The Dirty Independence Question

[Comfy Bean]

I assume you're joking, but just in case you're not:

Oil and gas have been argued over loads, but I don't think Scotland will be able to get as much as the SNP claim they could.

"potential wind and tide energy". The key word there is potential. Most of the facilities aren't actually in place, and the ones that are have been heavily subsidised by the UK government, something an independent Scotland wouldn't be able to do.

Aren't the next two stacking?

Tourism industry relies heavily on tourism from the rest of the UK, again, it's money cycled in from England. Will it be as dominant if Scotland give two fingers to everyone? I've no idea.

Construction industry is again heavily subsidised by the UK government, ditto farming. Scotland's farming and construction industries won't be anywhere near as strong if the country isn't a part of the UK, because guess what? rUK won't want to be dependent on imports and foreign labour, it'll start subsidising and establishing greater holds of its own.

Yeah now my tongue is out my cheek ! I agree that the key word perhaps in this whole debate is potential. You either believe in our potential to build a fairer, better society or you don`t.

I disagree that Scotland will be giving two fingers to everyone. We are talking about a decision for us to take on who should govern our country and from where. No need for 2 fingers to anyone.

[LJS]

Now, someone has a bit of vision]

don't get me wrong, he's not perfect but he is totally refreshing.

[Comfy Bean]

Hmm

Don't entirely want to spread division in the YES camp

but this is not why i am voting yes - the future is uncertain - that is kind of the nature of the future

Apologies LJS. If you read back on my 2 lines above the poster I was ( attempting ) to take the piss. I didn`t really think we could all just agree and close the thread or that the predictions were accurate to the penny !

The future is uncertain for sure. We have to decide if it will " improve " if we keep things as they are or would we make a better job going our own way I suppose.

[LJS]

Apologies LJS. If you read back on my 2 lines above the poster I was ( attempting ) to take the piss. I didn`t really think we could all just agree and close the thread or that the predictions were accurate to the penny !

The future is uncertain for sure. We have to decide if it will " improve " if we keep things as they are or would we make a better job going our own way I suppose.

[russycarps]

Talking of estimates, projections and predictions......if we can all agree with the following then perhaps we can close the thread. I think they are spot on, accurate to the penny and will stand up to even Neil`s closest scrutiny

Edited April 28, 2014 by russycarps

[kaosmark2]

Yeah now my tongue is out my cheek ! I agree that the key word perhaps in this whole debate is potential. You either believe in our potential to build a fairer, better society or you don`t.

I disagree that Scotland will be giving two fingers to everyone. We are talking about a decision for us to take on who should govern our country and from where. No need for 2 fingers to anyone.

I believe in your potential to build a better society in the same way as I believe in the UK's. It has the potential to do it but I don't think it will.

[JamesMurphysLover]

As someone born and brought up in Scotland, I'm glad to see this is being discussed so widely.

My majorn concern is the turnout (of which there is no minimum requirement this time). I would be so worried if Scotland was to go one way or the other from a low turnout (and I'm saying this as a very strong supporter of one side of the campaign).

I'm an avid follower of politics, though, at the moment, I'll admit, I really don't want to get involved in the dicussion as I feel someone of my political persuasion wouldn't be particularly welcome here and I'm not in the mood at the moment (pre-final Uni exams) to have a torrent of abuse thrown at me. So for the mean time I'll leave it at that and maybe pitch in later.

Edited April 28, 2014 by JamesMurphysLover

[russycarps]

Pretty much spot on I would say LJS and we all agreed earlier ( I think ) that politicians will talk the bull in an attempt to " win ". They have to pick out the best estimates / projections / predictions that suit whatever side of the argument they are on. It`s then up to us to use our own bullshitometer to work out who we believe the most ( or who`s lying the least ). Anywayz.....on the oil revenues that came up again earlier. My view, for what it`s worth, is that either side will be able to find an " industry expert " who can provide figures / estimates to fit their argument. As someone who knows zilch about oil, I have always wondered if it is not more likely that folks in the oil industry would UNDERestimate the zillions of barrels "we" have in oil as it would be commercially bonkers to run about telling everyone that there was loads and loads of the stuff. Why attract competitors into our waters and drive down prices with that kind of talk ? Plus....although oil available will of course go down this could in theory drive prices up so we are in a guessing game.

One thing for sure is that there is oil off our shores just now and continuing hopes for more down the west coast. A sensible long term policy would see a fair slice of the revenue from this ploughed back into advancements in wind / wave technology and building industries around all types of renewable energy. We " could " lead the way in manufacturing and exporting renewable technology around the world. I`m thinking jobs in our industrial communities.

Saudi Arabia and it's ally America controls oil prices. The vast reserves in Venezuela and in Saddam's Iraq failed to change that, so the tiny by comparison north sea reserves will have no say on the matter.

The Iraq war was fought not for oil itself, but to maintain control of the price of oil. There is less than zero chance of Scotland having any influence over the price of oil.

Alex salmond will take it up the arse from opec just like all the rest.

Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi and Chavez defied opec. What do they all have in common?

[LJS]

Saudi Arabia and it's ally America controls oil prices. The vast reserves in Venezuela and in Saddam's Iraq failed to change that, so the tiny by comparison north sea reserves will have no say on the matter.

The Iraq war was fought not for oil itself, but to maintain control of the price of oil. There is less than zero chance of Scotland having any influence over the price of oil.

Alex salmond will take it up the arse from opec just like all the rest.

Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi and Chavez defied opec. What do they all have in common?

OMG...vote yes get invaded by USA

[LJS]

I believe in your potential to build a better society in the same way as I believe in the UK's. It has the potential to do it but I don't think it will.

That's the whole point for me. Tell me how we can build a better society in the UK?

Sadly, voting Labour no longer offers this as a realistic prospect. Some folk thought voting Lib dem might help. That didn't work out too well.

What do you suggest?

George Galloway?

[LJS]

As someone born and brought up in Scotland, I'm glad to see this is being discussed so widely.

My majorn concern is the turnout (of which there is no minimum requirement this time). I would be so worried if Scotland was to go one way or the other from a low turnout (and I'm saying this as a very strong supporter of one side of the campaign).

I'm an avid follower of politics, though, at the moment, I'll admit, I really don't want to get involved in the dicussion as I feel someone of my political persuasion wouldn't be particularly welcome here and I'm not in the mood at the moment (pre-final Uni exams) to have a torrent of abuse thrown at me. So for the mean time I'll leave it at that and maybe pitch in later.

The problem with setting conditions around turnout or % required for yes to count is that you empower people sitting on their arse watching Jeremy Kyle.

I don't believethat is good for democracy.

& please feel free to join in. We shall tell you if we disagree but we shall not personally insult you.

Unless you are a BNP supporter, in which, although I may not personally insult you, I will marvel at how you managed to get into university

Edited April 29, 2014 by LJS

[eFestivals]

Part 2

You'd think that Iceland - population a measly 300k - would be complete toast after their recent crisis which entailed letting their banks fail, and tearing up the country's Constitution. But strangely there's only 10% of the population currently below the poverty line (more than 10% below the median salary) compared to the UK who have 16% of the population living in poverty.

These stats games can go on for ages - your turn.

when the shit hits the fan, a man doesn't come around and take the money away to force people into poverty. It happens over time.

What you should look for is whether poverty has increased from what it was. And it has.

The effect of the Iceland bank crisis will effect Iceland for decades, and (compared to what would otherwise be) impoverish Iceland for decades.

Choosing to interpret the facts to suit your agenda is not playing a straight game.

[LJS]

when the shit hits the fan, a man doesn't come around and take the money away to force people into poverty. It happens over time.

What you should look for is whether poverty has increased from what it was. And it has.

The effect of the Iceland bank crisis will effect Iceland for decades, and (compared to what would otherwise be) impoverish Iceland for decades.

Choosing to interpret the facts to suit your agenda is not playing a straight game.

Morning Neil

[eFestivals]

maybe this is the difference between the two campaigns

http://nationalcollective.com/fundraising/

where is the better together equivalent?

How many times?

There is no "let's be a union" campaign. There doesn't need to be, we already have one.

There is instead a response (by some) to the yes campaign, about how independence would be a bad thing for Scotland compared to the union. Unfortunately, that response is in the hands of the same raving right that fucks over this country and will fuck over an independent Scotland from within (by Scotland's own, in case i've been too subtle. No English required).

[eFestivals]

Talking of estimates, projections and predictions......if we can all agree with the following then perhaps we can close the thread. I think they are spot on, accurate to the penny and will stand up to even Neil`s closest scrutiny

Yes. Every other country.

You're wrongly believing that iScotland will be more special than any other independent nation, and that it'll be more prosperous than every other independent nation.

FFS.

[eFestivals]

Have just been reading lovely Alex's speech from yesterday.

There's nothing good about the union, apart from the UK allowing non-citizens to vote, which Alex has now claimed as purely Scottish.

And the word of one English tory minister without any economic brief is worth far more than any with an economic brief, combined with those with ecoinomic briefs from other parties.

Oh, and that's despite all English tories being liars by default of the fact of them being English and tories. So even Hammond, who is a lying non-lying liar tory English liar to be believed, in Alex's view.

And there's a new international law, where no foreign ships are allowed into Scottish waters, and iScotland can enforce that ban with 5% of the resources of the UK Navy patrolling the 50% of UK waters that would be iScottish .... if and when iScotland has built itself a navy, but iScotland will be enforcing that ban from 24th March 2017.

And apparently, there's no detrimental effect in Scotland joining the EU via the back door. Perhaps the other member states think differently tho - for many their constitutions, their sovereignty, certainly do - and don't wish to ber bullied by an ignorant fool?

The EU will do what Alex says, or else ... he'll take their fish away, and cripple a part of iScotland's economy. That'll teach those horrible foreigners that might disagree with iScotland.

Edited April 29, 2014 by eFestivals

[LJS]

How many times?

There is no "let's be a union" campaign. There doesn't need to be, we already have one.

There is instead a response (by some) to the yes campaign, about how independence would be a bad thing for Scotland compared to the union. Unfortunately, that response is in the hands of the same raving right that fucks over this country and will fuck over an independent Scotland from within (by Scotland's own, in case i've been too subtle. No English required).

Neil, you seem a bit grumpy this morning. Is everything ok?

[eFestivals]

Neil, you seem a bit grumpy this morning. Is everything ok?

If anyone dares disagree with Alex, they must be mentally ill.

And you can't see why I'm enjoying the comedy so much?

It's much better than anything UKIP have ever managed.

Edited April 29, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

I am so disappointed that neither side is prepared to campaign on principle not some pathetic competition as to how much money you will have in your pocket.

go on, go on, you can follow thru and say it, can't you, can't you?

Or is it just one step too far for you?

[eFestivals]

I disagree that Scotland will be giving two fingers to everyone.

you're already behind the times, it's already doing it.

To the English, and yesterday to the members of the EU, and to international law.

But don't worry, threats are making these countries warm to Scotland and has them thinking of iScotland as a great future partner they're desperate to do business with.

Edited April 29, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

As someone born and brought up in Scotland, I'm glad to see this is being discussed so widely.

My majorn concern is the turnout (of which there is no minimum requirement this time). I would be so worried if Scotland was to go one way or the other from a low turnout (and I'm saying this as a very strong supporter of one side of the campaign).

I'm an avid follower of politics, though, at the moment, I'll admit, I really don't want to get involved in the dicussion as I feel someone of my political persuasion wouldn't be particularly welcome here and I'm not in the mood at the moment (pre-final Uni exams) to have a torrent of abuse thrown at me. So for the mean time I'll leave it at that and maybe pitch in later.

A nice contribution.

Much the same as your low turnout concerns are my own about the promises that won't be delivered by Alex, that will cause some people to vote yes but who will later reverse their opinion because of the non-delivered promises. Exactly as with a low turnout, it stands a good chance of meaning that iScotland will have no lesser a "democratic deficit" than it has now.

You can only work together to build a better country if you're working together. The SNP tactics are ensuring a future split of opinion, which will damage an iScotland.

There is no suggestion by the yes campaign that their promises are their best hopes; they pretend them as certainties.

But not to worry, cos Alex has a plan. Just as now, the failures of an iScotland will be blamed onto the English, who refused to pass Alex big buckets of English (not Scottish) jam on iDay.

[eFestivals]

That's the whole point for me. Tell me how we can build a better society in the UK?

and yet it's the same unanswerable question (in reality if not in theory) for an iScotland. Why is that passing you by?

Dave Moron might be a tory c**t, but that doesn't get to mean that he's not genuine in his belief that the policies he's pursuing are to bring about a better future society.

There should be a bit of food for thought there, but I'm not sure your brain is hungry.

[eFestivals]

The problem with setting conditions around turnout or % required for yes to count is that you empower people sitting on their arse watching Jeremy Kyle.

I don't believethat is good for democracy.

and the problem with ignoring them over such a fundamental question as all of your futures, forever, is that you're saying that some people in Scotland don't count.

How's that good for democracy?

For any standard election I'm quite happy for their choice to not be involved to self-exclude them from the decision, but I feel far more uncomfortable about excluding them by their in-action from an independence vote.

An independence vote is not like 'normal democracy', because it's not a vote that you will ever get a 2nd opinion over, any chance to reverse. So to approach it in the same manner as 'normal democracy' is a big error, I feel.

Quite what a suitable resolution is, I'm not sure. But I am very uncomfortable about the exclusion of their views by saying "they don't care so they don't matter".

[russycarps]

OMG...vote yes get invaded by USA

just educating someone who by their own admission is "someone who knows zilch about oil"

[eFestivals]

just educating someone who by their own admission is "someone who knows zilch about oil"

by the look of his reply, I'd say you wasted your time.

He only wants something to ridicule if it's different to what he thinks, there's nothing the facts can teach him.