Be Excellent To Each Other

Cookie,

Would you tell me what an independent Scotland could achieve which cannot currently be done under the existing devolved settlement (or the one due to come into place once the Scotland Act 2012 takes effect)?

I'm genuinely interested in your thoughts, and I think it's great you're interested in politics.

I rather fancy a 'British Federation'. The main question is how to solve the England problem. Keeping the country as it is would make it even more dominant in the system than, say, even Prussia was in the 19th Century. Yet with the obvious exceptions of London, Cornwall, and perhaps the Yorkshire Ridings, none of the 'regions' feel natural.

You'd better include Lancashire in that, lad. If Yorkshire has something Lancashire does not, they throw a right shitty fit, and vice versa.

18 September 2014

And here's the bill

I have no particular reason for WANTING independence, but I would like it. I know Scotland would be able to survive (finance wise) From the £1.3-1.8trn of oil left to the wave farms.(About 25% of EU's Natural Energy potential)

I would like Scotland trying to be independent, as we haven't been for many years. (May 1st, 1707 'Act of Union 1707' So for 300 years now, Scotland has been rules by England. The majority of the 'NO' stuff is a load of rubbish, with much of it been easily proved wrong. Scotland should be given a chance to be a country - outwith a union. as you (basically) said, Scotland already controls the majority of things within it's borders, so many would ask "Why split". I would reply, "Why not?". If we already control the majority of it, how hard would it be to move the rest to the Scottish government?

Scotland has the highest level of employment in the UK, and becoming independent would likely create more jobs. (Jobs that were previously done down in England) So we would likely have no problems there.
A lot of people say we will have to re-apply to the EU. I don't see why this is a problem. Scotland would very likely get accept, no reason it wouldn't.

I DO realise that a good part of this is speculation, but that's something I can't stop myself from doing. One reason is that I would love to see an independent Scotland. My other is that I am pretty sure that Scotland could do it. Even though I want it, if the numbers didn't add up, and it looked like Scotland would go bankrupt, I would vote 'No'. I would be annoyed, but I would vote 'No'. Wanting Scotland to be independent is no use is such a thing causes the country to collapse. But as of now, there have been no good, hard arguments that say 'Scotland would fail.'

Sorry for not replying earlier, I had to go to bed and then had School today.

Could it? Annual income from north Sea oil is around £11b, Scotland takes £54b out of the UK funds each year.

1) From what I know, Scotland gets no where near that amount of money from England
2)I'm pretty sure Scotland actually gives more money back than it gets (If it gets any)
*This may be wrong, I'm still looking for the webpage I read it on.*

I was being slightly disingenuous

Scotland takes 54b but gives back 55b I believe, so you have a 1b surplus including your oil. Not too bad you think?

Two points, oil is notoriously unstable on the financial markets, 1b isn't much of a buffer and the UK is currently in around 1 trillion in debt I believe (subs please check). If Scotland left they would taking some of that debt with them, even if it is only 10% that is still 100b to pay back...

I was close

ps: I'm actually all for Federal Europe. Seems so futuristic. Also: Just make everything above the home counties "Mercia" or something and the south can stay as "that London".

Not a problem! I'm pleased you're taking an active interest, and by the sounds of it encouraging others to do so.

How do you see an independent Scotland's role in the world? And would an independent Scotland be interested in participating in the defence of the Isles and, perhaps, of the continent, or would she only want to protect her own borders?

Obviously, a lot would depend on the decisions taken by successive post-independence governments, but some idea is better than none at all, I think.

Going back to the old Anglo-Saxon kingdoms? Yeah, that could work. Things have gone downhill since Alfred's time, that's for sure.

1) Scotland will likely become a rich country, and probably influential too. (Most oil country's are, aren't they?) But I'm not really sure beyond that.

2)Of course. I would hope we have some kind of defence agreement with the remnant of the UK. With war and terrorism these days, we would be at risk if England was attacked, and therefore would have to step in (and Vice versa). And as long as we are in the EU, we would likely help beyond the British Isles (< How's that going to work when we leave? 'British isles')

Nothing changes. See also: Asia if china split, South America if Brazil split etc etc.

But It's Great Britain - the Union, Europe is our continent, the same as Asia is China's continent, South America is Brazils etc.
'British Isles' is not a continent

Ayr, nothing changes. The argies still insist in calling the Falklands the Malvinas for example.

Yes, but it is the geographic name given.

The political name is The kingdom of Great Britain and Northern island. That may change what with no longer containing the entire island of Great Britain.

"Greater Britain"

Ah, okay.


Slightly-smaller-but-still-great Britain?

"Greater England"

Outer London

Na, I like either "England and Friends"
OR
Although, if we do leave, *SEE AVATAR*

I wish I could share your optimism, I've tried to look into it more as the vote draws closer but the only thing I am sure of is that information is lacking and when it is available, too shrouded in bullshit for my tiny mind to understand. Looking at those figures from the guardian blog you linked to it doesn't look too good does it? Perhaps im not understanding but 1bn up per year (if trooper is correct) *provided the oil reserves don't run out* which by some accounts will be quite soon, we would still be paying off 81bn or more. I cant figure out if that would be us better off or worse off or the same so I remain undecided. I suppose I would say I want what's good for Scotland over what's good for the UK, given that I live here and work for a Scottish company. Does anyone know what that would be?

'The United Kingdom of England and Northern Ireland, guest-starring the Principality of Wales'. Rolls off the tongue.

Anecdotal of course, but when Mrs K did a capability review of the Scottish Exec for No. 10, the chief civil servant up there said "we've got more money out of the Barnet Formula than we know what to do with".

Also, the levels of employment in Scotland are artificially inflated as there's a disproportionate number of public sector jobs there, I believe.

Anyway, not in favour of independence. I love the Union, and it would be a sad loss culturally and socially if Scotland went its own way. They should have more devolved powers, though.

Also, Scotland is mahoosively unlikely to get 100% of the North Sea oil if they went independent. There's also the currency issue. And taking a share of the national debt. I can't really see it all working, to be honest, least of all with a massive eejit like Salmond trying to do it.

I've probably missed something obvious - but why does no one like salmon Alex Salmond?

He is a massive eejit.

He talks funny

Men should not wear skirts.

I respectfully disagree...

Malc

To be honest, they're not. They're often single-sector dominated shitholes, with little other industry. The list of top oil exporters is hardly dominated by "places you'd want to live". Even Norway, who took a really hard, long-term decision on how to deal with their oil reserves suffered a drop in other manufacturing after the discovery of oil in the 70's. And whilst Scottish oil reserves are high, they're not huge - they're around that of Syria's, less than Vietnam's or Gabon's and half that of Ghana's.

Cookie:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminolog ... tish_Isles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Is ... ng_dispute
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Isles
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNu8XDBSn10


The term British Isles is a can of worms. I hope an independent Scotland froths at the mouth about the term as much as Éire does.

Stu raised £33,000 for wingsland, not bad going really.

http://wingsoverscotland.com/a-gap-in-the-market/

http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/one-p ... wingsland/

Hello there Beex. It's been a wee while. I've been too busy with general life to keep up with events here, but I've just given the last 10 pages of this thread a jolly good skimming. As usual, I find the input of Cavey to be most delightful and while occasionally a little zesty I think he's an invaluable contribution to this debate.

I read with amusement that Stu has this little angry independence blog, and incredibly is still pushing his scrounging £2/month subscription model without a trace of irony. Of course, the lunatic, demagogic ramblings of that man are entirely invalidated by virtue of the fact the hapless shitbag doesn't even live in Scotland. The first, most fundamental aspect of a credible argument is putting your money where your mouth is, and sounding off on the future of a country that you once lived in, but now choose not to, is so ridiculous as to be farcical. His sense of entitlement ("I can't be expected to write about Scottish politics for free) is undiminshed and as always, he's basically an internet beggar. If you have something to say, you can support it with unobtrusive advertising that more than pays for the cost of hosting, and a loyal fanbase will more than justify the time spent putting the 'articles' together. The cap-in-hand success of this crowdsourcing is an unfortunate boost to this notion that the maniacal ranting coming from his fingertips somehow justifies the money.

In such a polarising debate, each extreme will find a wealth of supporters who back you simply because you think the same as them, rather than due to the demonstrable integrity of your arguments and evidence. That's a shame.

As someone who actually lives in Scotland, and follows the local politics while actually living a stonethrow from the actual parliament in which these things are discussed, I am of the opinion that the SNP are a shower of ideological arseholes who want independence regardless of the realistic outcomes of such a declaration. They talk mightily about the limitless benefits without being backed up by evidence or legal advice, as has been previously demonstrated on multiple occasions. When very senior EU figures and organisations discuss the likely process Scotland would have to engage in to rejoin the EU, the SNP engage in a fingers-in-ears disagreement with such statements. Nicola Sturgeon is very often seen defending the SNP by continuously reiterating that 'we don't see that it would be a problem' in respect to issues such as currency, banking regulation, membership, et cetera without having any basis for such an opinion.

The fact these arguments are backed up by very little credible evidence is a great worry. No more so than this mentality that the oil will pay for everything, and that Scotland has the best renewable potential of the continent. The operative word there is potential, and while I'm happy to concur that the level of remaining oil is very hard to determine, you cannot base the long term future of a country on what is ultimately an uncertain and finite basis.

The Yes campaign have some great strengths, and I will hand it to Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon in that they are both very effective public speakers. It is very often the case that a weak argument well-spoken will seem more convincing than a credible argument that cannot be delivered with the same effective articulation. That is the worry.

Scotland is an incredibly patriotic nation. SCOTTISH TEA is sold and advertised as being perfect for blending with SCOTTISH WATER. So many products and services are prefixed by 'Scottish' and notions and reiterations of pride that you simply cannot deny how patriotic this place is. I don't begrudge them that at all. My girlfriend is Scottish and proud, and it's ingrained so much more than you'd find in England. I'm indifferently English, I was born there, and that's about as much as I can say.

However much of the time, this Scottish pride amounts to a enormous chip on the shoulder about England. People who are not English in this union do so casually hate 'us' with a prejudice that can't rationally be justified. I do think Westminster considers Scotland too lightly, being a far-away place with comparatively few people, and so government policy is not made to match them. That merely makes a great argument for devolved government, which gives you local autonomy while having all of the scale benefits of being part of a larger union and trading block. However the average complaint that a Scot would have against Westminster government policy is no greater than an English person would have at the same policy. It just becomes a convenient to talk about unpopular policy here in terms of 'those bastard English', or 'those fucking English Tories', and this is the predicate for most of what the SNP say. We are led to believe that in an independant nation, everything would be pure roses. I'm very worried that because those sentiments are being said with a Scottish accent, some people will actually believe it.

The reasons against independence are so great I could start my own blog about it (accepting that I don't have the time regardless, I'd write this free without some egotistical expectation that my words were worthy of money), but the fact the SNP has consistently made claim after claim about how things will be, without any basis, shows you how stable and reliable any future independent government is likely to be.

Nicola Sturgeon's argument about EU membership is ridiculous. She talks about how Scotland couldn't possibly be 'ejected' from the EU, as they're a current member and could not be forced to reapply as a new member. The easiest comparison to make here is of a team in the Scottish Premier League. If you're part of a team that's in that league, but you decide that the team are a bunch of bastards and you want to start your own team, that new team doesn't therefore qualify for a place in the Premier League. This new team would have to prove their worth and apply as a new member - it follows with absolute logic. It wouldn't matter that your new team constitutes 10% of the players of the team you left - you wouldn't just automatically get in. If you CHOOSE to breakaway from your team in the league, you're CHOOSING to leave that league. The League isn't 'ejecting' you, you're the ones choosing to leave.

The opinion of Cookie is one that worries me. At 16/17 I had absolutely no insight in to politics, and at that age I would have been highly susceptable to some propagandist nonsense without the discernment to see beyond the bullshit. The SNP's desire to have teenagers vote in this election is not about inclusivity - it's a basic exploitation of the ability to con those too young to know better into supporting their cause. To me this was the greatest, weakest concession that Cameron made as part of the Edinburgh Agreement.

The debate will rumble on, but being advantaged of the ability to speak to people who actually live in Scotland, I am confident that the outcome of the referendum will be No. If I speak to anyone educated, well-informed, and politically minded, they invariably see independence as a risk too far, with promises that will never pan out. However the man on the street, that doesn't really follow the debates, doesn't know much about the risks, and is basically filled with a Braveheart notion of FREEEDOOOOOM, will look to vote Yes, if only to stick it to the Bloody English, not realising that a vast majority of the people down there wouldn't care or don't think they'd materially suffer as a result of Scotland going it alone. The only one at risk here is Scotland, imho.

Well that was a long post wasn't it? I could say much, much more, but there's just too little time in the day

Thanks EBG, that was interesting reading. I found myself agreeing with much of what you say, the only part in not convinced about is the football analogy; there is an existing barrier between our 10% and the rest of the UK 'team' so I still don't see it quite as black and white as that.
If someone where to walk up and offer me a job saying "oh you'll like this job! And the money! Woo! ... Probably" but not say what the wages were or what the work was, personally I would tell them where to shove it. Why should this be any different?
analogy back atcha.

Thanks for that, EBG. Good to hear the views of someone living up in Scotland - keep on posting with your observations as it's really interesting.
Lots to think about - might reply later in the week.

I think whatever decent points he may have had to make were undermined somewhat by his need to get a sweary and abusive character assassination in on Stu first. Kind of debases the rest of it IMO.

I've skimmed the whole thread, which involved the comical discovery of both his angry Indy-Power blog and his evident need to keep checking this site despite originally claiming he never would on the grounds it didn't interest him in the slightest. Covering some aspect of those facts seemed reasonable.

I agree though, entirely unnecessary. Everyone here is already well aware of his character and needed no further help from me.

He swore once - hardly "sweary", especially for Comical.

Good to see you back, Comical.

Either way, the 'hapless shitbag' has quickly raised £33,000 in donations to work on something he passionately believes in, so you deciding to go down the route of base abuse and belittlement undermines the credibility of anything else you have to say.

As for his character, I am indeed well aware of that, having worked with him closely on the Fairplay campaign a few years ago, and that makes your petty paragraphs of abuse all the more laughable.

He's still just being a nasty wanker though.

Awwww, did he say wude fings about your boyfwend?

Yes, he did.

Heh.

Anyway, there's nothing in that paragraph that isn't fair comment, though. It may not be right, but then it's an opinion, not a statement of a fact. And a completely germane comment given that it's a "I've just read the last 10 pages of this thread" post.

I'm guessing that would be a tidy truckload of new consoles, games, crisps, and sweets, because the money raised is essentially "pay me to keep writing on this blog because I believe in it so much I won't do it for free (not counting the existing donations, subscriptions, and ad revenue)."

Reminds me of WoS when he bemoaned that nobody valued his blog post about the visitor's guide to bath that nobody appreciated (or asked for) as 'quality content' in return for their £2/month. Although at least this time he's writing something these cybernats appreciate.

I'll not concern myself too much at your 'nasty wanker' accolade AE. I've not been around for some time but I'm reminded you're one of the more perculiar mouth-frothers I've ever observed on the internet.

That's out of order.

There's only one r in peculiar.

You are indeed correct. I am shamed.

He's offering a product, he's asked people to pay for it, and they've coughed up £33,000 - which part of that process gives you cause to call him a 'hapless shitbag', a 'scrounger', an 'internet beggar' and a 'lunatic'?

What he spends his wages on are his own business, he asked people to pay for the wingsland blog, they've paid. He can spend the money on whatever he likes, and all the sour grapes in the world won't change that.

And I stick by the 'nasty wanker' accolade, because I don't understand the violence of emotion displayed by yourself towards a fellow human being who's just getting on and doing something he believes in.

Also, I've been taking BEEX etiquette lessons from Chinny.