The Big Scottish Independence Debate

[Alex MacLeod]

So many people get tied up in the assumption that the SNP would be the presiding party if/when independence happens. Assuming that the country votes yes then the first thing that would need to happen is a Scottish election to determine who leads the new state.

 

I like how you bring up council tax freeze as a bad thing Charles. You forget to mention that when councils had free reign to charge what they wanted they spent millions on trash and official jollies around the world. Now I cant speak for anywhere else but in Perth I've seen a vast improvement in the local services being provided since the freeze. We still have recreational facilities for all ages. We have theatres. We have parks and gardens that are maintained to very high standards. All this is being done by thoughtfully using the monies available and not squandering as happened in the past. I wonder if thats because our council is run by a SNP/Lib Dem coalition

 

So what is it thats not being provided for you and Inverness Charles? Better roads maybe........wait a minute!! Was it not Westminster that took control of the roads away from councils and handed it over to the private sector. Better schools? Was it not Westminster (Thatcher) who brought about the PPI system for building new schools that we now have to pay for into perpetuity?

[Alex MacLeod]

Ten years ago many would never have predicted that we could drill for oil and gas in deep water areas. Technology has advanced so much since then that drilling, and producing from, depths in excess of 3000 metres is common practice. The industry has also developed subsea technology and robotics so much that laying underwater production manifolds and other equipment is simple in those depths. Also being successfully developed is subsea production plant that could be operated from a shore based facility. The industry has also developed means of recovering more from existing oil fields. Back in the days when the first fields were discovered in the North Sea experts were predicting recoverable reserves at around 20% of actual reserves. These figures are now around 60 to 70% recoverable hence the reason many thirty year old platforms are being refurbished to last another twenty or thirty years.

 

Now back to the 'new boom'............the Atlantic shelf has vast quantities of untapped reserves and all the new technology mentioned above is going to allow production from those deep water area's.

 

Oil will be produced from Scottish waters for many, many years to come hence the reason the 'NO' campaigners are trying to make the facts out to be lies.

[FoolPhysio]

Ten years ago many would never have predicted that we could drill for oil and gas in deep water areas. Technology has advanced so much since then that drilling, and producing from, depths in excess of 3000 metres is common practice. The industry has also developed subsea technology and robotics so much that laying underwater production manifolds and other equipment is simple in those depths. Also being successfully developed is subsea production plant that could be operated from a shore based facility. The industry has also developed means of recovering more from existing oil fields. Back in the days when the first fields were discovered in the North Sea experts were predicting recoverable reserves at around 20% of actual reserves. These figures are now around 60 to 70% recoverable hence the reason many thirty year old platforms are being refurbished to last another twenty or thirty years.

 

Now back to the 'new boom'............the Atlantic shelf has vast quantities of untapped reserves and all the new technology mentioned above is going to allow production from those deep water area's.

 

Oil will be produced from Scottish waters for many, many years to come hence the reason the 'NO' campaigners are trying to make the facts out to be lies.

It certainly was predicted - BP Schiehallion FPSO was operating over a field discovered 20 years ago in 350-450m of water and has been operating since 1997.

The issue is not new fields - it is the maturity of the original fields. As assets age they become more expensive to operate. And these involve the larger, more easily accessible fields that are now well on their way to catching up with their estimated reserves. Note - estimated. So while the pro-oil lovers kid themselves that it could mean there is more there than was originally expected, it can also mean the opposite and the well runs dry earlier. The discovery of new fields, or even the exploitation of known fields that were too hard or were too expensive to exploit previously, does mean there is more oil than was known about 10-15 years ago, but these are getting fewer and we still have to bear in mind, this is a FINITE resource.

The technology is evolving all the time but as with all research and development, it takes time before it can become feasible as a commercial prospect - look at the news today regarding harvesting nodules of mineral deposits from the ocean floor. The technology exists now, it is whether it can be made a profitable concern that can put a brake on its use.

Many of the firms involved in oil and gas exploration and production in Scotland and by extension the UK are world leaders and experts in their field and business is booming. But speaking as someone involved in manufacturing in the industry, we are exceedingly busy - exporting to fields well beyond the North Sea. Our business is global and we have more business than we can handle, but we see less and less activity on our doorstep nowadays.

If Scotland was pinning its hopes of significant revenue from the oil fields here, then it will find that will be relatively short lived and actual production taxes will decline over time. Conversely, even though much of their activity is abroad, Corporation tax on companies based in or operating from Scotland may actually go up!

[FoolPhysio]

PPI - now there is a national tragedy that is only now beginning to bear fruit in the most awful way, yet still the UK government insists in using it to "fund" infrastructure projects now that will in turn become massive millstones round the neck of the local authorities and NHS, at least in England & Wales, for decades to come. All so balance sheets can be manipulated to look better than they really are. jam tomorrow? More like sackcloth and ashes. But why worry about the future when we have problems to solve now? Like getting re-elected.

What happened to the SNP alternative though? Has that actually been set up or are we using as similar system to PPI to fund these projects north of the border? Serious question, as I am not up to speed with this aspect.

Take your point Alex regarding assumptions on the SNP being the party to dominate the parliament of an independent Scotland, but they would be one of the stronger ones and therefore where there is a Republican-Democrat / Labour-Tory dominance in the US and UK, it is likely to be a Labour-SNP rivalry in Scotland (although I would fervently hope that the strong showing of the lib Dems up this way would mean that there could be a triumvirate rather than a duopoly).

Edited March 14, 2013 by FoolPhysio

[PullMyFinger]

 

STURGEON COMMITS SNP TO ENSHRINE LOCAL GOVT IN CONSTITUTION

 

A 'YES' VOTE WILL USHER NEW ERA OF LOCAL DEMOCRACY

So this will be the Local Government on which the SNP is currently imposing a Council Tax freeze and hence preventing it from providing adequate local services? It rather more looks to me as if the SNP actually wants to cut both Westminster and local authorities out of the equation and concentrate all the power on itself in Edinburgh.

 

So your idea of debate is to ignore the content, grab the headline, twist it to suit your agenda and then run with it? Good work.

[Alex MacLeod]

PPI - now there is a national tragedy that is only now beginning to bear fruit in the most awful way, yet still the UK government insists in using it to "fund" infrastructure projects now that will in turn become massive millstones round the neck of the local authorities and NHS, at least in England & Wales, for decades to come. All so balance sheets can be manipulated to look better than they really are. jam tomorrow? More like sackcloth and ashes. But why worry about the future when we have problems to solve now? Like getting re-elected.

What happened to the SNP alternative though? Has that actually been set up or are we using as similar system to PPI to fund these projects north of the border? Serious question, as I am not up to speed with this aspect.

Take your point Alex regarding assumptions on the SNP being the party to dominate the parliament of an independent Scotland, but they would be one of the stronger ones and therefore where there is a Republican-Democrat / Labour-Tory dominance in the US and UK, it is likely to be a Labour-SNP rivalry in Scotland (although I would fervently hope that the strong showing of the lib Dems up this way would mean that there could be a triumvirate rather than a duopoly).

The new Forth bridge is being funded totally from traditional means. (Public funds) As is the dualling of A9.

[PullMyFinger]

Vote Yes in 2014.

 

No more illegal wars in our name.

 

Scottish Labour leader supported Blair in sending our troops into armed conflict on a whim.

 

Ten years to the day on from a key Holyrood debate on 13 March 2003 in the run up to the Iraq war, the Scottish National Party has highlighted the lessons that must be learnt from the conflict.

In particular, Scottish Labour leader Johann Lamont has been pressed to make clear whether she accepts that she got her stance on the conflict badly wrong. While the debate split the Labour ranks, Johann Lamont made clear her support for Tony Blair's plans to invade, arguing in the debate that “we must acknowledge that there may be serious reasons why we must go to war.”

Despite the horrendous loss of life that has scarred Iraq since the fateful decision to invade, no weapons of mass destruction were ever found because they were not there, even though the case for war was based on their presence.

A decade on from the illegal conflict which has claimed tens of thousands of lives and which proved to be based on a sexed up dodgy dossier, Johann Lamont has been challenged to reveal whether she accepts that she was wrong to back Tony Blair's empty case.

Commenting, SNP MSP and former Cabinet Secretary Bruce Crawford said:

“It is exactly ten years to the day since the Scottish Parliament debated the Iraq war, and this is an appropriate time to look back and learn from the appalling mistakes and distortions that led the UK into an illegal conflict that came at very high human cost.

“It is striking from the debate ten years ago that, amongst the Labour ranks, Johann Lamont was supportive of Tony Blair and George Bush’s determination to invade.  It was a remarkable position for her to hold, putting herself in direct opposition to the millions of people at home and abroad who marched in vain to get the message across: not in our name.

"The only support Johann Lamont and the majority of her fellow Labour MSPs received 10 years ago came from the Tories - they were clearly wrong together.

“We now know that those of us who raised our voices in opposition to the conflict were proven right.  There were no weapons of mass destruction to disarm, and it was wrong to defy the authority of the United Nations. The entire illegal war was built upon a premise that was simply untrue, rendering it the UK's biggest foreign policy misadventure since Suez.

“With the benefit of hindsight, does Johann Lamont today accept that she got it very badly wrong in supporting a war that saw such appalling loss of life - bearing in mind that there were a number of Labour MSPs then who did not tow Tony Blair's line, such as Susan Deacon, Bill Butler, Pauline McNeill and John McAllion.

“Johann Lamont should explain why she put Westminster’s determination to invade ahead of the views of people in Scotland and around the world who opposed the Blair/Bush war.

“The most striking lesson of all from the conflict is that never again should Scotland find itself dragged into illegal conflicts by Westminster governments - that requires achieving the powers of independence, which is why a Yes vote in next autumn's referendum is so important."

 

[Yngwie]

PPI is very much alive and kicking under the SNP, with £billions of school, college and hospital projects being funded this way. They just call it something itself, and created a new quango for it called the Scottish Futures Trust.

 

I think anyone coming to power suddenly realises that whilst they might not like PPI, without it these projects just wouldn't happen at all.

[PullMyFinger]

T0: FINANCE / POLITICAL CORRESPONDENTS

 

NEW BUDGET FIGURES SHOW SCOTLAND’S FINANCES STRONGER BY £824 PER PERSON

 

"BIG BOOST TO CONFIDENCE AND A 'YES' VOTE"

The Scottish National Party welcomed the publication of the Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland (GERS) report for 011/12 – which shows that Scotland is financially stronger than the UK as a whole to the tune of £4.4 billion, or £824 per person. In 2011/12, Scotland generated 9.9 per cent of UK tax revenues with 8.4 per cent of the population – in return for 9.3 per cent of pending.

Finance committee convener SNP MSP Kenneth Gibson said:

“These are a powerful set of figures, which prove beyond any and all doubt that Scotland more than pays her way. The reality is that Scotland subsidises the rest of the UK – not the other way round - and also has better finances than other developed economies.

 

“The report shows that Scotland’s finances are stronger than the UK’s as a whole to the tune of £4.4 billion – or £824 for every man, woman and child.

 

“While the No campaign tries to talk Scotland down – and bizarrely argues that having access to billions of pounds of oil tax revenues is somehow a bad thing for Scotland but a good thing for Westminster – these figures give a big boost to confidence in Scotland, and to a 'Yes' vote in the referendum.

“Instead of Westminster wasting billions on unwanted Trident nuclear weapons, an independent Scotland with access to our nation’s wealth of resources can and will build a strong economy and fair society.”

 

 

 

I could do a lot with £824, ta muchly.

[Alex MacLeod]

A number of threads have been opened on the same subject. These have now all been merged together and the title changed. Opening new threads takes up more space on the server so please, if you've something to add that comes into the category of Scottish Independence, use this thread for all similar debate and comment.

[luddite]

Don't embarass yourself Dad.

Edited March 14, 2013 by luddite

[PullMyFinger]

A number of threads have been opened on the same subject. These have now all been merged together and the title changed. Opening new threads takes up more space on the server so please, if you've something to add that comes into the category of Scottish Independence, use this thread for all similar debate and comment.

 

I've got a point to make about that Alex.

 

Independence may be about a single emotional issue for many people but there are many, many issues to be debated over the next year and a half.

 

• Economy
• Education
• Welfare
• Health Service
• Defence
• Transport
• Agriculture
• Fisheries
• European Union

These are just a few and personally I think there are people who will completely ignore a generic Independence thread compared to a multitude of specific threads. Do we really want to stifle the debate before it starts?

[PullMyFinger]

Human rights Scottish style versus Westminster style, vote Yes!

 

http://wingsoverscotland.com/human-rights-a-choice/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=human-rights-a-choice

 

This is from the Scottish Government document about setting up a new constitution in an inclusive process after a Yes vote in a referendum:

“…a constitutional convention should consider how to further embed equality and human rights within the constitution and the extent to which the people of Scotland should have constitutional rights in relation to issues such as welfare, pensions, health care and education.”

This is from a recent speech by Theresa May:

>

“…and we need to stop human rights legislation interfering with our ability to fight crime and control immigration. That’s why, as our last manifesto promised, the next Conservative government will scrap the Human Rights Act, and it’s why we should also consider very carefully our relationship with the European Court of Human Rights and the Convention it enforces.”

I can’t decide for you, but I know which one seems more appealing to me.

 

[PullMyFinger]

PPI is very much alive and kicking under the SNP, with £billions of school, college and hospital projects being funded this way. They just call it something itself, and created a new quango for it called the Scottish Futures Trust.

 

I think anyone coming to power suddenly realises that whilst they might not like PPI, without it these projects just wouldn't happen at all.

 

PFI or PPP

 

You are right though, which is why we should vote Yes in 2014 and divert the cash we are pissing away to Westminster into capital projects here and kick start our economy.

[Alex MacLeod]

A number of threads have been opened on the same subject. These have now all been merged together and the title changed. Opening new threads takes up more space on the server so please, if you've something to add that comes into the category of Scottish Independence, use this thread for all similar debate and comment.

 

I've got a point to make about that Alex.

 

Independence may be about a single emotional issue for many people but there are many, many issues to be debated over the next year and a half.

 

• Economy
• Education
• Welfare
• Health Service
• Defence
• Transport
• Agriculture
• Fisheries
• European Union

These are just a few and personally I think there are people who will completely ignore a generic Independence thread compared to a multitude of specific threads. Do we really want to stifle the debate before it starts?

I do understand all that PMF. Keeping this whole site tidy is also important. I also apologise for my error that resulted in your ban from this thread and look forward to a lot of good debate over the next few months.

[PullMyFinger]

I do understand all that PMF. Keeping this whole site tidy is also important. I also apologise for my error that resulted in your ban from this thread and look forward to a lot of good debate over the next few months.

 

Accepted.

 

[PullMyFinger]

Now that this is the place for all things Independence Referendum related, I wonder how Bungalow Bill will feel about having started the debate?

[PullMyFinger]

Scottish Labour leader Johann Lamont scaremongering on state pension in an independent Scotland at Parliament.

[PullMyFinger]

ANGUS ROBERTSON RESPONDS TO DEFENCE SPEECH

 

 
The Defence Secretary Philip Hammond made his speech to the Royal Society in
Edinburgh this morning. It follows last week's Basing Review announcements in which the
coalition broke clear commitments to Scotland and made several still unxeplained
u-turns.
 
SNP Westminster leader and Defence Spokesman, Angus Robertson MP commented :  
  
“It was too much to hope that on one of his very rare visits to Scotland Philip Hammond might want to explain why the coalition reneged on all its commitments in the basing review last week .  He should have seen it as an opportunity to apologise for the broken promises and u-turns made over the deployment of up to 7,000 troops which turned into just 600.
 
“You could be forgiven for thinking that he might want to come and eat humble pie for all the dissembling and distortions.  He may even have taken  a rare moment to explain why he thinks it is a good idea to spend billions and billions of pounds  dumping weapons of mass destruction on the Clyde despite massive opposition from all sections of Scottish society.
 
“Not a hope. He came to attack the SNP and Scotland - something he could easily have done from his office in London, and he could have saved the taxpayers a return ticket.   He came to insult Scottish service personnel and demean his office by making jokes  about Scottish defence needs. People will make their own judgements about the wisdom of making that kind of speech when the reality is it his government that has been part of a massive defence underspend of over £7 billion pounds in Scotland in the last ten years alone, and has cut the defence footprint in Scotland relentlessly over the  years. It is his government that has made a volte face over all its promises . No one else to blame .
 
"The truth is that independence offers the attractive full-rank career prospects in Scotland which is impossible with the current set-up. For too long Scots in the UK Armed Forces have had to spend their entire careers outside Scotland owing to postings or limited options owing to their rank or specialism. This will change significantly for the better after independence.

 

"Service personnel will have much greater certainty about their location in Scotland, giving a bonus to defence dependent communities. Domestic operations, training at home and with neighbours and allies as well as international participation in UN sanctioned peace-keeping missions will guarantee an attractive career path.’’

[Alex MacLeod]

Scottish Labour leader Johann Lamont scaremongering on state pension in an independent Scotland at Parliament.

That cant be easy for her to do considering all the UK parties have been using the same tactics, when in opposition, for years. State pensions will be in turmoil regardless of independence because all the NI contributions that should have been invested to pay for health, welfare and pensions were used to bale out the UK and help pay for illegal warfare.

[FoolPhysio]

As an aside from all the embassy debate......is there a need for representation in so many of the countries around the world where we also have reciprocating agreements. After all, if every one of the countries listed in the above link had a little bit of themselves in UK there wouldnt be any room for our citizens to build homes. Christ we have ten different establishments in Finland, a member state of the EEC. Is it really necessary to shell out the extortionate salaries for all those diplomatic types and their hangers-on?

Just had a quick squint at the foreign embassy list for the UK. Seems most are registered in London.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/136377/LDL_March_2013.pdf

Then again, so are Irelands:

http://www.dfa.ie/uploads/documents/Protocol/diplomatic list january 2013.pdf

If we ever did vote for independence we should get used to small-country thinking and only really concern ourselves with ourselves, since our larger and more powerful neighbour will take care of all the bits we are unable or unwilling to deal with ourselves.

Right, now lets take a look at the significantly reduced military we will have as that is the next great employer that we won't be needing as we will be too busy running our entrepreneurial economy to need any public sector jobs like those . . . We won't need to worry about being dragged into any wars, "legal" or otherwise, as we will only be providing IT chaps for the IFOR since our physical assets are unlikely to leave our territorial waters due to incapacity. Again, our big brother next door will deal with all that for us and we can hide behind him if it ever did kick off.

Sheesh. You wonder why anyone else gets dragged into these things when it is always so more simple to say no. Good thing SNP won't be joining NATO. Oh, wait a minute . . .

Fact is, we are stronger together and even if we disagree with some aspects of what goes on in our name, we are active contributors because we are part of a much larger machine. If we pull away, a lot of those aspects will evaporate and we will be left unable to contribute not because we don't want to, but because we can't. There is a general assumption on the part of the YES campaign that we will keep all the good bits and all the bad bits can simply be shrugged off, just because we will be responsible for our own affairs in their entirity. One feature of the good bits is that we can assume our neighbour will cover for us in everything beyond our own border and be happy to pay for it as well, or that the bill will be a nominal amount for us to "hire" their services. And of course they would give us the same level of representation and attention as they would their own citizens. Aye, right.

[Alex MacLeod]

So military is the big thing now is it. Shame it wasnt the big thing a few years ago. Remember back then? Back when Scotland had numerous Naval bases, even more numerous RAF bases and of course numerous Army regiments based all around our country. All totally decimated under Westminster rule. And whats happening at this moment? Our capacity is being further reduced. Down to one RAF base. Soon to be three Army bases and I dont think we have any Naval presence apart from the Clyde Trident base and RM Condor.

 

What an independent Scotland would need I dont know but Ireland seems happy enough with a very small defence force. What is the real threat to our shores in this post cold war modern world we live in? Where should the money be spent? Creating jobs useful to the modern world or excessive armed forces? Questions I cant answer but ones that need addressed and debated.

[PullMyFinger]

 

 

As an aside from all the embassy debate......is there a need for representation in so many of the countries around the world where we also have reciprocating agreements. After all, if every one of the countries listed in the above link had a little bit of themselves in UK there wouldnt be any room for our citizens to build homes. Christ we have ten different establishments in Finland, a member state of the EEC. Is it really necessary to shell out the extortionate salaries for all those diplomatic types and their hangers-on?

Just had a quick squint at the foreign embassy list for the UK. Seems most are registered in London. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/136377/LDL_March_2013.pdf

 

 

"Seems most are registered in London"

 

First line on page one - "Alphabetical list of the representatives of Foreign States & Commonwealth Countries in London". Did you even read it? Why would you expect them to be anywhere else anyway?

 

Then again, so are Irelands:

http://www.dfa.ie/uploads/documents/Protocol/diplomatic list january 2013.pdf#

I went to the bother of transferring them to a spreadsheet. (Which didn't format well in this naff new quotebox.)

Irish Embassies.xlsx

So 66 of Irelands Foreign Ambassadors are also the Ambassadors to the UK and resident in London? I'd guess they would also be the Ambassadors to an Independent Scotland too. Nice to see that a wee country like Ireland can still attract 60 foreign Embassies though. That's really pleasing. I wonder how many we'll have?

Edited March 15, 2013 by PullMyFinger

[PullMyFinger]

Part 2 of reply to FoolPhysio

If we ever did vote for independence we should get used to small-country thinking and only really concern ourselves with ourselves, since our larger and more powerful neighbour will take care of all the bits we are unable or unwilling to deal with ourselves.

 

BIts like illegal wars in Iraq? Buying a nuclear arsenal that 80% of Scots don't want in Scotland? Aircraft carriers for our new.....oh wait, we haven't got planes to put on them.

 

Right, now lets take a look at the significantly reduced military we will have as that is the next great employer that we won't be needing as we will be too busy running our entrepreneurial economy to need any public sector jobs like those . . . We won't need to worry about being dragged into any wars, "legal" or otherwise, as we will only be providing IT chaps for the IFOR since our physical assets are unlikely to leave our territorial waters due to incapacity. Again, our big brother next door will deal with all that for us and we can hide behind him if it ever did kick off.

 

What incapacity would that be? SNP policy is to reduce defence spending by £1billion which will still mean capital spent on defence in Scotland would incread by over half a billion pounds, such is the imbalance at the moment. We would have more troops based in Scotland than we've had for many a year.

Sheesh. You wonder why anyone else gets dragged into these things when it is always so more simple to say no. Good thing SNP won't be joining NATO. Oh, wait a minute . . .

 

 

SNP can't join NATO, they are a political party. SNP policy is for an independent Scotland to continue it's membership of NATO (we are already in NATO as part of the UK)

 

[PullMyFinger]

Part 3

 

Fact is, we are stronger together and even if we disagree with some aspects of what goes on in our name, we are active contributors because we are part of a much larger machine.

 

 

Please read that out loud to yourself.

If we pull away, a lot of those aspects will evaporate and we will be left unable to contribute not because we don't want to, but because we can't.

 

 

What are you talking about?

There is a general assumption on the part of the YES campaign that we will keep all the good bits and all the bad bits can simply be shrugged off, just because we will be responsible for our own affairs in their entirity.

 

 

 

Oh Lord above, can you please provide a link no matter how tenuous to something even remotely resembling that statement that can be attributed to the SNP government, SNP party or the YesScotland campaign?

One feature of the good bits is that we can assume our neighbour will cover for us in everything beyond our own border and be happy to pay for it as well, or that the bill will be a nominal amount for us to "hire" their services.

 

 

 

Again, can you please provide a link no matter how tenuous to something even remotely resembling that statement that can be attributed to the SNP government, SNP party or the YesScotland campaign?

 

>And of course they would give us the same level of representation and attention as they would their own citizens. Aye, right.

 

 

 

I dont' think we need to be so worried about what they do for their citizens but should be thinking about our own, what do you think an independent Scotland should be like? This is a once in a lifetime chance to do something remarkable for your country, your family, your friends. Talk about it with them, explore the facts not what scare story the tabloids and broadsheets are running that day or the biased bull**** being sold as fact on our biased BBC (they've even admitted as much publicly and unashamedly)

 

What level of representation do we have with Westminster now?

90% of scottish MPs voted against the bedroom tax, it's happening.

80% of Scots don't want nuclear weapons on our doorstep, they're here.

We contribute 9.9% of revenue to Westminster but only account for 9.3% of spending.