miles off the east coast of Canada in autumn 1988 are often mistaken for each other. In September 1988, the Ocean Odyssey, an American-owned offshore drilling rig, exploded and dumped more than a million barrels (about 43 million gallons) of oil into the North Atlantic. One person was killed; 66 others were rescued. In November 2008, the Odyssey, a British-owned oil tanker, broke in two, caught fire and sank in heavy seas about 900 miles east of Newfoundland, spilling about a million barrels of oil. All 27 crew members were missing and presumed dead.

 

Was the BC spill you refer to Scarlet not caused by the accidental rupture of a pipeline?

[PullMyFinger]

Scottish LibDems passed a motion supporting home rule for the Northern Isles.

This is a blatant unashamed attack on the independence campaign which is ill thought out. The Shetland and Orkney islands would be considered enclaves in Scottish territory and as such would only be entitled to a few miles of waters around them. I really hope they are given a referendum on independence and then Tavish will see what a fool he is.

[PullMyFinger]

This video was pulled because of copyright claims but has now been re-uploaded.

 

 

Does anyone have one of the unanswered questions? If so will you please hand it in at your nearest police station (whose union are supporting the Yes vote) or post it via Royal Mail (whose union in Scotland are supporting the Yes vote).

[PullMyFinger]

'The reality is that Scotland has not voted for separation' The Scottish people also never voted for union and if it had the oppertunity in 1707  then it would never had happened.

Nor did they vote for Strathclyde, Dalriada, Lothian and Pictland to join together to become Scotland in the first place - largely because voting was no more an option then than it was in 1707. Nor probably would the people of Pictland have voted to become part of Scotland if they had anticipated the central belt domination and neglect they would suffer - which is a further good reason for no Highlander to vote yes next year and have all their affairs run from Edinburgh. (And the "well it's better than being dominated from London" response to that has been anticipated - and rejected!)

Looking at the longer passage of history - the bigger picture -  Scotland, England, Wales and to a lesser extent Ireland were arguably just transitional stages in between Strathclyde etc up here and Mercia, Northumbria, Wessex etc down there agglomerating into Great Britain. The next step in this historical evolution is further agglomeration into Europe and the current debate is how far we want to become involved in that.

But if the separatists want to turn the clock back, why stop at Scotland? Why not go further than that to Scotland's predecessor states because then you can claim that "It's Pictland's Oil" and we don't have to share it with them down there!

If the UK was ever going to be broken up, then there's actually a stronger north case for independence for the Highlands and Islands than there is for independence for Scotland.

 

Vote no and you'll have an in/out referendum on EU membership according to Cameron, how does that fit in with your theory Chucky?

 

To safeguard our EU membership and continued evolution, vote Yes.

[Alex MacLeod]

Well hasn't the UK Chancellor been good to us. Last year we put more into UK coffers than we took out so now we're getting even less out.

[PullMyFinger]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TO6UYkeSPk&feature=youtu.be

[PullMyFinger]

Is this a fair and balanced picture? Take a look at the size and placing of the Yes (not YesScotland) graphic. BBC scum!

 

 

Do one great thing!

 

[PaderbornCaley]

Scottish LibDems passed a motion supporting home rule for the Northern Isles.

This is a blatant unashamed attack on the independence campaign which is ill thought out. The Shetland and Orkney islands would be considered enclaves in Scottish territory and as such would only be entitled to a few miles of waters around them. I really hope they are given a referendum on independence and then Tavish will see what a fool he is.

 

 

Some really interesting debate on here.  I've been observing closely.  Time to have my say I think!

 

SInce the first time I voted (2005) I have voted for the Liberal Democrats.  At the last General Election I even canvassed for the Lib Dems down in Glasgow.  They were very close to ousting the incompetent New Labour MP.  I voted tactically for SNP and on the list seat the Lib Dems, to help stop New Labour at the last Scottish elections.

 

I believe in an independent Scotland with Liberal Democrat values.  Until very recently I have said that I will vote YES and then if Scotland became independent, I would then vote for the Scottish Liberal Democrats.  (As long as their manifesto does not include re-joining the Union). 

 

At first I was happy to see what they would do in the coalition.  I had hoped that they could really stamp their Liberal values into the UK Government.  Unfortunately, they just don't have enough power and have sold their soul. It's been one thing after another though from the Lib Dems.  However. this from Tavish is the last straw.  I am not opposed to home rule for the Northern Isles.  If the people of Shetland want it then fair enough.  However, he is using them for his own political games and is quite frankly taking the ****.  He's basically admitted that he's doing this to give two fingers to the Nationalist cause. 

 

I can just imagine the Shetland declaration of Independence from Tavish Scott.  'Well, if they are having independence, then so are we' (Blows raspberry at picture of Alex Salmond).  It's childish play ground politics. 

 

Mind you, if the Anti-Independence campaign are successful  then at least we can have the pleasure of unseating that absolute cretin of a man, Danny Alexander. 

 

I have no idea who I will be voting for in the next Scottish or UK elections.  But one things for sure.  I will be voting YES on 18th September 2014. 

 

[PullMyFinger]

Like I have said before my biggest worry is the Royal mail, if I lose the domestic rates to the UK, It will cost me at least £100 a week and probably more if the Royal mail leave Scotland.

 

 

Care to comment now Laurence? Your biggest worry has come to fruition for rUK. An independent Scotland will have a publicly owned mail service.

[Charles Bannerman]

An independent Scotland will have a publicly owned mail service.

 

How do you know?

 

I seem to see an awful lot of pronouncements from the separatist lobby which appear to presume to dictate what future government policy of a separate Scotland would be. In practice, these pronouncements apparently amount to no more than a wish list on the part of the SNP regarding what they would do in the event of their continuing to be elected - which I certainly wouldn't bet on. Indeed much of the yes case seems to rely on populist promises based on the assumption that those making them would have the authority to carry them out.

Indeed in the increasingly unlikely event of a yes vote, there would presumably no longer even be any need for an SNP since the only thing they give a toss about would have happened.

Edited September 13, 2013 by Charles Bannerman

[Kingsmills]

 

An independent Scotland will have a publicly owned mail service.

 

How do you know?

 

I seem to see an awful lot of pronouncements from the separatist lobby which appear to presume to dictate what future government policy of a separate Scotland would be. In practice, these pronouncements apparently amount to no more than a wish list on the part of the SNP regarding what they would do in the event of their continuing to be elected - which I certainly wouldn't bet on. Indeed much of the yes case seems to rely on populist promises based on the assumption that those making them would have the authority to carry them out.

Indeed in the increasingly unlikely event of a yes vote, there would presumably no longer even be any need for an SNP since the only thing they give a toss about would have happened.

 

 

With respect, the SNP give more than a toss about the prudent and efficient governance of the country which they have been demonstrating rather ably since taking the reins and Holyrood six years ago.

[Charles Bannerman]

 

 

With respect, the SNP give more than a toss about the prudent and efficient governance of the country which they have been demonstrating rather ably since taking the reins and Holyrood six years ago.

 

Kingsmills I am rather less than sure about that. The SNP exists for the sole purpose of taking Scotland out of the UK and everything else comes a poor second to that objective. I am also sure that this will become even clearer as the referendum approaches - as will be their attempts to pick fghts wth "the Westminster government" which has become their latest bete noire now that they can no longer gripe on about "the English" since their Anglophobia count was getting dangerousy high.

Edited September 13, 2013 by Charles Bannerman

[Oddquine]

 

 

 

With respect, the SNP give more than a toss about the prudent and efficient governance of the country which they have been demonstrating rather ably sincIe taking the reins and Holyrood six years ago.

 

Kingsmills I am rather less than sure about that. The SNP exists for the sole purpose of taking Scotland out of the UK and everything else comes a poor second to that objective. I am also sure that this will become even clearer as the referendum approaches - as will be their attempts to pick fghts wth "the Westminster government" which has become their latest bete noire now that they can no longer gripe on about "the English" since their Anglophobia count was getting dangerousy high.

 

Well. of course it does and they have never made any secret of the fact.which is why the Scottish Parliament voting system was deliberately set up by Westminster to ensure there would never be majority Governments in Scotland as the SNP vote increased......just in case! That worked as well as they anticipated, didn't it.... NOT......much as most of their policies have achieved what was anticipated...NOT.   Having lived through the years since 1999 with Scotland and the Scots being called "subsidy junkies" and lots of other pejorative names........I really struggle to understand why the Westminster Government wants to keep us at all..because I get the impression that if voters in England had a say....we'd be set adrift on a raft with no paddle. You surely don't think that the UK Government, that bastion of probity, fairness, equity and social conscience could possibly have an ulterior motive which benefits them but not us, do you?

 

I will be voting in this referendum for the future of my great-grandchild and future great-grandchildren, which I think will be best served in an Independent Scotland and not within the Union. In the 1979 referendum, I voted and actively worked for the future of my children...and in the 1997 referendum, for the future of my grandchildren, I used to assume the SNP would go their own ways as individuals into other political parties when independence had been achieved (I had planned the LibDems, myself)....but now I'm not so sure that's a good idea....at least not until there is a centre/centre left  party for which I can vote, who can stand in elections in Scotland after Independence (as in registered in Scotland as a Scottish Party as opposed to registered in the UK as a UK wide  Party) and produces policies tailored to Scottish needs and aspirations. . 

 

I'd say I am thoroughly disillusioned with the UK mainstream parties...but that is stating the obvious...however, I'm also thoroughly disillusioned with the Scottish versions of the UK parties. They are, and always have been,imo, vitriolic against the SNP to the point of irrational obsession....and are simply the ventriloquist's dummies for their UK based masters (and I use the term dummies advisedly) in this independence "debate"..and every time they open their mouths,they add another yes vote to the total.......much as Unionist MPs travelling to Scotland and being reported in the MSM telling us what to think do.

 

They don't have to pick fights with the Westminster Government, any more than the wee laddie cowering behind the bike-shed has to pick fights with the school bully...but if you want to consider that contradicting the lies, disinformation, misrepresentation, spin etc produced by Westminster and faithfully reported by your "journalist" cohorts in the MSM, is on a par with punching the nose of the bully who has just grabbed your dinner money..then that says a lot more about your attitude than it does about that of pro-independence supporters.

 

With you being a "journalist" or something on that lines , anyone of my age would expect unbiased and temperate views.and not bias couched in unsupported "facts" .......but then I used to live in the days when the media was at least almost even handed enough to use the occasional "maybe","perhaps", "allegedly","it is said". "an unnamed source" etc...which flagged up the fact that the "news" report was more related to gossip interpreted by the "journalist"  than actual fact....so kindly link me to something unbiased  which confirms your assertion that their attempts to pick fghts wth "the Westminster government" which has become their latest bete noire now that they can no longer gripe on about "the English" since their Anglophobia count was getting dangerousy high. 

[IBM]

Well said Oddquine

[Charles Bannerman]

 

 

I will be voting in this referendum for the future of my great-grandchild and future great-grandchildren,

 

By which time the oil will long since have run out!

 

Separation is for ever - not just for Christmas!

Edited September 13, 2013 by Charles Bannerman

[Oddquine]

 

 

 

I will be voting in this referendum for the future of my great-grandchild and future great-grandchildren,

 

By which time the oil will long since have run out!

 

Separation is for ever - not just for Christmas!

 

. What has the oil to do with anything? The only country which desperately needs the income from oil to make ends meet is the UK....which is maybe one of the reasons for the reluctance to see the back of us (the other being the Trident marina)..  Anyway...the oil is going to be  around for a good few decades yet.....should think it will still be around when my great-great-grandchildren are teenagers....but I repeat, what has the oil to do with anything?   It's a bonus.....not the reason for wanting Independence.

 

Separation is for ever - not just for Christmas!    That is such a stupid comment from a supposedly intelligent individual!

[PullMyFinger]

 

An independent Scotland will have a publicly owned mail service.

 

How do you know?

 

I seem to see an awful lot of pronouncements from the separatist lobby which appear to presume to dictate what future government policy of a separate Scotland would be. In practice, these pronouncements apparently amount to no more than a wish list on the part of the SNP regarding what they would do in the event of their continuing to be elected - which I certainly wouldn't bet on. Indeed much of the yes case seems to rely on populist promises based on the assumption that those making them would have the authority to carry them out.

Indeed in the increasingly unlikely event of a yes vote, there would presumably no longer even be any need for an SNP since the only thing they give a toss about would have happened.

 

 

Let's just say it's a gut instinct, Chuck.

 

 

 

 

With respect, the SNP give more than a toss about the prudent and efficient governance of the country which they have been demonstrating rather ably since taking the reins and Holyrood six years ago.

 

Kingsmills I am rather less than sure about that. The SNP exists for the sole purpose of taking Scotland out of the UK and everything else comes a poor second to that objective. I am also sure that this will become even clearer as the referendum approaches - as will be their attempts to pick fghts wth "the Westminster government" which has become their latest bete noire now that they can no longer gripe on about "the English" since their Anglophobia count was getting dangerousy high.

 

 

That changed many years ago, Chuck. As for the anti-English slur, really? Is that where you still are? The debate moved on long ago, do try and catch up.

[PullMyFinger]

 

Like I have said before my biggest worry is the Royal mail, if I lose the domestic rates to the UK, It will cost me at least £100 a week and probably more if the Royal mail leave Scotland.

 

 

Care to comment now Laurence? Your biggest worry has come to fruition for rUK. An independent Scotland will have a publicly owned mail service.

 

 

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/royal-mail-sale-rural-charges-under-scrutiny-1-3093469

 

Still nothing to say Laurence?

[dougiedanger]

It's probably a positive thing for the Yes campaign that all the smug, ill-informed, fearful, and downright irritating types seem to be lining up with the No side.

[Alex MacLeod]

Over the next year we'll see truth and fiction. We'll experience debate and slur. One side will produce information and the other will counter with something that happened thirty years ago. we'll hear good reasons for independence. We'll hear good reason for the status quo. In among all that we'll hear from those who will spin and scare and those who will counter arguement just for the hell of it. The No people will dig up sleaze against the SNP regardless of the fact that the Yes people are supported by persons of all persuasions. The Charles Bannermans of the world will continue to tell the Yes people that they are anglophiles even though many of those Yes people are English born. It will all get interesting. It will all get boring. It may be calm. It may be heated. At the end of the day a decision will be made and some will be happy. Others wont. And whatever the outcome we will still be a country populated by peoples of many nationalities, colours and creeds. The English born living here wont go back south. The Scots born down there wont come back up north.

[starchief]

Having lived through the years since 1999 with Scotland and the Scots being called "subsidy junkies" and lots of other pejorative names........I really struggle to understand why the Westminster Government wants to keep us at all..because I get the impression that if voters in England had a say....we'd be set adrift on a raft with no paddle. You surely don't think that the UK Government, that bastion of probity, fairness, equity and social conscience could possibly have an ulterior motive which benefits them but not us, do you?

If only there had been more Scots in Parliament in that time.  Maybe like a prime minister or two?  Possibly a few chancellors that had to be re-elected by the people of Scotland?  Maybe the odd Scottish foreign secretary?  How about the leaders of both of the main opposition parties?

[PullMyFinger]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-24090772

[PullMyFinger]

 

Having lived through the years since 1999 with Scotland and the Scots being called "subsidy junkies" and lots of other pejorative names........I really struggle to understand why the Westminster Government wants to keep us at all..because I get the impression that if voters in England had a say....we'd be set adrift on a raft with no paddle. You surely don't think that the UK Government, that bastion of probity, fairness, equity and social conscience could possibly have an ulterior motive which benefits them but not us, do you?

If only there had been more Scots in Parliament in that time.  Maybe like a prime minister or two?  Possibly a few chancellors that had to be re-elected by the people of Scotland?  Maybe the odd Scottish foreign secretary?  How about the leaders of both of the main opposition parties?

 

 

The referendum is not about nationality, it's about the right of Scots to choose our own future.

 

Scots politicians in Westminster parties are answerable to the UK electorate as well as their constituents if they happen to be members of the government in addition to parliament. 

 

If we have politicians of the calibre that consistently make it to the top at Westminster then why at Holyrood, do we have what can at best be described as mediocre councillors leading the opposition parties?