leginten Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Can your Scottish - or your British - identity really be bought for the price of a couple of packets of fags and a fish supper a week? I believe there's a precedent from the early 18th century. Right posh fish suppers, mind - probably got them from the Alba d'Oro. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davemclaren Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 (edited) I believe there's a precedent from the early 18th century. Right posh fish suppers, mind - probably got them from the Alba d'Oro. I've heard the fish is nice there - never been but I'm sure they will taste the same in an independent Scotland. Edited October 16, 2012 by davemclaren Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3fingersreid Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Interesting BBC article on defence options for an independent Scotland. Obviously, what forces there would be would depend on what priority any government put on having them. However, it's hard to disagree that they would be regional focused. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-19955309 Given that its not just scotsmen and women serving in the various Scottish regiments will the sdf replace any that choose to leave and remain in the British army ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davemclaren Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Given that its not just scotsmen and women serving in the various Scottish regiments will the sdf replace any that choose to leave and remain in the British army ? One would imagine so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3fingersreid Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 It'll be interesting to.know how the current serving armed forces are viewing this is the yes/no vote similar to the general public or greater one way or the other Likewise how do the non Scots serving in Scottish regiments based up here feel about it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gershwin Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Take it Scotsmen living outside the country get a postal vote? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3fingersreid Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Don't think so Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davemclaren Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Take it Scotsmen living outside the country get a postal vote? Only if they are registered to vote in Scotland I imagine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3fingersreid Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 (edited) That might upset my sister who lives abroad and probably isn't registered here at present Edited October 16, 2012 by 3fingersreid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gershwin Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Only if they are registered to vote in Scotland I imagine. Are you sure? I'm registered to vote in London for the UK election. Plus it seems strange that an Englishman living in Edinburgh would get a vote but I wouldn't. Also, my flatmate is an American yet she still gets to vote in the upcoming presidential election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gizmo Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Then an independant Lerwick, followed by an independent King Harald Street, St. Olaf Street and so on. (Google Maps ) When I was much younger, I figured, by the age I am now, we'd all be members of a 2 or 3 corporation planet. What Happened? In all honesty, they simply find it more convenient to currently hide behind politicians, and give us all the illusion of choice. George Carlin sums it up perfectly http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yt49DsfKDMc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davemclaren Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 (edited) Are you sure? I'm registered to vote in London for the UK election. Plus it seems strange that an Englishman living in Edinburgh would get a vote but I wouldn't. Also, my flatmate is an American yet she still gets to vote in the upcoming presidential election. Pretty sure. Even sean Connery wont get a vote. Edited October 16, 2012 by davemclaren Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboInSouthsea Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Scotland's oil? Better broker a decent deal with an independent Shetland first. :'> Orkney and Shetland were both 'gifts' to Scotland (Maid of Norway etc.) were they not and would it not be rude to give back such a gift? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboInSouthsea Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Take it Scotsmen living outside the country get a postal vote? Would like to myself but can see why ex-pat community does not...annoying tho' it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coco Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 I believe there's a precedent from the early 18th century. Right posh fish suppers, mind - probably got them from the Alba d'Oro. I am boycotting until they ... as a matter of routine ... put the fish on top of the chips in the box rather than the chips on top of the fish. Don't they realise the fish needs a chips trivet to stop it from sticking to the box Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig_ Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Take it Scotsmen living outside the country get a postal vote? Depends which way you're going to vote! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Walker Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 In all honesty, they simply find it more convenient to currently hide behind politicians, and give us all the illusion of choice. George Carlin sums it up perfectly http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yt49DsfKDMc LL visiting the Shed after a bit of an absence... and a bit of synergy ? http://www.hmfckickback.co.uk/index.php?/topic/119008-us-presidential-debate/page__st__120__gopid__3198569#entry3198569 Best TW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boof Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Orkney and Shetland were both 'gifts' to Scotland (Maid of Norway etc.) were they not and would it not be rude to give back such a gift? Wikipedia says In the 14th century Norway still treated Orkney and Shetland as a Norwegian province, but Scottish influence was growing, and in 1379 the Scottish earl Henry Sinclair took control of Orkney on behalf of the Norwegian king H?kon VI Magnusson.[8] In 1348 Norway was severely weakened by the Black Plague and in 1397 it entered the Kalmar Union. With time Norway came increasingly under Danish control. King Christian I of Denmark and Norway was in financial trouble and, when his daughter Margaret became engaged to James III of Scotland in 1468, he needed money to pay her dowry. Under Norse udal law, the king had no overall ownership of the land in the realm as in the Scottish feudal system. He was king of his people, rather than king of the land. What the king did not personally own was owned absolutely by others. The King's lands represented only a small part of Shetland.[9] Apparently without the knowledge of the Norwegian Riksr?d (Council of the Realm) he entered into a commercial contract on 8 September 1468 with the King of Scots in which he pawned his personal interests in Orkney for 50,000 Rhenishguilders.[10] On 28 May the next year he also pawned his Shetland interests for 8,000 Rhenish guilders.[11] He secured a clause in the contract which gave Christian or his successors the right to redeem the islands[12] for a fixed sum of 210 kilograms (460 lb) of gold or 2,310 kilograms (5,100 lb) of silver. There was an obligation to retain the language and laws of Norway, which was not only implicit in the pawning document, but is acknowledged in later correspondence between James III and King Christian?s son John (Hans).[13] In 1470 William Sinclair, 1st Earl of Caithness ceded his title to James III and on 20 February 1472, the Northern Isles were directly annexed to the Crown of Scotland.[14] James and his successors fended off all attempts by the Danes to redeem them (by formal letter or by special embassies were made in 1549, 1550, 1558, 1560, 1585, 1589, 1640, 1660 and other intermediate years) not by contesting the validity of the claim, but by simply avoiding the issue.[15] So it looks like if Norway (or Denmark) want us back they just need to cough up the dosh... Anyway - let's not sidetrack the debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboX2 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 One thing that i say on Mondays Newsnight was Nicola Sturgeon's curious remark 'We aren't in the business of forcing people to choose their national identity, we just want power to reside here closer to home...' Now for a Nationalist, regardless of Scotland's debate, to say that is incredulous to me and frankly disingenuous. The term Nationalist is all about one identity being paramount over another. Its why for years you got Alex Neil and Mike Russel feeding the SNP conference with lines like 'I am NOT British' etc. To say this debate is not about identity is nonsense. It has so much to do with that when it comes down to it. I dont think Scotland couldn't be independent, of course we could. It'd be a torrid decade while we get on our feet. The upheaval of new regulatory regiemes, new welfare systems and the establishment of our own foreign footprint would be cost consuming, tiring and bitter with a degree of fighting Westminster for dual use of embassys. But it could be done. However, if the SNP are claiming its not about identity at all is frankly a lie. Where power lies in the UK is a debate over devolution. Carwyn Jones, Welsh First Minister, has called for a UK constitutional commission with MSPs, MPs, MLAs, AMs and Lords on it to thrash out a new settlement for the 21st century (in effect electoral reform, Lords reform and greater devolution). Thats a debate on where power lies. The independence debate comes down to identity. If the Yes Campaign are really a Yes campaign they'll tug he Scottish heart strings with Braveheart jingoism. The Better Together campaign are clearly the pragmatists but for the right its the better for business, for the left we can do more together in the cause of social justice at home and globally in the UK. But it struck me as curious that the SNP Deputy Leader, who used to proclaim an abhorance for being British and hated the situation of Scotland being shackled to London (England for want of a better word to the Nats) has claimed this is not about identity. It is. There's nothing else to this at the end of the day. Its about what you believe yourself to be, and how much solidarity you hold with our cousins, not just in England but in Wales and Northern Ireland. I for one do fell a great deal of affinity with the wider UK. But its what this whole thing is. And to say we need 2 years for this is nonsense. In effect its 2 years of wasted political impass to see what we believe ourselves to be. The referendum should be next year. Simple as. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doctor jambo Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 I think in all this debate the Scots need to know the following 1- what % of our current national debt will be transferred over to Scotland ( we currently owe over ?1trillion) 2- how is the new SCottish Govt goint to deal with that? 3- any other debate is meaningless until that is addressed, as the sums involved are truly mind blowing, and the implications of a small nation trying to budget in repayments of that magnitude without crashing into liquidation scare the living daylights out of me! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 I think in all this debate the Scots need to know the following 1- what % of our current national debt will be transferred over to Scotland ( we currently owe over ?1trillion) 2- how is the new SCottish Govt goint to deal with that? 3- any other debate is meaningless until that is addressed, as the sums involved are truly mind blowing, and the implications of a small nation trying to budget in repayments of that magnitude without crashing into liquidation scare the living daylights out of me! No doubt that would be the main debate in any elections to the new independent Scottish parliament. We would be getting fresh elections, woudn't we, with the current Parliament make up being an interim administration? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davemclaren Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 No doubt that would be the main debate in any elections to the new independent Scottish parliament. We would be getting fresh elections, woudn't we, with the current Parliament make up being an interim administration? People seem to miss this point and think thre will be an SNP/Alex Salmond government after any yes vote. Alex might find that he is never in power again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doctor jambo Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 No doubt that would be the main debate in any elections to the new independent Scottish parliament. We would be getting fresh elections, woudn't we, with the current Parliament make up being an interim administration? We need to know that in advance! Otherwise you end up in the cuts/borrow debate we are currently having we need to know now if the brave new country is going to be insolvent BEFORE we break away and the tax/cut implications of the separation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davemclaren Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 We need to know that in advance! Otherwise you end up in the cuts/borrow debate we are currently having we need to know now if the brave new country is going to be insolvent BEFORE we break away and the tax/cut implications of the separation So, prior to the referendum, the UK and Scottish governments need to agree the detailed independence settlement terms and each party proposing to stand in the first Scottish Parliament need to publish their manifestos? Lucky we have 2 years beofre the vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doctor jambo Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 So, prior to the referendum, the UK and Scottish governments need to agree the detailed independence settlement terms and each party proposing to stand in the first Scottish Parliament need to publish their manifestos? Lucky we have 2 years beofre the vote. Yes- it is vital that we know the state of any independant nation fiscally PRIOR to creating anything The size of any debt mountain is beyond party politics- we need to know what we are getting ourselves into! The SNP/Labour/Tories whoever dont really care about this as they are not really affected by any cuts- as beautifully demonstrated already- I do. I will not vote for a bankrupt nation, and if I dont think we can stand on our own 2 feet ( and the debt is a massive part of this) then I wont vote for it- why would anyone? Look at the mess of Greece- small nation, massive debt. Any hope they have of recovery is killed by the scale of their national debt Would we be in the same position? In that case the actual elected governament make up is meaningless as they cannot deal with the bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davemclaren Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 (edited) Yes- it is vital that we know the state of any independant nation fiscally PRIOR to creating anything The size of any debt mountain is beyond party politics- we need to know what we are getting ourselves into! The SNP/Labour/Tories whoever dont really care about this as they are not really affected by any cuts- as beautifully demonstrated already- I do. I will not vote for a bankrupt nation, and if I dont think we can stand on our own 2 feet ( and the debt is a massive part of this) then I wont vote for it- why would anyone? Look at the mess of Greece- small nation, massive debt. Any hope they have of recovery is killed by the scale of their national debt Would we be in the same position? In that case the actual elected governament make up is meaningless as they cannot deal with the bill Both sides seem to now accept that an independent Scotland is a viable economic entity. It comes down to who and what you believe as to how viable that is I'm afriad. Same goes for remaining in the UK. Edited October 17, 2012 by davemclaren Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coco Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 So, prior to the referendum, the UK and Scottish governments need to agree the detailed independence settlement terms and each party proposing to stand in the first Scottish Parliament need to publish their manifestos? Lucky we have 2 years beofre the vote. They are not going to settle and reveal the settlement terms before the referendum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Both sides seem to NOW accept that an independent Scotland is a viable economic entity. It comes down to who and what you beleive as to how viable that is I'm afriad. Same goes for remaining in the UK. Any country is a viable economic entity, irrespective of its size. Greece can only be used as a comparison if Scotland allows someone else to control the currency used in Scotland. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doctor jambo Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Any country is a viable economic entity, irrespective of its size. Greece can only be used as a comparison if Scotland allows someone else to control the currency used in Scotland. Which is what is being proposed- either we use the Euro, or we use the pound. In both scenarios the value of our currency is out of our hands, so the Greece comparison is a valid one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coco Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Which is what is being proposed- either we use the Euro, or we use the pound. In both scenarios the value of our currency is out of our hands, so the Greece comparison is a valid one There is another option which is an independent currency. For some reason we are not going to be offered that but instead railroaded into a currency pseudo-union where the Scots pound would be shackled to Sterling until the EU forced the country into the Euro. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davemclaren Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Any country is a viable economic entity, irrespective of its size. Greece can only be used as a comparison if Scotland allows someone else to control the currency used in Scotland. Asolutely, but Greece believes that being in the Euro is the better option and can leave if it sees fit. Personally I don't believe in being tied to the pound and think that, in the event of independence. I can only think that is being proposed to give some sort of post independence 'certainty'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davemclaren Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Which is what is being proposed- either we use the Euro, or we use the pound. In both scenarios the value of our currency is out of our hands, so the Greece comparison is a valid one Or Belgium, Denmark etc...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboX2 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Or Belgium, Denmark etc...? Denmark is the ONLY other nation with a Euro opt out like the UKs. Sweden doesnt and just keeps saying we aren't readyand cites reasons why not to sign up fully. But theres pressure on them and they'll join. Independent currencies would be best. But as said we will not get that choice. Patrick Harvie has said the YES Campaign is a wider SNP front and its the SNP who'll negotiate the independence setllemet, as they're the government. We wont get a vote on the outcome of that. So regardless of 2016 elections we'll be living in an SNP designed Scotland. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Asolutely, but Greece believes that being in the Euro is the better option and can leave if it sees fit. Personally I don't believe in being tied to the pound and think that, in the event of independence. I can only think that is being proposed to give some sort of post independence 'certainty'. That's because Greece have tried to have their cake and eat it at the same time. They would be far better off taking the one-off hit of reverting to the drachma and earning foreign currency from tourists taking cheap holidays. It would also stuff the French and German banks. However, that is a digression. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doctor jambo Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Or Belgium, Denmark etc...? Denmark are not in our position- they saved all thier money from oil- we are not in that position Belgium too are responsible for their own debt etc and always have been- we hae not been Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davemclaren Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 (edited) Denmark are not in our position- they saved all thier money from oil- we are not in that position Belgium too are responsible for their own debt etc and always have been- we hae not been I've no idea how much of their oil revenues they have saved compared to the UK. However, I think that ( subject to the settlement of course ) Scotland would have more income from oil/gas on an ongoing basis than Denmark. I'm not sure that I understand your Belgium point but if you are saying that countries that responsibly manage their own economies tend to do better than those that don't then I heartily agree. Edited October 17, 2012 by davemclaren Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dipped Flake Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 I think in all this debate the Scots need to know the following 1- what % of our current national debt will be transferred over to Scotland ( we currently owe over ?1trillion) 2- how is the new SCottish Govt goint to deal with that? 3- any other debate is meaningless until that is addressed, as the sums involved are truly mind blowing, and the implications of a small nation trying to budget in repayments of that magnitude without crashing into liquidation scare the living daylights out of me! I would imagine we will get @10% of the national debt, proportional to the population, and the new Scottish government will deal with it the same way as the uk govt has dealt with it so far. on point 3, our new small nation will have the same level of debt per head of population as the current uk so no worse or better in that regard. This is all, of course, just my opinion. Details like this is why we will have 2 years till the referendum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southside1874 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 I would imagine we will get @10% of the national debt, proportional to the population, and the new Scottish government will deal with it the same way as the uk govt has dealt with it so far. on point 3, our new small nation will have the same level of debt per head of population as the current uk so no worse or better in that regard. This is all, of course, just my opinion. Details like this is why we will have 2 years till the referendum. Found this interesting though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Found this interesting though. Yes, but so what? All it means is that the UK has a deficit and that the rest of the UK would have a marginally bigger deficit in percentage terms if Scotland were to leave. It doesn't take away from the fact that Scotland would have, at an absolute minimum, a deficit of ?10.7 billion to eradicate (and ?14.3 billion is a more likely figure). If Scotland were to become independent over the next 3-6, probably 10 years, its first independent Government would have right-wing policies. It would have no choice. Of course, things may very well go exactly the same way if Scotland doesn't opt to secede. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southside1874 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Yes, but so what? All it means is that the UK has a deficit and that the rest of the UK would have a marginally bigger deficit in percentage terms if Scotland were to leave. It doesn't take away from the fact that Scotland would have, at an absolute minimum, a deficit of ?10.7 billion to eradicate (and ?14.3 billion is a more likely figure). If Scotland were to become independent over the next 3-6, probably 10 years, its first independent Government would have right-wing policies. It would have no choice. Of course, things may very well go exactly the same way if Scotland doesn't opt to secede. The point I was making was that the unionists say we spend more than we raise in taxes but obviously the rest of the UK does too. The exact figures of what Scotland raises in tax is not forthcoming for some reason. Problem being is that Scotland has to spend all the cash handed out by Westminster or they will reduce the payments. A very large amount of UK exports are generated in Scotland. This means we could operate a different economic policy to the UK. An economic policy that produces jobs. The exact figures of our exports are not forthcoming for some reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 A very large amount of UK exports are generated in Scotland. This means we could operate a different economic policy to the UK. An economic policy that produces jobs. The exact figures of our exports are not forthcoming for some reason. A very large amount of UK exports are also generated in Wales, Northern Ireland and England. What percentage of exports is generated in Scotland? Why would this allow you to pursue different economic policies? Here's a question for you. Googling is cheating. Which EU country has the highest per capita trade surplus? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 One that's had an IMF bailout Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 One that's had an IMF bailout Revisiting my old debating points is also cheating, ya boll_____ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southside1874 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 A very large amount of UK exports are also generated in Wales, Northern Ireland and England. What percentage of exports is generated in Scotland? Why would this allow you to pursue different economic policies? Here's a question for you. Googling is cheating. Which EU country has the highest per capita trade surplus? If you look at the regional exports in the UK, produced by the tax man, then it has the largest amount as "unknown" in the graph. It has Scotland as relatively low as a place of direct export. These figures obviously don't account for trade between each region within the UK and are therefore not a reliable source of information. If you look at UK exports the highest amount is from oil and gas and their by-products then followed by distilled spirits and pharmaceuticals. Now I can only guess, but I wouldn't bet against 70% of these products having their origins in Scotland. Like I said, the exact figures are not forthcoming. Interesting that you use Ireland as having a large trade surplus and being linked to a larger economic and fiscal policy that clearly doesn't serve them well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coco Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 The step change in that Irish trade surplus presumably due to the crash in consumption post-economic crash ... exports would likely be rising much more now if the country was not part of the phoney Euro currency. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 If you look at the regional exports in the UK, produced by the tax man, then it has the largest amount as "unknown" in the graph. It has Scotland as relatively low as a place of direct export. These figures obviously don't account for trade between each region within the UK and are therefore not a reliable source of information. If you look at UK exports the highest amount is from oil and gas and their by-products then followed by distilled spirits and pharmaceuticals. Now I can only guess, but I wouldn't bet against 70% of these products having their origins in Scotland. Like I said, the exact figures are not forthcoming. Interesting that you use Ireland as having a large trade surplus and being linked to a larger economic and fiscal policy that clearly doesn't serve them well. If the largest amount is unknown, then logic follows that most of these originate in South Wales, the Eastern counties of NI, or the South East of England. If you think I'm wrong, find the statistics to prove me wrong. I would bet against 70% of just about any UK export (except possibly Scotch) having its origins in Scotland. For reasons I have already outlined, the percentage of oil and gas exports deriving from Scotland would be a matter for negotiated settlement in the context of Scotland wishing to secede. My point about Ireland should be obvious - but I will spell it out, nonetheless. First of all, there is no hard evidence to suggest that Scotland is more export-oriented than anywhere else in the UK. Secondly, even if such evidence were to exist, it does not support the hypothesis that Scotland can follow some economic yellow brick road that no-one else gets to travel. I keep making the point, and I intend to carry on making it. Don't rely on supposition or fantasy to support your argument - and that goes for both sides of the argument. It's not the economy, stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 The step change in that Irish trade surplus presumably due to the crash in consumption post-economic crash ... exports would likely be rising much more now if the country was not part of the phoney Euro currency. Yes and no. Ireland's trade surplus reached a peak in 2002, and then declined by almost one-third in 6 years as imports rose rapidly and exports stabilised. There was a significant fall in imports in 2009, but then they stabilised in 2010 and rose by about 6-7% in 2011. Exports fell slightly as the worldwide recession kicked in, but have been increasing since late 2009 and are now at a record level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southside1874 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 If the largest amount is unknown, then logic follows that most of these originate in South Wales, the Eastern counties of NI, or the South East of England. If you think I'm wrong, find the statistics to prove me wrong. I would bet against 70% of just about any UK export (except possibly Scotch) having its origins in Scotland. For reasons I have already outlined, the percentage of oil and gas exports deriving from Scotland would be a matter for negotiated settlement in the context of Scotland wishing to secede. My point about Ireland should be obvious - but I will spell it out, nonetheless. First of all, there is no hard evidence to suggest that Scotland is more export-oriented than anywhere else in the UK. Secondly, even if such evidence were to exist, it does not support the hypothesis that Scotland can follow some economic yellow brick road that no-one else gets to travel. I keep making the point, and I intend to carry on making it. Don't rely on supposition or fantasy to support your argument - and that goes for both sides of the argument. It's not the economy, stupid. Perhaps you could enlighten me about the location of onshore oil terminals that draw their oil from the North Sea? As you say, there is no hard evidence,as yet, regarding Scotlands export capabilities. So it is about supposition by manipulating what facts we have at hand until someone produces the facts. Predicting the economic future of any country or region is all about supposition. IMO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Perhaps you could enlighten me about the location of onshore oil terminals that draw their oil from the North Sea? I've dealt with this already. You cannot make any assumptions about what proportion of oil reserves, production, exports or revenues would accrue to Scotland in the event that it were to vote to secede. These are matters that would be the result of a negotiated settlement. Therefore you cannot make policy projections based on such assumptions with a sufficient level of confidence. And in any event, as I've already pointed out, the most benign scenario with regard to the treatment of North Sea reserves would still leave Scotland's Exchequer facing a significant deficit - the only advantage being that it would be slightly lower than the overall deficit of the UK. As you say, there is no hard evidence,as yet, regarding Scotlands export capabilities. So it is about supposition by manipulating what facts we have at hand until someone produces the facts. Predicting the economic future of any country or region is all about supposition. IMO Fair enough. Then the same point applies as above. You cannot make any assumptions about what proportion of "unclassified region" exports are attributable to Scotland. Therefore you cannot make policy projections based on such assumptions with a sufficient level of confidence. The fact is that you don't know. Here's a straight question, and I think it merits a straight answer. If - and I stress if - it was guaranteed that leaving the UK would leave Scottish people an average of ?500 a year worse off, would you vote for or against independence? Please don't debate the ?500 - that's not the point of the question. Just assume for a minute that it was somehow possible to prove this, and that it was proved. Would you vote yes or no to independence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sydney from Sydney Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 The question on the ballot paper will ask if Scotland should become an independent nation. Whether it's affordable might not register at all with a lot of the yes voters. They'll want independence at any cost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.