Home Search Calendar Help Login Register
Did you miss your activation email?
MurraysWorld Discussions  >  General Community  >  Chit Chat  >  Scottish politics 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Poll
Question:  If the referendum were held now, how would you vote?
YES to independence
NO to independence
Don't know

Pages: 1 ... 40 41 42 [43] 44 45 46 ... 134 Go Down Reply
Author

Scottish politics

 (Read 32757 times)
Iluvandy
Seed
****
Posts: 4,242

Gender: Female
Location: Scotland


Re: Scottish politics « Reply #630 on: October 25, 2012, 05:22 PM »
Reply

Thank you TCBM.   
IP Logged
theycanbillme
ATP Level
***
Posts: 2,001

Gender: Male
Location: London

Re: Scottish politics « Reply #631 on: October 25, 2012, 05:27 PM »
Reply

I too feel that it's a much bigger and challenging task to survive as a small country in the long run. India and Pakistan divided in the 60s and then Pakistan divided into two in the 70s and I don't think either Pakistan or Bangladesh is doing all that well as an independent country despite having lots of natural recourses. That's of course due the fact that they don't have the right people at the top and also, their tight religious background doesn't allow them to be more versatile and productive or inviting. I would think each country would have their own sets of challenges and it’s really very hard to overcome those at its initial independence age.

Pakistan is enormous however & became independent in 47.
The main problem with Pakistani independence was that it created an automatic enmity with India.
It really should never have happened, there's still more muslims in India
than there are Pakistanis.
And if it hadn't occured, there might have been no Taliban for starters.
I think the main problem for third world countries is mostly to do with the rule of law and lack of civil institutions that could maintain and develop civil society, we can only hope that Pakistan shall sort itself out sooner rather than later given its nulear status but, right now, its looking very shaky.
On a related note i was very happy to see how supportive the general public have been about Malala and those primeaval bastards that tried to gun her down.
At the end of the day its going to be down to the people of pakistan to fight if they want to be free.
IP Logged
Emma Jean
Veteran
******
Posts: 8,961

Gender: Female
Location: Toronto, Canada


We will be Victorious

Re: Scottish politics « Reply #632 on: October 25, 2012, 06:02 PM »
Reply

Pakistan is enormous however & became independent in 47.
The main problem with Pakistani independence was that it created an automatic enmity with India.
It really should never have happened, there's still more muslims in India
than there are Pakistanis.
And if it hadn't occured, there might have been no Taliban for starters.
I think the main problem for third world countries is mostly to do with the rule of law and lack of civil institutions that could maintain and develop civil society, we can only hope that Pakistan shall sort itself out sooner rather than later given its nulear status but, right now, its looking very shaky.
On a related note i was very happy to see how supportive the general public have been about Malala and those primeaval bastards that tried to gun her down.
At the end of the day its going to be down to the people of pakistan to fight if they want to be free.

But Pakistan is mostly Muslim based at least 80-90% of it even if India has more Muslims than Pakistan has. That's a big difference. The situation in Indian between the Hindus and Muslims isn’t at all that good and basically, Hindus have more say over everything than the Muslims. I mean look at their Prime Ministers and see what religion they belong to and that goes back to 47. Though this is beside the point but it, at least, tells you that despite having a lot of Muslims, they are not actually the power figures behind anything; therefore, no decisions are made by them.

I still agree though that they should have stayed together but some things are just not meant to be. I’d personally seek my own independence even it means I am going to struggle a lot more than before but one must still experience it. 
IP Logged
theycanbillme
ATP Level
***
Posts: 2,001

Gender: Male
Location: London

Re: Scottish politics « Reply #633 on: October 25, 2012, 06:25 PM »
Reply

But Pakistan is mostly Muslim based at least 80-90% of it even if India has more Muslims than Pakistan has. That's a big difference. The situation in Indian between the Hindus and Muslims isn’t at all that good and basically, Hindus have more say over everything than the Muslims. I mean look at their Prime Ministers and see what religion they belong to and that goes back to 47. Though this is beside the point but it, at least, tells you that despite having a lot of Muslims, they are not actually the power figures behind anything; therefore, no decisions are made by them.

I still agree though that they should have stayed together but some things are just not meant to be. I’d personally seek my own independence even it means I am going to struggle a lot more than before but one must still experience it.  


Had the Britsh not gotten involved, then they would have to have sorted out their differences together as it would have `meant to be`. And pakistan was a state of India, Scotland is a nation.
I don't know if i agree entirely that the politicians are a good example of Indian Muslims lack of influence. 3 Presidents have been Muslims since independence which is a reasonable number when taken into account that only 3 states have a high concentration of Muslims and less of 15% of the population overall.
Although you may have a better view "on the ground" as it were than I.
I think the main problem in india is corruption rather than religious intolerance.
But we digress.
[ Last edit by theycanbillme October 25, 2012, 06:36 PM ] IP Logged
tennis_girl
World No 1
*******
Posts: 10,789

Gender: Female


Re: Scottish politics « Reply #634 on: October 25, 2012, 10:16 PM »
Reply




I have no idea how you arrived at that conclusion.    I suppose Joe will say you are pithily expressing the gist of someone's thinking.     It's not working for you.

Have a go at logic and reasoning.

Please, point to me to where your facts and figures that Scotland can survive as an independent state are.
IP Logged
Iluvandy
Seed
****
Posts: 4,242

Gender: Female
Location: Scotland


Re: Scottish politics « Reply #635 on: October 25, 2012, 10:28 PM »
Reply

If you look on the Scottish Parliament web site I'm sure you will find figures which contradict the widely held opinion that Scotland is subsidised by England.    Possibly look for our contribution to the pot and how much we take out.   That's the best I can do for you.
IP Logged
boogers
Veteran
*
Posts: 9,593

Gender: Male
Location: Sussex


Touched by his noodly appendage

Re: Scottish politics « Reply #636 on: October 26, 2012, 12:09 AM »
Reply

If you look on the Scottish Parliament web site I'm sure you will find figures which contradict the widely held opinion that Scotland is subsidised by England.    Possibly look for our contribution to the pot and how much we take out.   That's the best I can do for you.

Agh, not this horseshit again. Have you not read anything that's been written in the last dozen pages?

Last year - if you squint, wave your hands a lot and a bunch of dubious assumption, the region of Scotland just about made a surplus last year. Unfortunately reality is a bit less forgiving, especially when you look at the bigger picture:

* Scotland only made a surplus if you assume 95% of North Sea oil revenue flows through Scottish coffers. In a post-independence world it wouldn't, because a middle ground between capita and geographic apportionment would be found.
* A whole pile of things were omitted from the expenditure figures (handy how that works)
* Oil revenues are likely to drop dramatically over the next decade, leaving a 13 billion deficit (assuming #1 is ignored and all revenues are via Scotland). That's >15% of the GDP of a notional independent scotland

It doesn't add up. Have a look at the Grauniands excellent breakdown.

Scotland as an independent region could well survive, but at the cost of socialised healthcare and welfare. You'd be looking at a US style economy - good for the rich, awful for the poor.
IP Logged
TheMadHatter
World No 1
*
*
Posts: 11,764

Gender: Male
Location: Southampton


Re: Scottish politics « Reply #637 on: October 26, 2012, 01:13 AM »
Reply

Agh, not this horseshit again. Have you not read anything that's been written in the last dozen pages?

Last year - if you squint, wave your hands a lot and a bunch of dubious assumption, the region of Scotland just about made a surplus last year. Unfortunately reality is a bit less forgiving, especially when you look at the bigger picture:

* Scotland only made a surplus if you assume 95% of North Sea oil revenue flows through Scottish coffers. In a post-independence world it wouldn't, because a middle ground between capita and geographic apportionment would be found.
* A whole pile of things were omitted from the expenditure figures (handy how that works)
* Oil revenues are likely to drop dramatically over the next decade, leaving a 13 billion deficit (assuming #1 is ignored and all revenues are via Scotland). That's >15% of the GDP of a notional independent scotland

It doesn't add up. Have a look at the Grauniands excellent breakdown.

Scotland as an independent region could well survive, but at the cost of socialised healthcare and welfare. You'd be looking at a US style economy - good for the rich, awful for the poor.

Don't be ruining this discussion with very relevant facts now, they're not wanted here.
IP Logged
Bevc
Murraymaniac
**********
Posts: 35,259

Gender: Female
Location: Cambridge - New Zealand


I'd give up chocolate but I'm no quitter!

Re: Scottish politics « Reply #638 on: October 26, 2012, 01:27 AM »
Reply

Read something interesting yesterday on the UK Parliament website:-

Q377
The Chairman: You have already talked about the ONS material and you suggest in your evidence that it would need to produce and provide pro forma national accounts. Over the past few years, the Scottish Government have produced provisional national accounts that extend back to 1980. While it is still provisional, are you asking the ONS to produce something additional or different?
Iain Coke: I think it is about getting agreement on the basis of calculation, so it is probably an expansion of those numbers. I do not think that they cover the balance sheets as well. They talk about the GDP side, but from an accountant’s point of view there are income and expenses. However, you also need to look at assets and liabilities as well as the long-term potential funding costs of things such as public sector pensions, the costs of activities such as decommissioning nuclear power stations and other activities that impose long-term potential costs.

This is the Chairman of the Select Committee for Economic Affairs, Lord MacGregor talking to Iain Coke, Head of Tax Faculty.

I hadn't thought about assets and liabilities.

If anyone wanted to read the whole thing

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-committees/economic-affairs/ScottishIndependence/ucEAC20120710Ev8.pdf

I'm trying to find the transcript of the Scottish Parliament meeting mentioned in this.

Think
IP Logged
Aileen
Murraymaniac
**********
Posts: 34,103

Gender: Female
Location: Edinburgh


Re: Scottish politics « Reply #639 on: October 26, 2012, 02:52 AM »
Reply

Don't be ruining this discussion with very relevant facts now, they're not wanted here.
Nice touch of sarcasm there, MH.  There are none so blind as those who do not want to see.



Another thing which has occurred to me, if you look at the terms of the Edinburgh Agreement - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/text-of-the-edinburgh-agreement-8212225.html - the Agreement applies only to the referendum and not anything which might happen after it, so, as there isn't to be a Devo-Max question on the ballot paper, if  the electorate votes to remain part of the UK in 2014, then I can see no reason why the Scottish Parliament can't seek more devolved powers from Westminster after that date.  Therefore it would make sense to vote No rather than going for outright independence and plunge Scotland into a minefield of uncertainties, which will certainly happen if the vote goes in favour of independence.

It seems it hasn't dawned yet on the Yes voters that it could take months or even years to finally thrash out the issues which a vote for independence will raise, during which time Scotland will effectively be in a state a limbo, something which would be extremely undesirable.  Are overseas companies, for example, going to feel happy about investing in a country which is in that situation?  Also, on the other hand, I can see overseas companies who have already invested in Scotland getting the hell out.  Indecision and uncertainty breed instability, and the effect of that on the Scottish economy would be disastrous.
IP Logged
Bevc
Murraymaniac
**********
Posts: 35,259

Gender: Female
Location: Cambridge - New Zealand


I'd give up chocolate but I'm no quitter!

Re: Scottish politics « Reply #640 on: October 26, 2012, 02:59 AM »
Reply

What you say is mentioned in the parliamentary transcript above Aileen - that it could effectively take years of negotiations together with lots of planning, seeing as there seem to be no plans in place.  Not forgetting the EU debacle confused

Lord Lawson of Blaby: There is no international law that determines how this split or separation should work, so it is all a matter for negotiation. That cannot and will not occur until after a referendum in which the Scottish people vote for independence. Do you agree with that?
Frank Haskew: I think that is right. This is a multi-step process, and the first thing we are going to have is a referendum. At that point, depending on what happens, there will be detailed negotiations both from the Scottish side and from the rest of the UK.
IP Logged
boogers
Veteran
*
Posts: 9,593

Gender: Male
Location: Sussex


Touched by his noodly appendage

Re: Scottish politics « Reply #641 on: October 26, 2012, 09:00 AM »
Reply

not anything which might happen after it, so, as there isn't to be a Devo-Max question on the ballot paper, if  the electorate votes to remain part of the UK in 2014, then I can see no reason why the Scottish Parliament can't seek more devolved powers from Westminster after that date.

It's a crying shame that the SNP and friends were unable to articulate what devo-max actually entailed. Had they done so, I'm fairly sure it'd have been an option in the upcoming referendum.
IP Logged
Iluvandy
Seed
****
Posts: 4,242

Gender: Female
Location: Scotland


Re: Scottish politics « Reply #642 on: October 26, 2012, 09:30 AM »
Reply

Agh, not this horseshit again. Have you not read anything that's been written in the last dozen pages?

Last year - if you squint, wave your hands a lot and a bunch of dubious assumption, the region of Scotland just about made a surplus last year. Unfortunately reality is a bit less forgiving, especially when you look at the bigger picture:

* Scotland only made a surplus if you assume 95% of North Sea oil revenue flows through Scottish coffers. In a post-independence world it wouldn't, because a middle ground between capita and geographic apportionment would be found.
* A whole pile of things were omitted from the expenditure figures (handy how that works)
* Oil revenues are likely to drop dramatically over the next decade, leaving a 13 billion deficit (assuming #1 is ignored and all revenues are via Scotland). That's >15% of the GDP of a notional independent scotland

It doesn't add up. Have a look at the Grauniands excellent breakdown.

Scotland as an independent region could well survive, but at the cost of socialised healthcare and welfare. You'd be looking at a US style economy - good for the rich, awful for the poor.


Good morning Boogers.    Yes I have read the last dozen pages.   No I have not changed my opinion.    I do not have your faith and figures - yes they have to be considered but they are not gospel.    I may have a look at Grauniands just as a matter of interest but the bottom line for me is that we are in an unequal partnership, I don't feel connected at all to the Westminster government and the only reason I go to vote now is because women died to get us the vote.    At the moment this country is good for the rich and awful for the poor so no change there then.    The other posts I look on as insignificant - they feel as if the posters thought it was a chance to make themselves look knowing and somehow superior, except to say the old none so blind quote works two ways Aileen.   Didn't include you in that BevC.
[ Last edit by Iluvandy October 26, 2012, 09:34 AM ] IP Logged
theycanbillme
ATP Level
***
Posts: 2,001

Gender: Male
Location: London

Re: Scottish politics « Reply #643 on: October 26, 2012, 12:17 PM »
Reply

Agh, not this horseshit again. Have you not read anything that's been written in the last dozen pages?

Last year - if you squint, wave your hands a lot and a bunch of dubious assumption, the region of Scotland just about made a surplus last year. Unfortunately reality is a bit less forgiving, especially when you look at the bigger picture:

* Scotland only made a surplus if you assume 95% of North Sea oil revenue flows through Scottish coffers. In a post-independence world it wouldn't, because a middle ground between capita and geographic apportionment would be found. * A whole pile of things were omitted from the expenditure figures (handy how that works)
* Oil revenues are likely to drop dramatically over the next decade, leaving a 13 billion deficit (assuming #1 is ignored and all revenues are via Scotland). That's >15% of the GDP of a notional independent scotland

It doesn't add up. Have a look at the Grauniands excellent breakdown.

Scotland as an independent region could well survive, but at the cost of socialised healthcare and welfare. You'd be looking at a US style economy - good for the rich, awful for the poor.


I think this is a fudge of the facts actually.
If you believe we would get our "geographic apportionment" of oil after the Scots left us you are in for a serious disappointment.
There are no oil fields in the british (non scottish) section of the continental shelf, they would get just about all of the revenue!
Just as Norway is the only Scandanavian nation that gets oil revenue due to its coastline and maritime boundaries, Scotland on this small Island would be the same. They got lucky.
Short of invasion we would just have to accept that our geography simply does not extend to the oil fields and move on.
But they might still owe us investment money for the development of these fields in the first place and that among many many things would need to be thrashed out well in advance.
I do however agree with Aileen that if plans and assurances were not made Scotland would enter a very damaging period of uncertainty, also a lot of military infrastructure would have to be moved from Scotland including nuclear sites and the cost to all of us would be horrendous.
But it is doable of course, over a long period of time.
As for not affording socialism, if the governement is spending more than it takes in we cannot afford it either, and so if the politically unpleasant necessity of raising taxes and or reducing benefits has to be taken then so be it.
We cannot borrow from the Chinese & the Arabs forever to support our lifestyles & its about time we all lived in reality anyway.
[ Last edit by theycanbillme October 26, 2012, 12:37 PM ] IP Logged
boogers
Veteran
*
Posts: 9,593

Gender: Male
Location: Sussex


Touched by his noodly appendage

Re: Scottish politics « Reply #644 on: October 26, 2012, 01:08 PM »
Reply

But they might still owe us investment money for the development of these fields in the first place and that among many many things would need to be thrashed out well in advance.

Did you even read what you quoted? That was precisely my point. Geographic apportionment would favour Scotland, per-capita apportionment would favour the remaining UK. The reality is that a settlement will be reached somewhere between geographic apportionment and per-capita apportionment to help pay for the cost of secession.

Not that it matters as the remaining oil reserves are limited.

Quote
As for not affording socialism, if the governement is spending more than it takes in we cannot afford it either, and so if the politically unpleasant necessity of raising taxes and or reducing benefits has to be taken then so be it.
We cannot borrow from the Chinese & the Arabs forever to support our lifestyles & its about time we all lived in reality anyway.

Again, missing the point. With dwindling oil revenues, a post-independence Scotland would have per-GDP deficit edging towards the 15% of GDP mark. Can you imagine the cuts and tax increases necessary to reduce that to even manageable levels?

There's a further problem - with a huge deficit and a small population base, a post-independence Scotland would find it extremely hard to source any money at all on the bond market, let alone at favourable rates.

Now, offset that against the main message from the "Yes" vote: effortless Nordic style well-being in a socialist paradise. That's going to be funded how exactly?
IP Logged
Pages: 1 ... 40 41 42 [43] 44 45 46 ... 134 Go Up Reply 
« previous next »