Should Scotland be an independent country?

[OTT]

Just now, pablo said:

 

So what?

 

Well exactly. So what about the broad shoulders? You're basically pointing out what every normal country already does and claiming it as a UK success story. The bare minimum IMO can't possibly be described as 'broad shoulders'. 

 

If Independent we could have borrowed to create and fund a furlough scheme, the exact same way Ireland, Denmark or any of the other countries around us did. 

[pablo]

Just now, OTT said:

 

Well exactly. So what about the broad shoulders? You're basically pointing out what every normal country already does and claiming it as a UK success story. The bare minimum IMO can't possibly be described as 'broad shoulders'. 

 

If Independent we could have borrowed to create and fund a furlough scheme, the exact same way Ireland, Denmark or any of the other countries around us did. 

 

Ah there's the assumptions @Smithee

[OTT]

1 minute ago, pablo said:

 

Ah there's the assumptions @Smithee

 

'Scotland would have protected workers'

 

'Gotcha'  

[That thing you do]

 

[The Mighty Thor]

40 minutes ago, Dawnrazor said:

That's fair enough, my point is that many rampant independent supporters are under the illusion that Scotland will make gazillions of pounds selling water to England, I can't ever see that happening for glaringly obvious reasons, just because Scotland has lots of renewable energy sources and water it doesn't mean England doesn't have any, some would have you believe that in England the sun never shines, the rain never falls, the wind never blows and there's no river mouths or coast line!

I'm not really across England's energy production at all so can't really comment on them, but what I do know is that Scotland is an energy sufficient country and yet my gas and electricity are going to nearly 5 grand. 

I'm not getting much benefit from this union we're in. 

[XB52]

53 minutes ago, Dawnrazor said:

That's fair enough, my point is that many rampant independent supporters are under the illusion that Scotland will make gazillions of pounds selling water to England, I can't ever see that happening for glaringly obvious reasons, just because Scotland has lots of renewable energy sources and water it doesn't mean England doesn't have any, some would have you believe that in England the sun never shines, the rain never falls, the wind never blows and there's no river mouths or coast line!

Of course they have all these things,  just a lot less than Scotland,  per capita (OK maybe not sun).  So Scotland is in a much better position to profit from the forthcoming renewable bonanza

[That thing you do]

2 minutes ago, XB52 said:

Of course they have all these things,  just a lot less than Scotland,  per capita (OK maybe not sun).  So Scotland is in a much better position to profit from the forthcoming renewable bonanza

Exactly. As "azores high" events become more common, England will start to run dry relative to population. Noone suggests the US doesnt have water but just go to you tube and type in "Lake Mead" and youll see a huge problem for Vegas and California.

[That thing you do]

Found this handy chart. Figured since some blame the SNP for everything, we should perhaps have a cut out and keep who is to blame chart! 🤣

 

Its also a handy where is one hand tied behind our back reference guide for the yessers 

 

Hint: near enough everywhere

 

Edited August 13, 2022 by That thing you do

[Unknown user]

1 hour ago, pablo said:

 

I'm not making any assumptions, I'm pointing out something that our country actually did.

 

You were saying it was an obvious advantage of being in the UK.

 

It can only be an advantage if you assume less would have happened out of the union  🤷‍♂️

[dobmisterdobster]

6 minutes ago, That thing you do said:

Found this handy chart. Figured since some blame the SNP for everything, we should perhaps have a cut out and keep who is to blame chart! 🤣

 

Its also a handy where is one hand tied behind our back reference guide for the yessers 

 

Hint: near enough everywhere

 

 

That's a little out of date. Many more powers have been devolved since that graphic was presumably made.

[That thing you do]

1 hour ago, pablo said:

 

Ah there's the assumptions @Smithee

Its not an assumption that an independent sovereign nation would be able to borrow,  its just fact. 

[That thing you do]

3 minutes ago, dobmisterdobster said:

 

That's a little out of date. Many more powers have been devolved since that graphic was presumably made.

Try here then and build your own

 

https://www.parliament.scot/about/how-parliament-works/devolved-and-reserved-powers

[Unknown user]

17 minutes ago, dobmisterdobster said:

 

That's a little out of date. Many more powers have been devolved since that graphic was presumably made.

 

You say that like Scotland having more control over its governance is a good thing.

[The Mighty Thor]

5 hours ago, Dawnrazor said:

That's fair enough, my point is that many rampant independent supporters are under the illusion that Scotland will make gazillions of pounds selling water to England, I can't ever see that happening for glaringly obvious reasons, just because Scotland has lots of renewable energy sources and water it doesn't mean England doesn't have any, some would have you believe that in England the sun never shines, the rain never falls, the wind never blows and there's no river mouths or coast line!

Here's a little nugget for you of Tory Party thinking.

Open the markets up, just like household energy. Oh wait....

 

 

[periodictabledancer]

12 hours ago, Dawnrazor said:

That's fair enough, my point is that many rampant independent supporters are under the illusion that Scotland will make gazillions of pounds selling water to England, I can't ever see that happening for glaringly obvious reasons, just because Scotland has lots of renewable energy sources and water it doesn't mean England doesn't have any, some would have you believe that in England the sun never shines, the rain never falls, the wind never blows and there's no river mouths or coast line!

"Many rampant independent supporters"  kinda betrays any logical/ rational thought process here.  Of course , no one believes the drivel you're projecting onto the independence debate.

Independence stands or falls on its own merits , not your hysterical nonsense of selling water to England. 

 

 

[periodictabledancer]

12 hours ago, pablo said:

 

So what?

So your "point" is pointless.

Westminster didn't do anything every other country on the planet didn't do to save it's people.

 

 

[periodictabledancer]

12 hours ago, pablo said:

 

Ah there's the assumptions @Smithee

There's no assumption.

That's what EVERY  country on the planet did.

It printed money to survive.

 

[OTT]

13 hours ago, Dawnrazor said:

That's fair enough, my point is that many rampant independent supporters are under the illusion that Scotland will make gazillions of pounds selling water to England, I can't ever see that happening for glaringly obvious reasons, just because Scotland has lots of renewable energy sources and water it doesn't mean England doesn't have any, some would have you believe that in England the sun never shines, the rain never falls, the wind never blows and there's no river mouths or coast line!

 

When I saw the headline about 'sharing' water with England, my heart sank. I'm extremely concerned that under the internal market bill they'll find some way of seizing it and ruining it. In Scotland, as you'll know water is paid by council tax, whereas in England its privatised. In England on average its £34 a month. But as we're seeing at the moment with energy prices once privatised, these companies will price gouge the consumer into poverty. 

 

I don't want Westminster touching Scotlands water because they are utterly incapable of running a bath! (see what I did there ). 

 

RE your point about renewables, the difference between Scotland and England is that we're actively pursuing renewables and green energy, Liz Truss who will be our next prime minister is talking about cracking down on solar panels. Whilst England does have resources to utilise, it doesn't seem to want to. 

 

Also worth pointing out that Loch Ness has more water in it than ALL English and Welsh lakes. The water situation in England seems fairly serious. 

Edited August 14, 2022 by OTT

[That thing you do]

1 hour ago, OTT said:

 

When I saw the headline about 'sharing' water with England, my heart sank. I'm extremely concerned that under the internal market bill they'll find some way of seizing it and ruining it. In Scotland, as you'll know water is paid by council tax, whereas in England its privatised. In England on average its £34 a month. But as we're seeing at the moment with energy prices once privatised, these companies will price gouge the consumer into poverty. 

 

I don't want Westminster touching Scotlands water because they are utterly incapable of running a bath! (see what I did there ). 

 

RE your point about renewables, the difference between Scotland and England is that we're actively pursuing renewables and green energy, Liz Truss who will be our next prime minister is talking about cracking down on solar panels. Whilst England does have resources to utilise, it doesn't seem to want to. 

 

Also worth pointing out that Loch Ness has more water in it than ALL English and Welsh lakes. The water situation in England seems fairly serious. 

Specifically southampton up to oxford, over to essex and down to kent is worst affected.

 

You can bet your arse £100 a month water bills are coming to england.

 

Unless they find more water...and thats where we come in.

 

England has 10x less water than Scotland and 10x bigger population. Do the maths, an independent Scotland would make billions pumping water down there, not to mention excess electricity/gas/oil.

 

We are their cash cow.

 

As you rightly say loch ness itself has more water than all lakes in England and Wales combined

 

 

[Alan_R]

15 hours ago, Dawnrazor said:

That's fair enough, my point is that many rampant independent supporters are under the illusion that Scotland will make gazillions of pounds selling water to England, I can't ever see that happening for glaringly obvious reasons, just because Scotland has lots of renewable energy sources and water it doesn't mean England doesn't have any, some would have you believe that in England the sun never shines, the rain never falls, the wind never blows and there's no river mouths or coast line!

 

But crucially Scotland can power the UK far cheaper. The English turbines are mostly offshore and more expensive. 

 

What's more Scotland vastly subsides the London and the souths energy by paying up to £30m more to attach to the grid.

 

Scottish renewable energy producers are being asked to pay much more than English power companies to connect to the grid. 

 

Scotland is therefore effectively subsidising the rest of the UK’s energy –  paying over the odds to provide it with renewable energy, and then paying over the odds again to buy some of that power back. 

 

Ofgem allows energy companies to charge Scottish electricity consumers more in standing charges – despite the fact that they are closer to the source of renewable power. People looking out of their windows at wind turbines have to pay more to access electricity than someone in London. 

 

These are essentially political choices made by the UK Government and its appointees on GEMA, Ofgem’s decision-making body. As long as Scotland is part of a UK energy network controlled from London, little can be done to change the situation. 

[manaliveits105]

Sheesh our resident snp activists were up late but did provide a chart which underlines that Sturgeon and her team are indeed responsible for most things that are Donald ducked in the country .

[OTT]

57 minutes ago, manaliveits105 said:

Sheesh our resident snp activists were up late but did provide a chart which underlines that Sturgeon and her team are indeed responsible for most things that are Donald ducked in the country .

 

Oh Oh Oh! Like energy bills of £4200 brought about by mass privatisation and minimal regulation or the housing crisis brought about by a poorly thought out right to buy scheme and failing to attempt to even replace half of those houses? 

[Dawnrazor]

.

Edited August 14, 2022 by Dawnrazor

[Dawnrazor]

6 hours ago, Alan_R said:

 

But crucially Scotland can power the UK far cheaper. The English turbines are mostly offshore and more expensive. 

 

What's more Scotland vastly subsides the London and the souths energy by paying up to £30m more to attach to the grid.

 

Scottish renewable energy producers are being asked to pay much more than English power companies to connect to the grid. 

 

Scotland is therefore effectively subsidising the rest of the UK’s energy –  paying over the odds to provide it with renewable energy, and then paying over the odds again to buy some of that power back. 

 

Ofgem allows energy companies to charge Scottish electricity consumers more in standing charges – despite the fact that they are closer to the source of renewable power. People looking out of their windows at wind turbines have to pay more to access electricity than someone in London. 

 

These are essentially political choices made by the UK Government and its appointees on GEMA, Ofgem’s decision-making body. As long as Scotland is part of a UK energy network controlled from London, little can be done to change the situation. 

Scotland can power much of the UK cheaper because the infrastructure has been put in, the enewable energy has been massively underused in England, I live in the Forest of Bowland, an area about the same size as the Moorfoots the Lammermuirs put together, there is only one small wind farm with 12 turbines, I'm not sure how many turbines are on the Moorfoots and Lammermuirs but there are many many more.

 

My point was really that England doesn't need Scotlands water, it needs to increase it's storage, England shouldn't really need Scotlands energy either, it's got massive renewable potential, the Pennine chain has virtually no wind turbines, England has more and bigger estuaries and rivers, a huge coastline, I'm sure all this, in the event of Scottish independence, will be utilised as there will be profits to be made, Scotland has ivested in renewables, England hasn't, yet.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 14, 2022 by Dawnrazor

[Dawnrazor]

9 hours ago, OTT said:

 

When I saw the headline about 'sharing' water with England, my heart sank. I'm extremely concerned that under the internal market bill they'll find some way of seizing it and ruining it. In Scotland, as you'll know water is paid by council tax, whereas in England its privatised. In England on average its £34 a month. But as we're seeing at the moment with energy prices once privatised, these companies will price gouge the consumer into poverty. 

 

I don't want Westminster touching Scotlands water because they are utterly incapable of running a bath! (see what I did there ). 

 

RE your point about renewables, the difference between Scotland and England is that we're actively pursuing renewables and green energy, Liz Truss who will be our next prime minister is talking about cracking down on solar panels. Whilst England does have resources to utilise, it doesn't seem to want to. 

 

Also worth pointing out that Loch Ness has more water in it than ALL English and Welsh lakes. The water situation in England seems fairly serious. 

The water problem in England isn't serious, it can be serious for a period of time i  some areas, it can be reduced by increasing the storage, I've said before that I'm fairly sure that areas of England will be flooded this winter, at no point will anyone then be saying that water should be brought down from Scotland, the argument will be that England needs to store more water in winter. 

I'm aware about Loch Ness and it's water volume, but it's no good to England as its too far away, why would it need to come to England when England has enough water, it'll be MUCH cheaper for any company to put the infrastructure into the lake district or build reservoirs in the midlands or the south.

[Dawnrazor]

9 hours ago, periodictabledancer said:

"Many rampant independent supporters"  kinda betrays any logical/ rational thought process here.  Of course , no one believes the drivel you're projecting onto the independence debate.

Independence stands or falls on its own merits , not your hysterical nonsense of selling water to England. 

 

 

It's  ot my hysterical nonsense about selling water to England, I'm pointing out that the rampa t independence supporters thinking that Scotland will make a fortune selling water to England is a nonsense. I'm well aware there are other aspects to independence. 

[pablo]

10 hours ago, periodictabledancer said:

There's no assumption.

That's what EVERY  country on the planet did.

It printed money to survive.

 

 

Printing money? And which currency would Scotland have been printing if Yes had one in 2014?

[Hmfc1965]

3 hours ago, manaliveits105 said:

Sheesh our resident snp activists were up late but did provide a chart which underlines that Sturgeon and her team are indeed responsible for most things that are Donald ducked in the country .

Yep. And yet the cry is always if it wasn’t for nasty Westminster everything would be dandy.

[Ainsley Harriott]

Nationalists can say Scotland is a colony (it isn't) or that England oppresses us (it doesn't). Whatever. The MAJORITY OF SCOTS voted to remain in the UK and that means the MINIORITY OF SCOTS can't get an S30 and can't get a referendum.

[The Mighty Thor]

4 minutes ago, Ainsley Harriott said:

Nationalists can say Scotland is a colony (it isn't) or that England oppresses us (it doesn't). Whatever. The MAJORITY OF SCOTS voted to remain in the UK and that means the MINIORITY OF SCOTS can't get an S30 and can't get a referendum.

This pop up on your facebook news feed?

[pablo]

15 minutes ago, Ainsley Harriott said:

Nationalists can say Scotland is a colony (it isn't) or that England oppresses us (it doesn't). Whatever. The MAJORITY OF SCOTS voted to remain in the UK and that means the MINIORITY OF SCOTS can't get an S30 and can't get a referendum.

 

I don't think there will ever be another legal referendum.

[Ainsley Harriott]

14 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

This pop up on your facebook news feed?

Yip I like it thought I would share it with you trolls 

[The Mighty Thor]

2 minutes ago, Ainsley Harriott said:

Yip I like it thought I would share it with you trolls 

Excellent.

 

I still prefer you posting shite meme's though. easier to skip past them. 

[Mysterion]

29 minutes ago, Ainsley Harriott said:

Nationalists can say Scotland is a colony (it isn't) 

 

I don't think Nats say that Scotland is a colony though. 

I think they say that Scotland is treated like a colony.

 

Can't even get past the first sentence without it falling apart. 😂

 

 

Edited August 16, 2022 by Mysterion

[manaliveits105]

29 minutes ago, Ainsley Harriott said:

Yip I like it thought I would share it with you trolls 

They troll every thread it is tiresome 

[Boof]

44 minutes ago, Ainsley Harriott said:

Nationalists can say Scotland is a colony (it isn't) or that England oppresses us (it doesn't). Whatever. The MAJORITY OF SCOTS voted to remain in the UK and that means the MINIORITY OF SCOTS can't get an S30 and can't get a referendum.

 

2,001,926 voters voted to remain part of the UK.

Out of a -at that time - population of 5,347,600 that equates to 37.436%

 

Or, in other words, 62.564% - i.e. the MAJORITY OF SCOTS - did NOT vote to remain part of the UK.

 

But I'm sure you knew that.

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

7 minutes ago, Boof said:

 

2,001,926 voters voted to remain part of the UK.

Out of a -at that time - population of 5,347,600 that equates to 37.436%

 

Or, in other words, 62.564% - i.e. the MAJORITY OF SCOTS - did NOT vote to remain part of the UK.

 

But I'm sure you knew that.

You could apply this thinking to an endless number of election results. The majority of Scots did not vote to leave either.  Pointless argument.

[sinks]

7 minutes ago, Boof said:

 

2,001,926 voters voted to remain part of the UK.

Out of a -at that time - population of 5,347,600 that equates to 37.436%

 

Or, in other words, 62.564% - i.e. the MAJORITY OF SCOTS - did NOT vote to remain part of the UK.

 

But I'm sure you knew that.

What %age of the 5,347,600 were entitled to vote?

 

I would have thought that an abstension would be recorded as a vote for status quo

[pablo]

27 minutes ago, Boof said:

 

2,001,926 voters voted to remain part of the UK.

Out of a -at that time - population of 5,347,600 that equates to 37.436%

 

Or, in other words, 62.564% - i.e. the MAJORITY OF SCOTS - did NOT vote to remain part of the UK.

 

But I'm sure you knew that.

 

Will you be applying the same logic to the last Scottish Election?

[Boof]

6 hours ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

You could apply this thinking to an endless number of election results. The majority of Scots did not vote to leave either.  Pointless argument.

 

Indeed one could. All I wished to do was draw attention to the poster's glaringly incorrect observation.

 

6 hours ago, sinks said:

What %age of the 5,347,600 were entitled to vote?

 

I don't know. The original poster didn't specify voter eligibility in what I can only assume to be some sort of misguided attempt to claim 'a win'.

 

6 hours ago, sinks said:

I would have thought that an abstension would be recorded as a vote for status quo

 

As is your right.

 

6 hours ago, pablo said:

 

Will you be applying the same logic to the last Scottish Election?

 

I'm not aware of anybody yet making such a numerically incorrect assertion.

[JudyJudyJudy]

Disgraceful 

 

 

 

[pablo]

5 hours ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

Disgraceful 

 

 

 

 

Civic joyous Nationalism though.....

 

That's what happens when you spend years stoking grievance based politics and differentiation.

 

Things will be messy for a couple more years too. It's like watching the Nationalists going through a grieving process as the penny drops that's there's no route forward for them. 

[Dazo]

6 hours ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

Disgraceful 

 

 

 

Ffs 

 

So if you aren’t a rabid Nationalist  you are Scum. 😢

Edited August 17, 2022 by Dazo

[Jeffros Furios]

12 minutes ago, Dazo said:

Ffs 

 

So if you aren’t a rabid Nationalist  you are Scum. 😢

TRAITOR !!  SCUM !!  could be a poster from Paisley .

[Dazo]

1 minute ago, Jeffros Furios said:

TRAITOR !!  SCUM !!  could be a poster from Paisley .

Straight from court to abuse some guy at work. Think it’s his New Democratic vision. 

[JudyJudyJudy]

20 minutes ago, Dazo said:

Ffs 

 

So if you aren’t a rabid Nationalist  you are Scum. 😢

Seems so . They really were pathetic . 

[JudyJudyJudy]

44 minutes ago, pablo said:

 

Civic joyous Nationalism though.....

 

That's what happens when you spend years stoking grievance based politics and differentiation.

 

Things will be messy for a couple more years too. It's like watching the Nationalists going through a grieving process as the penny drops that's there's no route forward for them. 

It really is . It’s is concerning how far some have sunk 

[Boab]

1 hour ago, pablo said:

 

Civic joyous Nationalism though.....

 

That's what happens when you spend years stoking grievance based politics and differentiation.

 

Things will be messy for a couple more years too. It's like watching the Nationalists going through a grieving process as the penny drops that's there's no route forward for them. 

Let's leave Brexit out of this..em..😁

[Janbo1874]

There can only be a baw hair between the Nats last night and Trump supporters in their blinkered nasty cult like obedience to their cause.

Let's wait and see what Sturgeon has to say about this affront on democratic debate.

Could be a long wait.

[Dennis Reynolds]

People in glass houses and all that....