Should Scotland be an independent country

[Laurence]

It was just when I happened to notice that this thread is still drifting on that I realised that we still have over a year to suffer of this tedious Neverendum. I just don't know why Salmond couldn't have accepted that the Scottish public generally aren't Anglophobes like his own party and abandoned his attempt at a 2014 Bannockburn Bounce in favour of a much earlier date which would have given us all a break from all this stuff.

September 9th 2013 comes to mind as a much better referendum date. After all it's the 20th anniversary of the Thistle and Caley merger votes..... oh, and the 500th of the Battle of Flodden!! A missed opportunity to save us a whole extra year of tedium Alex!!!

Now, to turn to the wheeze proposed in the link in post #195. This looks to me like pretty standard Anglophobic SNP dogma. You know what I mean. The kind of good old fashioned SNP Anglophobia they've tried to put on the back burner for the moment in an attempt to curry favour for this forthcoming vote - but which will re emerge pretty quickly when it's all over. The gist of it seems to be the by now familiar SNP whinge of "Thae English are grabbing aw the money and investment down south!!"

And their solution? Apparently for Scotland to give up its share in all the consequent British wealth generation and go it alone. Let's be clear about what this paper is saying. Because, by claiming that all that wealth resides down south, that surely must also amount to an admission that Scotland is much poorer - which actually completely contradicts the standard party line. They can't have their cake and eat it. That paper actually amounts to a very decent case FOR the Union!

So what do they want to replace this terribly unjust wealth distribution with? Well... SCOTLAND silly! Which of course is simply another scenario where the northern part has far more poor people and all the rich people are concentrated in the south. "Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose" as they say in Gaelic.

Once again, I return to my thesis that, in addition to the fundamental lack of substance in the separatist case, there are just so many extra reasons for Highlanders not to vote for separation. We've just seen another example here, prompted by ideas from this economic paper, of how the Highlands would become an underprivileged appendage of a separate Scotland with no fallback on a larger and more secure host state. And that's before you consider that, in addition to most of the rich people across the central belt, west central Scotland also creates a disproportionate health and welfare bill which would also have to be subsidised by Highland taxes, but without the Barnet consequentials which currently mean that within the UK, public spending is £1000 a head higher in Scotland.

The SNP's case for separation, such as it is, seems to be pretty bogstandard and largely predicated on greed with a fair smattering of Anglophobia which, like Blair with Socialism, they're trying to keep quiet about for the moment in an attempt to become electable. They also from time to time float policies such as on pensions etc with which they try to bribe the electorate. However they could only ever deliver these if the SNP actually had a say in the government after any separation took place. And that is far from certain.

The separatist argument seems simply to be to slice off the bit of Britain which has all the (overstated) oil wealth (or at least until it runs out in a few decades time) and declare it a separate and allegedly wealthy state.

Well chaps... to follow your argument through to its logical conclusion..... IT'S PICTLAND'S OIL!!!!!

Why share it with the central belt, and in any case Pictland was there long before Scotland was ever thought of.

OK, time to do a Rip van Winkle and escape the tedium by going back to sleep again - whilst making sure I wake up in time to vote NO.

Well said Charles, By the way when you wake up Rip, you might find one of your jobs has disappeared  I believe the BBC's mandate, is with the UK, 

[Alex MacLeod]

Well done Charles. In all those words you've managed to do everything that the anti-YES brigade have been doing all along. You, like them, have managed to put together a few anti-Salmond words but fail to actually counter the arguements put forward for why we can prosper as an independant country. So many people are tied up in the anti-SNP boat that they fail to see the others who are backing the YES campaign. There are MSP's of other parties who will urge their membership to support YES. So while the BETTERTOGETHER people choose not to give us reason to stay together but instead concentrate on how they can decry the SNP other MSP's are promoting the YES campaing to good effect. Keep it up Charles, Laurence and BETTERTOGETHER, the more you fail to counter the arguements the more the rest of us will believe you cant.

[The Mantis]

 

Pretty compelling stuff that. Who's gonna be first to pick holes in it then?

 

Is that an invitation?

 

Well, first of all it is good to see some arguments based on real facts and figures, and some of it is pretty thought provoking. But the article is rather twisted and deficient in logic.

 

It starts with the question "Where does Scotland's wealth go?" and then shows a map of the UK showing that millionaires are far more likely to be found in the South-East than up here, unashamedly implying that because of the current political set-up those people have got our money -  but making no attempt to actually explain the factors behind that disparity, or even to explain why it is an appropriate measure (it would make much more sense consider the average wealth of normal people rather than the elite top slice)

 

There's no mention of the essential reason why our GDP per capita is higher than average but doesn't translate into wealth here. It is because so much our GDP comes from an industry (oil) which is mostly controlled by multinational corporations based outside of Scotland. So the substantial profits, dividends and senior executive pay just don't stay here. What else boosts our GDP - whisky? We don't own much of that either, I'm afraid. Renewable energy? Mostly foreign, with one company alone (Iberdrola) sending almost £1bn this year from Scotland back to Spain.

 

Sadly I don't see how independence would change this.

 

Sorry Yngwie, I just spent half an hour composing a response on the grounds that your posts are always well-reasoned and deserving of a response, contrary to the repetitive rants of other posters   . Pictland, ffs....

Unfortunately I pressed a key which has deleted the whole lot 

I may try again tomorrow or I may not....

[dougiedanger]

So that's Laurence, Dougal and Banners in the No camp, quite the unholy alliance.

[draganict]

fecking get a grip you lot! 

 

let the intelligent people concentrate on politics and you numpties just get behind your team

[+DoofersDad]

But we are the intelligent people.  This debate is far too important to be left to the politicians.

[Alex MacLeod]

Barbed wire at the border.................http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/the-no-campaign-borders-on-hypocrisy/

[Rival]

So that's Laurence, Dougal and Banners in the No camp, quite the unholy alliance.

I am not for Indepence in the serious side but it would make England-Scotland rivalries rather more heated than they have been recently

[PullMyFinger]

So that's Laurence, Dougal and Banners in the No camp, quite the unholy alliance.

I am not for Indepence in the serious side but it would make England-Scotland rivalries rather more heated than they have been recently Voting against independence raises the question of why we have 4 national teams. How many other nations have 4 national teams?

[Renegade]

The other country in a similar position I can think of is China.  They have China (obviously!), Hong Kong, Chinese Taipei (which is actually Taiwan, and independent in itself I believe) and Macau (I think).

[Rival]

The other country in a similar position I can think of is China.  They have China (obviously!), Hong Kong, Chinese Taipei (which is actually Taiwan, and independent in itself I believe) and Macau (I think).

I believe Tibet are trying to gain full EAFF (East Asian Football Federation) status

Also do USA not have, USA, Guam, American Samoa, Northern Mariana Islands, possibly more

[Alex MacLeod]

Hong Kong (which was loaned to the British for a period) and Macua, two tiny little areas of Chinas south coast, are described as "mostly self governing special administrative regions" and they do, indeed, have their own football associations. From what I can decypher in Wiki there are two FA's in China. The Chinese Tiapei Football Association and the Chinese Football Association. The Chinese Tiapei FA is the governing body for the Republic of China (Tiawan as Rene says} and the Chinese FA for the Peoples Republic of China which is most of mainland China.

[Alex MacLeod]

 

The other country in a similar position I can think of is China.  They have China (obviously!), Hong Kong, Chinese Taipei (which is actually Taiwan, and independent in itself I believe) and Macau (I think).

I believe Tibet are trying to gain full EAFF (East Asian Football Federation) status

Also do USA not have, USA, Guam, American Samoa, Northern Mariana Islands, possibly more

 

The Tibet story makes interesting reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibet_national_football_team

[+Fraz]

Make what you will of it

 

http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/7915-yes-scotland-hacking-large-scale-and-may-have-been-going-on-for-months

 

 

[Alex MacLeod]

Quite simple really. Scotland can prosper on her own. The BetterTogether campaign know that and are fearful of it. They have no arguement to the contrary but hope to smear the Yes people into backing off. Scotland will be better off. England will be worse off. Thats the bottom line and thats why people are using very undemocratic means to try and prevent our rightful independence.

[starchief]

That assumes the No campaign are all English. Obviously not. Thats your own prejudice shining through. BetterTogether was launched and is led by Scotsmen. They simply have a different view of an independent Scotland - one worse for Scotland and the UK. It is you using underhand deception to smear whilst condeming the other side for doing the same.

Stick to the facts. This anti-Englishness just puts anyone without a chip on their shoulder off.

Still undecided.

[Alex MacLeod]

Where the hell is the anti-Englishness in my statement. My only reference is to state that England would be worse off without Scotland. I have absolutely nothing against Englend or the English people. Indeed I have many English friends. I do, however, believe that Scotland should and can be an independant country. I believe it can be a prosperous country and I believe that England fears an independant prosperous neighbour. I also believe that, as an independant country, we will have strong political and economic relations with England.

 

You are correct in one thing though. Better Together was launched by a Scot.

[Alex MacLeod]

And guess what...........there are even English YES activists. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/meet-campaigners-leading-fight-scottish-2224023?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

[Oddquine]

That assumes the No campaign are all English. Obviously not. Thats your own prejudice shining through. BetterTogether was launched and is led by Scotsmen. They simply have a different view of an independent Scotland - one worse for Scotland and the UK. It is you using underhand deception to smear whilst condeming the other side for doing the same.

Stick to the facts. This anti-Englishness just puts anyone without a chip on their shoulder off.

Still undecided.

 What anti-Englishness?   Both sides are a broad kirk of all nationalities, religions, football affiliations, no specific politics and very specific politics etc. Better Together is led by a Unionist,.the fact he is a Scotsman is neither here nor there, tbh...just as the fact that he was a crap Chancellor wasn't down to him being a Scotsman....just down to him having as much economic nous as the average ten year old...which seems, in all honesty to be the qualifications for politicians world wide......regardless of their academic qualifications,.they rather need to have the same sense of self importance and entitlement to everything as the average spoiled rotten Primary school pupil.

 

However....are you really going to tell any of us as a fact that the votes of  533 English Constituency MPs are ever not going to decide UK Government policy/laws when weighed against 117 MPs from a combined Scotland, Wales and NI?  Really?  And that is the whole of the problem right there.........because that isn't a Union.......that is a colonisation not a lot different from that which appertained  in the days when the world was mostly coloured pink.

[PullMyFinger]

Is that when the pink pound was first printed?

 

Seriously though, if we have a look at the credentials of Mr Darling he has been useless as a chancellor and equally useless leading Better Together. When he was minister for transport he signed off the HS2 High Speed Rail link which will not only cost us (Scotland) money but will see all London services north of Edinburgh being stopped. This isn't how I see a democracy developing in Scotland. No doubt we'll be getting involved in another Middle East conflict which will see many more Scots soldiers coming home in body bags too. I really despair for the UK but we have the chance to change direction in Scotland by voting for Independence and involving ourselves in the political process of the new government.

[Yngwie]

No doubt we'll be getting involved in another Middle East conflict which will see many more Scots soldiers coming home in body bags too.

 

Is your vision of Scotland a country that would just stand back and allow genocide then? One which refuses to take part in international military operations, but would fully expect its NATO partners to step in to protect Scotland?

 

The only think more defenceless than an independent Scotland is that stance!

[PullMyFinger]

 

No doubt we'll be getting involved in another Middle East conflict which will see many more Scots soldiers coming home in body bags too.

 

Is your vision of Scotland a country that would just stand back and allow genocide then? One which refuses to take part in international military operations, but would fully expect its NATO partners to step in to protect Scotland?

 

The only think more defenceless than an independent Scotland is that stance!

 

 

My vision is for a country that would try to get both sides round the table before events dictate the magnitude of international response to negotiate their differences in a respectful manner, failing that following UN resolutions on the matter, participating in NATO action and finally a peacekeeping mission and withdrawal.

 

My vision is for a country who will do this in all conflict areas including southern Africa which has been largely ignored; there's no oil there so the international corporations won't be lobbying their governments to act.

 

War is always about money and when the west gets involved you will see the same corporations and individuals cleaning up.

[Alex MacLeod]

 

 

No doubt we'll be getting involved in another Middle East conflict which will see many more Scots soldiers coming home in body bags too.

 

Is your vision of Scotland a country that would just stand back and allow genocide then? One which refuses to take part in international military operations, but would fully expect its NATO partners to step in to protect Scotland?

 

The only think more defenceless than an independent Scotland is that stance!

 

 

My vision is for a country that would try to get both sides round the table before events dictate the magnitude of international response to negotiate their differences in a respectful manner, failing that following UN resolutions on the matter, participating in NATO action and finally a peacekeeping mission and withdrawal.

 

My vision is for a country who will do this in all conflict areas including southern Africa which has been largely ignored; there's no oil there so the international corporations won't be lobbying their governments to act.

 

War is always about money and when the west gets involved you will see the same corporations and individuals cleaning up.

 

Correction PMF. Proven African oil reserves are estimated at 133,000 billion barrels, equivalent to close on 10% of the worlds reserves. The dominant countries at the moment are Nigeria, Libya, Algeria, Egypt and Angola but there are also vast reserves in Gabon, Congo, Cameroon, Tunisia, Equatorial Guinea, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Cote d'Ivoire. Further to all those exploration is currently taking place in Chad, Sudan, Namibia, South Africa and Madagascar while Mozambique and Tanzania are potential high volume gas producers. It is also reckoned that many of the other countries could also prove fruitful in oil and gas but much has to be done before any exploration can take place to preserve and protect the vast nature reserves and areas of scientific interest all over the African continent.

 

As for your vision. Yes that would be great but that can only happen in an ideal world. A world where the super powers could all agree. Unfortunately thats a long way off and meanwhile innocent people are being murdered. Actions have to be taken to show any nation that its wrong to do what has been done in Syria. I would hope that an independant Scotland would be one of the loudest voices and one of those prepared to take action against such atrocities.

[Charles Bannerman]

 

 

 

My vision is for a country who will do this in all conflict areas including southern Africa which has been largely ignored; there's no oil there so the international corporations won't be lobbying their governments to act.

 

 

Correction PMF. Proven African oil reserves are estimated at 133,000 billion barrels, equivalent to close on 10% of the worlds reserves.  

So let me get this straight. Even though oil seems to be the only thing you ever think about, you Separatist chaps still don't seem to be able to agree about where it is!

 

Oh well, I suppose that does sort of square with the statistical wishlist which emerges from Neverendum HQ every so often!

[starchief]

As for your vision. Yes that would be great but that can only happen in an ideal world. A world where the super powers could all agree. Unfortunately thats a long way off and meanwhile innocent people are being murdered. Actions have to be taken to show any nation that its wrong to do what has been done in Syria. I would hope that an independant Scotland would be one of the loudest voices and one of those prepared to take action against such atrocities.

 

Innocent people murdered by both sides.  Brutal secular or brutal Islamists - why is that a choice we are making (as it is, I'd side with Russia here if I have to - but the point is, we don't have to)?  I don't see why blasting innocent children to pieces with a roadside bomb or helicopter gunship, hacking off a man's head or eating the heart of a dead man is any more moral than releasing gas (ignoring the question that guilt is still months away from being decided but that's not my point).

 

So what will be the end result of bombing Syria? I don't know either but I'm pretty sure it won't be a liberal secular democracy open to Western values. So why the hell are we going in with only 9% support from the public? What exactly are we hoping to achieve? I don't see any gain from Iraq or Libya and I don't see peace coming from bombing Damascus.  We bomb the Taliban in Afghanistan, we take action against Salafis in the UK, yet we support the heavily-slanted Al-Qaeda supporting Islamists in Syria?  You want to see the brutality of the rebels, it's not difficult to find (especially being at a Uni where that's other people's research).

 

All to weaken Iran's hold on the Middle East.  And where did that influence come from?  Oh yeah, by getting involved in Iraq.  It's madness to expect this to achieve anything like stability. There are better ways to achieve good than by bombing (such as supporting the DRC govt's efforts to get rid of slavery - diamonds and oil there if you need the incentive).

 

How does that fit in with independence?  Politicians closer to the voter (same as federalism).  That's the swaying point I think for the Yes argument.  All this about whether Scotland will be richer or poorer is conjecture, supported by arguments by learned professionals from both sides, as is the silly argument about the Scots PMs of Blair and Brown (along with much of the cabinet and leaders in Kennedy and Duncan Jones) deliberately wanting a poor Scotland.  Put it this way, if it could be reasonably demonstrated that Scotland would be poorer, would you still be a seperationist?  Then the economics isn't that important to sway people.