Hi there, Guest! Login Register


Poll: Do you agree Scotland should be an independent Country ?
Yes
No
Unsure
[Show Results]
 
Note: This is a public poll; other users will be able to see what you voted for.
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Independence ? Aye or Naw ?
#21
(10-22-2013, 09:33 PM)wemyss77 Wrote: Population Vs land mass and resource I think tell a lot. Taking it right back to basics, England in summer for example is a country that struggles to provide its population with fresh water for flip sake.

To be honest though, I mainly agree with you on devolution, but this is not the option we have to decide on and right now, and we have to look out for what is best for us. How about Kovy for Scotland, he might sort it out.

What exactly does population vs land-mass tell us?

2-3 months before the vote, the UK government will offer us a referendum on devo-max if we vote "no".

This will allay any of the "Yes" campaigns scaremongering of "if you vote no, the UK goverment could reduce our powers" and at the same time give many the happy middle ground that they'd be after. From a position of devo-max, would the country really ever seek full independence again? Doubtful, there'd be little to no benefit.

I have no doubt in my mind this is what will happen.
.: Ours, is the Fury :.

 
Reply
#22
(10-22-2013, 09:46 PM)Spain Wrote: What exactly does population vs land-mass tell us?

Seriously?? If it needs explained then I am lost.

As for your other point, a no vote is never going to give an automatic path for the system you explained earlier, even if it were promised.
 
Reply
#23
(10-22-2013, 10:00 PM)wemyss77 Wrote: Seriously?? If it needs explained then I am lost.

As for your other point, a no vote is never going to give an automatic path for the system you explained earlier, even if it were promised.

I'm genuinely interested to hear where you're going with it, so yes I'd like to hear you explain that.

Are you suggesting that population vs land-mass is in any way relevant to the viability of a country? They're both relevant to the bigger picture, but there is no direct correlation between the two. If not, where would you stop? Should the Highlands be independent from the rest of Scotland? That's an even more drastic population vs land-mass ratio. Or is there an optimum ratio?

I'm not saying a no vote would lead to the system I advocated earlier, but it could easily be made a legal guarantee that a no vote will lead to a devo-max vote for Scotland. This is the ace up the UK governments sleeve.
.: Ours, is the Fury :.

 
Reply
#24
Here is my 2ps worth!

I think Scotland should be an independent nation. Yes, even before I have seen the manipulated facts and figures which are due out on the 26th of November. The fact is that no-one knows for sure what the figures are going to be because there will be a lengthy negotiation process if a Yes vote takes place to divvy up the national debt, North Sea oil, membership of the EU etc etc etc.

Therefore, you have to trust your instinct.

Do you think Scotland has the resources to sustain a standard of living that will be palatable to the majority of people in Scotland? And do you think Scotland is the best place where decisions about Scotland should be taken?

I think the answers to these two questions are yes.

We all know about North Sea oil and when this runs out, wave and wind energy will hopefully replace it. We have a great tourist industry and export whisky to the four corners of the globe. Therefore I think we are well placed to generate significant revenues. The problem we have is because we are so geographically spread, our services cost more to deliver. However we are an innovative nation and new ways of delivering services are constantly being identified.

I genuinely think there is a difference of attitude between Scots and people who live in England, particularly the South East. The South East is driven by money and profit whereas I think Scotland is more focussed on social justice. This may be a sweeping statement, but it is my impression. Therefore, I think if we are an independent nation we may take decisions that reflect this ethos. For example would a Scottish government impose a bedroom tax, poll tax or privatise our previous national industries that are now ripping us off? I think a Scottish government would press harder to re-distribute wealth more fairly instead of letting the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Ultimately though, it is down to each individual. There is no right or wrong answer, just a difference of opinion. Next year is going to be exciting though!
 
Reply
#25
Yeah I'm not following the population density argument either.
 
Reply
#26
If Kovy stands I'll vote YES!!
Supporter Liaison Officer 

 
Reply
#27
quote from Gadgigadgi ''You keep saying we are being screwed,or anything that makes part of this great country look evil,but you do not list the screwed,up parts,I served under the Union Jack my fore fathers before me,www1www2 we fought as a United Kingdom
Thousands of English along with thousands of scots died together,against our enemy at that time, if we were independant then, what would have happened,''

Well, I would imagine the Scots soldiers would not have been used as cannon fodder!
 
Reply
#28
(10-22-2013, 11:59 PM)ReluctantHero Wrote: Here is my 2ps worth!

I think Scotland should be an independent nation. Yes, even before I have seen the manipulated facts and figures which are due out on the 26th of November. The fact is that no-one knows for sure what the figures are going to be because there will be a lengthy negotiation process if a Yes vote takes place to divvy up the national debt, North Sea oil, membership of the EU etc etc etc.

Therefore, you have to trust your instinct.

Do you think Scotland has the resources to sustain a standard of living that will be palatable to the majority of people in Scotland? And do you think Scotland is the best place where decisions about Scotland should be taken?

I think the answers to these two questions are yes.

We all know about North Sea oil and when this runs out, wave and wind energy will hopefully replace it. We have a great tourist industry and export whisky to the four corners of the globe. Therefore I think we are well placed to generate significant revenues. The problem we have is because we are so geographically spread, our services cost more to deliver. However we are an innovative nation and new ways of delivering services are constantly being identified.

I genuinely think there is a difference of attitude between Scots and people who live in England, particularly the South East. The South East is driven by money and profit whereas I think Scotland is more focussed on social justice. This may be a sweeping statement, but it is my impression. Therefore, I think if we are an independent nation we may take decisions that reflect this ethos. For example would a Scottish government impose a bedroom tax, poll tax or privatise our previous national industries that are now ripping us off? I think a Scottish government would press harder to re-distribute wealth more fairly instead of letting the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Ultimately though, it is down to each individual. There is no right or wrong answer, just a difference of opinion. Next year is going to be exciting though!
I 100% agree with you on all the above
 
Reply
#29
When I read about the infrastructure North of Perth being likened to that of Albania and then drive the A9, A82 and A96 I often think.....

We have had 1 Trillion pounds worth of North Sea oil and gas over the last 30 years and we have another 1 Trillion pounds left…. Where has this money gone?

Why are we not saving our wealth and working it in a fund for investment, growth and development in a sustainable way.

Is it because Westminster is still hanging on to the coat tails of a long since dead British Empire by over spending to maintain status with foreign powers?

We are the tip of a wee island off the west coast of Northern Europe, Yes lets be proud of the majority of the history shared within Britain but let’s also fund our schools, pensioners and councils correctly without the burdens of an old ego needing massaged by a ruling Southern class.
Highlander29
 
Reply
#30
I'm in the Yes camp mainly from an economic stand point, but also from an Identity point of view.

I'm married to an Australian who have their Independence but still the Queen as head of State, they used the Pound Sterling to start with before the Ozzie Dollar.

When I visit Oz they invariably ask me which part of England am I from as there education system now just brackets us all as English.

Recently in Spain we attended a Quiz night in the village and all the Questions on Brittain were referred to as "back home in England", such as (who was the Prime minister of England before Maggie Thatcher) My answer was wrong as of course I pointed out that England does not have a PM.

Sorry but I would like to show My passport and not need to explain that I'm a Scotsman, especially when I'm not wearing my Kilt.

If we Vote No, will FIFA then move on disbanding all the Home nation International teams and only going with an England team to represent us, as at the Olympics. Just a Thought
You can take the People out of the Highlands but not the Highlands out of the People
 
Reply
#31
(10-23-2013, 08:58 PM)Applecross Staggie Wrote: When I visit Oz they invariably ask me which part of England am I from as there education system now just brackets us all as English.

So what you're saying is their education system has drastically worsened since independence? Wink

For what it's worth, I'd like to point out again that I'm a "no" that's more than willing to be convinced otherwise with the facts. Reluctant Hero's post has been one of the best replies, and while I could pick some holes in it (specifically the ironic unsustainability of the sustainable energy business), I don't want to unwittingly become the voice of the "no" voters, when I'm actually open to the whole thing.
.: Ours, is the Fury :.

 
Reply
#32
Here in the north east of England we are as f***** off at Westminster as anyone else. We have received less government support per person as any other area in the UK, especially Scotland. However....
I have a long association with Scotland and which ever way you vote I will support it and wish you well. At least you are going to get the chance to vote, we will never have that chance.
There are advantages and disadvantages either way but I totally understand a country not wanting to be controlled by Westminster, a place so detached from the rest of the country it is unbelieveable. I worry for the Scottish economy if it will be based on oil. OPEC controls oil prices and could destroy the Scottish economy as a result.
Which ever way the vote goes, i hope that will be an end to it. Personally, I think the UK is a strong force together but you must decide.

If the vote is 'YES', please don't make it difficult for me to cross the border for a match day!
SHIRT NUMBER 34.

(formerly named Geordieland Staggie).

Registered member since March 2003.
 
Reply
#33
(10-24-2013, 11:36 AM)staggie34 Wrote: If the vote is 'YES', please don't make it difficult for me to cross the border for a match day!

No problems mate, you'll be welcome any time and the only border controls you will probably see will be by Westminster.

I've travelled all around Europe and the only Border controls/ problems are re-entry to the UK as all the other EU states have open borders, like we will have.

Anyway "Mon the Staggies" Heart
You can take the People out of the Highlands but not the Highlands out of the People
 
Reply
#34
(10-23-2013, 10:14 PM)Spain Wrote:
(10-23-2013, 08:58 PM)Applecross Staggie Wrote: When I visit Oz they invariably ask me which part of England am I from as there education system now just brackets us all as English.

So what you're saying is their education system has drastically worsened since independence? Wink

For what it's worth, I'd like to point out again that I'm a "no" that's more than willing to be convinced otherwise with the facts. Reluctant Hero's post has been one of the best replies, and while I could pick some holes in it (specifically the ironic unsustainability of the sustainable energy business), I don't want to unwittingly become the voice of the "no" voters, when I'm actually open to the whole thing.

To be honest picking holes seems to be what you be enjoying at the moment, especially to folk saying yes? To answer the previous picking holes to post: population density (in terms of the resource we have, which I have always linked) is important for obvious reasons: pressure on your services land and resource, access and ability to manage your resources etc etc.

I think reference to sustainable energy above is also justified and relevant. Scotland has simply staggering resource in wave, tidal and wind. Getting this converted is the big challenge, but we are getting oil and gas out of sub sea how far down, and further away all the time. As proven, solutions can be engineered for challenging problems. As already pointed out by others, we still have have significant fossil reserves (and dare I say uranium) which in relation to our population is quite scary. With hydro and wind alone we are well ahead in terms of sustainable energy, and if independent the overall surplus (which we already produce) can be sold over the border for a decent price. Can England ever be self sufficient for energy with their population and corresponding resources? I very much doubt it and hence the reason they are going down the nuclear route which dodgy deals with China! Just a pity uranium is not sustainable either.

The UK also has a lot of mouths to feed, population density for England is more of a worry than for the rest of the home nations, and to expand this thought, just go and have a look at Scotland's marine boundaries in comparison the rest of the UK. I honestly believe we can fulfil the energy demand (in terms of energy for work, and food for people) from our own sources, which I think is a rather big worry for less fortunate countries, one of which rules us.

I must admit I really wish I had not commented on this thread, probably not the place for political debate :<

ANYWAY Come on the County for Tomorrow night, gutted I can't make it down, which is made even more annoying that I have been down more often than not of late, and no games on when I have :<
 
Reply
#35
Population density isn't an issue.

South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Mauritius, Singapore, the Netherlands, and Macau are all very densely populated but are all well developed countries. Not many of them have access to the natural resources that the UK has either.
 
Reply
#36
(10-24-2013, 11:11 PM)StrathyStaggie Wrote: Population density isn't an issue.

South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Mauritius, Singapore, the Netherlands, and Macau are all very densely populated but are all well developed countries. Not many of them have access to the natural resources that the UK has either.

Missed the point again! It is an issue if you don't have the resource to back it up. UK has the resource yes, but where is most of that??
 
Reply
#37
Scotland has all these resources but we will still sell them to the UK if we become independent. The rest of the UK would still have access to their own wave and wind supplies (and potentially shale), as well as having the majority of North Sea gas supplies.

The rest of the UK would import other energy supplies - but not necessarily from Scotland, since the Irish are already looking at selling renewable energy to the UK. There's also no guarantee that Scotland won't spend the first few years of independence importing energy from other countries.

They might have a larger population but they also have a larger revenue stream from taxation, as well as a fully fledged banking sector. They also don't need to pay for the initial outlay of things such as embassies and other bureaucratic institutions.

Scotland could do well independently but they could prosper without resources and a larger population. Look at the countries I've mentioned, most of them import resources (such as energy) but prosper. The rest of the UK won't struggle because they lack resources.
 
Reply
#38
(10-25-2013, 11:57 AM)StrathyStaggie Wrote: The rest of the UK won't struggle because they lack resources.

By the fact the UK are soooo keen to hold on to us, I am not sure they want to take that riskRolleyes
 
Reply
#39
(10-21-2013, 09:07 PM)wemyss77 Wrote:
(10-21-2013, 03:27 PM)Comrie Wrote: In general, yes. With the SNP in charge, no. I wouldn't trust them to run a piss up in a brewery. They'll see us in an economic nightmare.

We don't need to stick SNP once independent.

Exactly! So many people don't seem to get that. We become independent, and then we decide who we want to run the place. Has to be better than having to go along with whoever the south of England wants to run them!

(10-22-2013, 09:46 PM)Spain Wrote: 2-3 months before the vote, the UK government will offer us a referendum on devo-max if we vote "no".

Why would they do that? Vote no, we get nothing. In fact, we probably get punished for our impertinence for even asking the question (in addition to the dogged pursuit of austerity measures that all unionist parties are devoted to, even though they're clearly just making things worse).
 
Reply
#40
Im glad this thread is back on track. The hazy No vote posts didnt make sense, .

Can someone give me 3 reasons we should stay in the Union ??
Highlander29
 
Reply
  


Forum Jump:


Browsing: 1 Guest(s)