Independence would be largely pointless - Official

[Hibbyradge]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-13588213

An interesting article which pretty much debunks the economic arguments supporting Independence.

As an aside, this statement speaks volumes about our country;

"In the long run, the issue is whether independence would promote economic dynamism in Scotland - or lead it to sink into the partisan petty corruption that, for so long, characterised Scottish politics."

[Woody1985]

Nothing new really.

We might not be better off, but we might.

The bit that interests me most, and always has, is the part that basically says England would try and keep the oil.

[ancienthibby]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-13588213

An interesting article which pretty much debunks the economic arguments supporting Independence.

As an aside, this statement speaks volumes about our country;

"In the long run, the issue is whether independence would promote economic dynamism in Scotland - or lead it to sink into the partisan petty corruption that, for so long, characterised Scottish politics."

You must be a failed applicant for a job as a headline writer with the Hootsman!!:devil:

[Leicester Fan]

Nothing new really.

We might not be better off, but we might.

The bit that interests me most, and always has, is the part that basically says England would try and keep the oil.

As I understand it ,if Scotland gained independence then a good portion of the oil would be in officially English waters.

[Saorsa]

As I understand it ,if Scotland gained independence then a good portion of the oil would be in officially English waters.Why? Because the Westminster government signed a piece of paper which artificially moved the border before devolution?

I think it'll be decided by this

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982

[Beefster]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-13588213

An interesting article which pretty much debunks the economic arguments supporting Independence.

As an aside, this statement speaks volumes about our country;

"In the long run, the issue is whether independence would promote economic dynamism in Scotland - or lead it to sink into the partisan petty corruption that, for so long, characterised Scottish politics."

You won't get anyone to seriously tackle the issues raised. If anyone does try to take them on, there will be lots of 'our oil', 'our money' etc etc so it won't really deal with the issues.

I've asked, repeatedly, on here for an explanation of how the nation (poverty, quality of lives, economics etc etc etc) will improve under an independent Scotland and I've never had even close to an answer. I can't even get an acknowledgement that we won't be worse off.

[Woody1985]

As I understand it ,if Scotland gained independence then a good portion of the oil would be in officially English waters.

Apparently more of the gas is in their water. Oil in ours.

I also believe the water 'lines' were redrawn in the 70s or 80s to make more of them in English waters.

[marinello59]

Nothing new really.

We might not be better off, but we might.

The bit that interests me most, and always has, is the part that basically says England would try and keep the oil.

Except it doesn't actually say that does it?

[Woody1985]

Except it doesn't actually say that does it?

Upon first reading I took it that the UK would ultimately be able to decide what happens with the oil and gas which translates to me as you're going nowhere with the oil revenues.

"Yet the historic privileges of the monarch mean that offshore energy is largely a UK resource."

You think that the rest of the UK will just wave us into the sunset with most of the oil?

We'd end up with a token gesture. It's probably the reason why AS says we'll keep the monarchy.

[bighairyfaeleith]

You won't get anyone to seriously tackle the issues raised. If anyone does try to take them on, there will be lots of 'our oil', 'our money' etc etc so it won't really deal with the issues.

I've asked, repeatedly, on here for an explanation of how the nation (poverty, quality of lives, economics etc etc etc) will improve under an independent Scotland and I've never had even close to an answer. I can't even get an acknowledgement that we won't be worse off.

I think there is a good chance of us being worse off, certainly for the first ten to twenty years as we pay the costs of introducing new systems like our own tax system for example, but then the more I have thought about this recently, is independence just about money, I know it's a bit of flag waving but the argument can't all be cold and clinical because it's an emotional subject as well.

Still not sure I will vote yes in three years time but the time when the majority will I think is nearing closer.

[marinello59]

Upon first reading I took it that the UK would ultimately be able to decide what happens with the oil and gas which translates to me as you're going nowhere with the oil revenues.

"Yet the historic privileges of the monarch mean that offshore energy is largely a UK resource."

You think that the rest of the UK will just wave us into the sunset with most of the oil?

We'd end up with a token gesture. It's probably the reason why AS says we'll keep the monarchy.

No. I believe we have the political talent in this country to negotiate a fair settlement regarding the Oil reserves of the UK if Scotland becomes independent. To think otherwise is defeatist and backward looking.. We should be looking to the future with confidence rather than adopting the attitude that our bigger neighbour will somehow screw us over and leave us with a 'token gesture.' That sort of thinking demonstrates the Scottish cringe at it's very worst. We will get what we deserve. Going forward believing anything less would ultimately end in failure.

As an aside, Alex Salmond would keep the monarchy because he actually admires the institution. Strange for some to comprehend but he is no republican.

[JeMeSouviens]

Salmond was one of the leading lights in the 79 group (note the tagline :wink: ):

http://scottishrepublicansocialistmovement.org/images/pub%2002.JPG

There's also the way he takes the oath:

"Before raising his right hand to swear allegiance to the Queen, the SNP leader said: 'The Scottish National Party's primary loyalty is to the people of Scotland, in line with the Scottish constitutional tradition of the sovereignty of the people.' "

I'd say Eck is a fairly deeply in the closet republican. Makes tactical sense, why alienate the monarchists before you have to?

[Woody1985]

I think you've got me wrong on this, I'm not saying don't go for it because they'll try and shaft us. I'm just saying they will.

[ancienthibby]

I think you've got me wrong on this, I'm not saying don't go for it because they'll try and shaft us. I'm just saying they will.


I do't think they can run that risk, Woody!

Our recent election changed all that, and every voter north of the border is also a voter for any UK election, so a UK government would be committing political suicide if it chose to ignore the mandate which the Scottish voters have given the SNP.

[Beefster]

I think there is a good chance of us being worse off, certainly for the first ten to twenty years as we pay the costs of introducing new systems like our own tax system for example, but then the more I have thought about this recently, is independence just about money, I know it's a bit of flag waving but the argument can't all be cold and clinical because it's an emotional subject as well.

Still not sure I will vote yes in three years time but the time when the majority will I think is nearing closer.

More or less, yes. It's about the quality of life of the citizens IMHO.

Folk living in poverty, folk relying on a well funded NHS, folk relying on jobs and non-punative taxation to look after their families and many more won't care about promises of things being better in a couple of decades whilst, in the meantime, everyone suffers.

[ancienthibby]

Salmond was one of the leading lights in the 79 group (note the tagline :wink: ):

http://scottishrepublicansocialistmovement.org/images/pub%2002.JPG

There's also the way he takes the oath:

"Before raising his right hand to swear allegiance to the Queen, the SNP leader said: 'The Scottish National Party's primary loyalty is to the people of Scotland, in line with the Scottish constitutional tradition of the sovereignty of the people.' "

I'd say Eck is a fairly deeply in the closet republican. Makes tactical sense, why alienate the monarchists before you have to?

Disagree with your conclusion, JMS,

All I think Salmond (and the SNP) are doing is recognising the old Scots way of regarding their monarchs, such as Mary, Queen of Scots or Jamie, King of Scots.

[bighairyfaeleith]

More or less, yes. It's about the quality of life of the citizens IMHO.

Folk living in poverty, folk relying on a well funded NHS, folk relying on jobs and non-punative taxation to look after their families and many more won't care about promises of things being better in a couple of decades whilst, in the meantime, everyone suffers.

But although the country may be worse off based on the total income surely there are many other ways we can be better off, for example we would be to avoid paying money into ridiculous wars like iraq, we wouldn't be funding failed bids for the world cup etc.

I suppose what I am saying is that we will be able to spend all our money on ourselves. So yes we may only have 80% of what we currently have however if we are smart and use our money wisely there is no reason why things can't actually improve.

However I appreciate I don't have all the facts so I would still like to be convinced prior to voting that life could be better if I vote yes.

[J-C]

I think the SNP have realised that when their party was pushing heavily for independence 30+ years ago Scotland was a different political and social country. many of our large companies have now gone global, linked/merged with their English counterparts. A full independant Scotland will now be a very different animal due to all these circumstances, what it probably now means is a full right to govern our country with total control of all income and taxes taken and an ability to change laws within our parliament.

As far as the oil is concerned, I cannot see that a UK government changing coastal waters for the benefit of Englnd would ever hold up in a European court, surely if independence is given then all waters around our coast would be our by law, plus wa have a lot of oil being drilled for at this moment of our west coasts, which would obviously be a big boon.

[Leicester Fan]

Why? Because the Westminster government signed a piece of paper which artificially moved the border before devolution?

I think it'll be decided by this

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982

I'm sure it will be and a good chunk of the oilfields will be in English water.

Anyway what are you going to do once the oil runs out in 20/30 years?

[Hainan Hibs]

I'm sure it will be and a good chunk of the oilfields will be in English water.

Anyway what are you going to do once the oil runs out in 20/30 years?

What will England do? It seems to have bankrolled the treasury over the past few decades.

[Hainan Hibs]

I'm sure it will be and a good chunk of the oilfields will be in English water.

Anyway what are you going to do once the oil runs out in 20/30 years?

What will England do? Oil seems to have bankrolled the treasury over the past few decades.

[ancienthibby]

I'm sure it will be and a good chunk of the oilfields will be in English water.

Anyway what are you going to do once the oil runs out in 20/30 years?

Not so - a good chunk of the gasfields are in English waters!

But the overwhelming volume of oilfields are in Scottish waters!!

The original determination for this was settled by the Court of International Jurisprudence in the Hague in the late sixties, I seem to remember.

But then what? - along comes devolution - and guess what happens?? Donald Dewar and his Liebor buddies in Westminster change the Hague ruling so as to deprive Scotland of some of the oilfields in the Southern part of the North Sea!!

You could not make this up - Scottish Liebor politicians voting to deprive their own country of its own assets!! But, Liebor did this!

Can they do it again - well, they are not in power and I doubt very much that DaveCam would dare try such a trick again, despite any advice from Michael 'Scissorhands' Forsyth!!

[Leicester Fan]

There are international agreements as to where borders are at sea. It won't be in the power of any English or Scottish govt to arbitrarily decide where they should be.

Admittedly the majority of oil would be in Scottish waters but not all.

[One Day Soon]

Not so - a good chunk of the gasfields are in English waters!

But the overwhelming volume of oilfields are in Scottish waters!!

The original determination for this was settled by the Court of International Jurisprudence in the Hague in the late sixties, I seem to remember.

But then what? - along comes devolution - and guess what happens?? Donald Dewar and his Liebor buddies in Westminster change the Hague ruling so as to deprive Scotland of some of the oilfields in the Southern part of the North Sea!!

You could not make this up - Scottish Liebor politicians voting to deprive their own country of its own assets!! But, Liebor did this!

Can they do it again - well, they are not in power and I doubt very much that DaveCam would dare try such a trick again, despite any advice from Michael 'Scissorhands' Forsyth!!

Do you speak like this in real life?

[steakbake]

Michael Forsyth - anyone else surprised that he's still alive and involved in politics? He's like something you'd find in a haunted house.

[RyeSloan]

What will England do? Oil seems to have bankrolled the treasury over the past few decades.

And what will Scotland do without the South East and the City which has surely given just as much and maybe substantially more to the treasury?

[bighairyfaeleith]

And what will Scotland do without the South East and the City which has surely given just as much and maybe substantially more to the treasury?

Does that give us anything though, or does it just keep the rest of England and Wales afloat?

There is a pint actually, what does wales cost the country? Serious question as I don't know?

[steakbake]

Does that give us anything though, or does it just keep the rest of England and Wales afloat?

There is a pint actually, what does wales cost the country? Serious question as I don't know?

Not as much as Northern Ireland. And not as much as Cross-rail.

[RyeSloan]

Does that give us anything though, or does it just keep the rest of England and Wales afloat?There is a pint actually, what does wales cost the country? Serious question as I don't know?

Surely it does at is feeds public spending in England...which is the main factor in the Barnet Formula...so inflated treasury income = inflated public spending in England = inflated Barnet formula payments in Scotland.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Surely it does at is feeds public spending in England...which is the main factor in the Barnet Formula...so inflated treasury income = inflated public spending in England = inflated Barnet formula payments in Scotland.

sorry but I don't get it, do the figures not show that we get out pretty much what we put in. So yes we get more per head than other areas but not more than we contribute as a country.

Or am I being simple?:confused::wink:

[RyeSloan]

sorry but I don't get it, do the figures not show that we get out pretty much what we put in. So yes we get more per head than other areas but not more than we contribute as a country.

Or am I being simple?:confused::wink:

What figures are you quoting?

All I am saying is that the Barnett formula is based on public spending in England.

The is supported in a number of ways but energy production tax and the City account for a big chunk.

Therefore if we are looking to work out if Scotland would be better or worse off (although how we propose to spend what we have is surely the most important bit!) then you can't simply say...ahh but we will have all the oil revenue but ignore that we will lose other sources of revenue that are currently used to calculate (i.e increase) the block grant.

[bighairyfaeleith]

What figures are you quoting?

All I am saying is that the Barnett formula is based on public spending in England.

The is supported in a number of ways but energy production tax and the City account for a big chunk.

Therefore if we are looking to work out if Scotland would be better or worse off (although how we propose to spend what we have is surely the most important bit!) then you can't simply say...ahh but we will have all the oil revenue but ignore that we will lose other sources of revenue that are currently used to calculate (i.e increase) the block grant.

The figures have been used in this thread I am sure, not 100% where they come from but basically it has been shown that only Scotland and the south of england do not cost the UK any money, i.e. they take out the same or less than what they put in.

I have heard the barnett formula be used in these arguments before and I was genuinely interested in how, after reading the fact above, we could be getting more than we are entitled to, so have assumed it is because we take more per head but still only as much as we put in. Whether thats by accident or design I don't know.

I'm no expert on this one just interested to know the real facts.

You are right though, much more important to know how we would spend our pot of cash as opposed to whether the pot is x or y amount. It will be interesting to see if any of the "british" parties will tell us any of there plans for governing an independent Scotland in the run up to the referendum.

[Dashing Bob S]

Whether Scotland would be better or less of would depend on the policies an independent country would pursue, and the state of the international economy.

Independence is largely pointless in the same way as the union is largely pointless.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Interesting development with the Southern Cross fiasco (tragic if you are personally affected, as I am - one of my family is an employee). Surely there must be greater control over care and it shouldn't be left entirely to the market as seems to be the cost here.