Hi there, Guest! Login Register


Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Scottish Government public discussion in Inverness - Mon 23 March
#1
Information 
For anyone up north who's interested, the First Minister and the rest of the Scottish Government Cabinet are going to be holding a public discussion at the Ironworks in Inverness next Monday, 23 March at 7pm. Tickets are free and available to book at the link below.

http://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/ministers-...tsonglobal

 
Reply
#2
(03-18-2015, 03:08 PM)Forfinn Wrote: For anyone up north who's interested, the First Minister and the rest of the Scottish Government Cabinet are going to be holding a public discussion at the Ironworks in Inverness next Monday, 23 March at 7pm. Tickets are free and available to book at the link below.

http://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/ministers-...tsonglobal

From what I can see ongoing the SNP are not interested in getting anything done to help any government to run the country but indeed are out to destroy anything that comes from Westminster,
While Iam scottish and support some SNP policies I cannot support damaging the economy of Wakes england Ireland, just to say we've won,
On Independance when it comes thus endeth SNP then it goes into splitting scottish Tory scottish labour scottish lib dem scottish Green Party ,all for scotland,
Nobody else can then be blamed for any downturn in our economy.in my opinion
We dodged a silver bullet this time,if we were independant, then it would be downward spiral.
The first minister at least admitted the got it wrong on oil deary me it would have been too late if we'd been independant ,just what else is wrong,quite a lot of sums dingwall nt add up, I am SNP sympathiser to a point, where backs to the wall I'm scottish born and bred but not stupid
 
Reply
#3
(03-31-2015, 12:18 PM)Ross shire buff Wrote: From what I can see ongoing the SNP are not interested in getting anything done to help any government to run the country but indeed are out to destroy anything that comes from Westminster,
While Iam scottish and support some SNP policies I cannot support damaging the economy of Wakes england Ireland, just to say we've won,

I think you will find Ireland got Independence in 1922, and living here know they would never go back.... just the same as every other country that has gained their independence from England. We are the ones too scared to see the opportunity.
 
Reply
#4
(03-31-2015, 02:12 PM)wemyss77 Wrote: I think you will find Ireland got Independence in 1922, and living here know they would never go back.... just the same as every other country that has gained their independence from England. We are the ones too scared to see the opportunity.

Was pretty good at history geography maths,
The Republic of Ireland got Independance being southern Ireland, Northern Ireland are still british, but that's not the point point Iwas on about , the Republic of Ireland and the euro dodgy ,after initial pumping of euros and big works programmes now back to basics, if anything the pound sterling has withstood the generations of time, I would need to know if we can keep the pound,recently the oil industry shows how far out Mr Salmond was on prediction,or was this just [censored] IT Let's get Independance without any surity or security( too late saying why have we not got currency ,what happened to our pound sterling) where is work coming from ect ect
We fought wars together, devolved power is fine at present, as SNPs we will have overwhelming numbers to vote ,and request as we see and require.
What I would be afraid of is the trick being used , saying WE SNP will side with Labour if Ed Milliband and labour win, the i trick being more people will vote Tory
And then the truth is blame Tories again for things going wrong,
If the country want a change of government,don't be side tracked by SNP policy
That's all I'm saying, SNP numbers will be so big we will be the biggest party in Scotland ,matter of fact the only party,but if Labour win Election , then SNP don't have Tories to blame for anything But what salmond would like is hung parliament
Hold labour to everything change and run the country, that is not healthy,but very Dangeous to the whole British Isles ,just to say we won
 
Reply
#5
As vice chair of Seaforth association I'm am bearer of bad news,the Seaforth highlanders association have been informed by war office,that The said Ross County,must remove stags head from shirts

They can have a deers head on shirt but not a stag, sad but it was argued late into the hours at meetings I feel bad about it,and assure you all will forever from fight against this decision .
Read North Star Friday
RSB
 
Reply
#6
(03-31-2015, 03:29 PM)Ross shire buff Wrote: Was pretty good at history geography maths.

Well then you will understand Northern Ireland and Ireland are two different countries Wink

We will agree to disagree on the other content. As a matter of interest tell me one country that has gained independence from England that would now like to go back?

(03-31-2015, 05:10 PM)Ross shire buff Wrote: As vice chair of Seaforth association I'm am bearer of bad news,the Seaforth highlanders association have been informed by war office,that The said Ross County,must remove stags head from shirts

They can have a deers head on shirt but not a stag, sad but it was argued late into the hours at meetings I feel bad about it,and assure you all will forever from fight against this decision .
Read North Star Friday
RSB

So the war office invented the Stag? What a load of crap...
 
Reply
#7
(03-31-2015, 07:55 PM)wemyss77 Wrote: Well then you will understand Northern Ireland and Ireland are two different countries Wink

We will agree to disagree on the other content. As a matter of interest tell me one country that has gained independence from England that would now like to go back?


So the war office invented the Stag? What a load of crap...

There is more fun with toothache than trying to have craic with you Wemys lighten up man know a wind up when you see it,haha Big Grin

(03-31-2015, 07:55 PM)wemyss77 Wrote: Well then you will understand Northern Ireland and Ireland are two different countries Wink

We will agree to disagree on the other content. As a matter of interest tell me one country that has gained independence from England that would now like to go back?


So the war office invented the Stag? What a load of crap...

Ireland one contry split in two so the South half of Ireland git Independance ,there is still fighting going on for a United Ireland'.,the North wants to stay with BRITAIN
That is why in every news every paper. It's described as Northern Ireland.
NORTHERN IRELAND. Southern Ireland independant same country Split

(03-31-2015, 10:13 PM)Ross shire buff Wrote: There is more fun with toothache than trying to have craic with you Wemys lighten up man know a wind up when you see it,haha Big Grin


Ireland one contry split in two so the South half of Ireland git Independance ,there is still fighting going on for a United Ireland'.,the North wants to stay with BRITAIN
That is why in every news every paper. It's described as Northern Ireland.
NORTHERN IRELAND. Southern Ireland independant same country Split

I'm having fun Wemys only joking about stags head 1st of April in the morning,
I enjoy your posts Smile
 
Reply
#8
Everyone got the oil wrong, no-one predicted the slump, from the SNP, to Westminster, to the oil industry itself.

Further to the oil, now the price has gone down the cheaper oil is to help fund the entire UK. Were we independent, pretty much the same amount of oil would be used to help fund Scotland alone. So almost the same amount of money on a significantly smaller population (albeit minus what else the Scottish economy would lose from leaving the UK).

Most importantly, if Scotland had voted Yes, independence negotiations would barely have even begun. The current oil price, and the revenues derived from it, would be Westminster’s problem still. Scotland wouldn't have been independent until spring 2016 at the earliest, and in reality the process would have taken years.

If the oil price is still struggling 18 months from now, comments over the job losses and potential economic consequences of an independent Scotland would be more valid.

Also, we were told that the UK’s “broad shoulders” would protect us from such fluctuations in oil revenue. Yet the price has only been falling for a short while and we’re told that the entire industry is already struggling, with tens of thousands of jobs set to be lost. Had we an oil fund (like Norway etc.) we could afford to sit out the current slump for decades. But we don't because Westminster spunked it, unlike the vast majority of all other countries with oil.

So folk are trying to ignore the oil fund Scotland would likely have had if it had been independent already, while at the same time pretending that if Scotland had only just voted for independence in September we’d be having to deal with an oil slump now -when in fact it would still be London’s problem.

Finally, the future oil price in spring 2016 could be just about anything, because nobody predicted the current slump a few months ago, let alone 12-18 months ago.

Basically, the oil slump is a tenuous argument manipulated by Unionist politicians and media to make independence look unviable and the SNP look daft. But if you dig deeper it becomes apparent that it's crap.

As a word of warning, think before telling someone from Eire/ the Republic of Ireland that they are from 'Southern Ireland' ;-)

ETA: Actually, not done yet... SNP are the biggest party in Scotland and impressing across UK in debates because of their progressive policies. They are not a one-policy party, despite people's best efforts to belittle and dismiss them as such. In the event of independence they would have as much of a political future as anyone, they wouldn't "endeth".

Its not just Salmond that wants a hung parliament, for a start he is not the SNP leader and Sturgeon is no puppet. Anyone dismissing the SNP as a one-man party are as daft as those dismissing them as a one-policy party.

There is a strong argument for SNP involvement in a minority UK government to protect Scottish interests and help force through more progressive policies/remove more Dickensian policies, why do you think it would be dangerous RSB?
 
Reply
#9
(04-03-2015, 07:54 PM)staggie1746 Wrote: Everyone got the oil wrong, no-one predicted the slump, from the SNP, to Westminster, to the oil industry itself.

But only the SNP wanted to put all our eggs into that unpredictable basket.

Quote:Further to the oil, now the price has gone down the cheaper oil is to help fund the entire UK. Were we independent, pretty much the same amount of oil would be used to help fund Scotland alone. So almost the same amount of money on a significantly smaller population (albeit minus what else the Scottish economy would lose from leaving the UK).

But to balance their books, the SNP needed oil revenues at the higher price. Health, education, housing and defence would all have had to be cut.

Quote:Most importantly, if Scotland had voted Yes, independence negotiations would barely have even begun. The current oil price, and the revenues derived from it, would be Westminster’s problem still. Scotland wouldn't have been independent until spring 2016 at the earliest, and in reality the process would have taken years.

And in the meantime do you think that Westminster would have continued to invest in a Scotland which was going to be independent?

Quote:If the oil price is still struggling 18 months from now, comments over the job losses and potential economic consequences of an independent Scotland would be more valid.

Fortunately 55% thought that was not a risk worth taking.

Quote:Also, we were told that the UK’s “broad shoulders” would protect us from such fluctuations in oil revenue. Yet the price has only been falling for a short while and we’re told that the entire industry is already struggling, with tens of thousands of jobs set to be lost.

They are. The protection is for public services, not for the oil industry.


Quote:Had we an oil fund (like Norway etc.) we could afford to sit out the current slump for decades. But we don't because Westminster spunked it, unlike the vast majority of all other countries with oil.

Actually Norway are unique with the scale of their oil fund. But it hasn't come without cost. Every Krone into the oil fund is a Krone not available to spend on public services.

Quote: So folk are trying to ignore the oil fund Scotland would likely have had if it had been independent already, while at the same time pretending that if Scotland had only just voted for independence in September we’d be having to deal with an oil slump now -when in fact it would still be London’s problem.

But you would prefer it if it wasn't London's problem?

Quote:Finally, the future oil price in spring 2016 could be just about anything, because nobody predicted the current slump a few months ago, let alone 12-18 months ago.

Glad we are not relying on that then.

Quote:Basically, the oil slump is a tenuous argument manipulated by Unionist politicians and media to make independence look unviable and the SNP look daft. But if you dig deeper it becomes apparent that it's crap.

I probably don't agree with that.

Quote:ETA: Actually, not done yet... SNP are the biggest party in Scotland and impressing across UK in debates because of their progressive policies. They are not a one-policy party, despite people's best efforts to belittle and dismiss them as such. In the event of independence they would have as much of a political future as anyone, they wouldn't "endeth".

Its not just Salmond that wants a hung parliament, for a start he is not the SNP leader and Sturgeon is no puppet. Anyone dismissing the SNP as a one-man party are as daft as those dismissing them as a one-policy party.

There is a strong argument for SNP involvement in a minority UK government to protect Scottish interests and help force through more progressive policies/remove more Dickensian policies, why do you think it would be dangerous RSB?

The SNP have done some good things in the Scottish Parliament, but they do not have a monopoly on progressive policies. I expect Labour would give it a go with a minority Government rather than a coalition with the SNP.
 
Reply
#10
(04-05-2015, 08:51 PM)Wicky Wrote: Actually Norway are unique with the scale of their oil fund. But it hasn't come without cost. Every Krone into the oil fund is a Krone not available to spend on public services.

And despite this, they appear to still spend more per capita on public services than the UK does.
 
Reply
#11
(04-06-2015, 01:57 PM)StrathyStaggie Wrote: And despite this, they appear to still spend more per capita on public services than the UK does.

Is that not true of most developed countries with smaller populations?
 
Reply
#12
(04-05-2015, 08:51 PM)Wicky Wrote: But only the SNP wanted to put all our eggs into that unpredictable basket.
That's not true, the economic argument for independence was much more involved than just reliant on oil; also the argument was put forward by a number of bodies (political and otherwise), not just the SNP. Just some of the other political bodies included the Scottish Green Party, SSP, and Labour for Independence.


But to balance their books, the SNP needed oil revenues at the higher price. Health, education, housing and defence would all have had to be cut.
In addition to the above point, this is only relevant if the oil price doesn't come out of this slump by the time Scotland would have been independent in the event of a 'Yes' vote. As it is, its affecting the UK (this is basically harking back to my original post...)

And in the meantime do you think that Westminster would have continued to invest in a Scotland which was going to be independent?
I may have your use of 'invest' wrong, but I dont think it would have been a smart move to cancel investment during negotiations?

Fortunately 55% thought that was not a risk worth taking.
Subjective, and maybe even mean Wink

They are. The protection is for public services, not for the oil industry.
The folk losing their jobs might not feel as though they are being 'protected' to the extent that the UK's role was being painted, nor will the hospitality industry etc. that does well out of riggers coming on-shore etc. Also, given the austerity measures and selling off of NHS, schools etc., and the reasons given for this, I don't think the UK can be shown to be protecting public services all that well. Bit of a tangent there from me though.

Actually Norway are unique with the scale of their oil fund. But it hasn't come without cost. Every Krone into the oil fund is a Krone not available to spend on public services.
But they still have good public services, and an oil fund. An independent Scotland could arguably have achieved that as well, which was the point. Some Arab states have comparable scale funds, with varying sizes of population.

But you would prefer it if it wasn't London's problem?
That's not what I was saying. In response to comments made, I'm pointing out that if we had voted Yes, the current slumped price wouldn't actually be Scotland's problem, and that everyone got the forecast wrong, not just the Nats/Salmond as was accused.

Glad we are not relying on that then.
Thats a glass half-empty take on it, also harks back to the argument that the economic case was more involved than entirely reliant on oil.

I probably don't agree with that.
Fair enough. It wasn't very diplomatically put! I could have written that a lot more balanced.

The SNP have done some good things in the Scottish Parliament, but they do not have a monopoly on progressive policies. I expect Labour would give it a go with a minority Government rather than a coalition with the SNP.
Totally agree, the Greens being the most obvious example of an other party with progressive policies. I'd love to see parties such as the Greens get enough seats to make your scenario feasible.
I dont see SNP entering a formal coalition with Labour either, they ruled that out months ago and have been saying for months it would be on either an issue by issue basis, or 'Confidence and Supply ' votes (which relates to budget matters and issues of confidence, as SNP and Greens had in 2007). Not sure if that will change admittedly and they may look to make it more formal? They have also come out and publicly encouraged voters in England to vote for the Greens etc. to help force through progressive policies and achieve this scenario. Labour will need some help in a minority government, personally I'd be keen to see this situation
.


Apologies for the long post, felt obliged to respond given there were so many pointed retorts to my earlier post. To be clear, my post was reacting to the dismissal of the SNP in earlier posts, with an element of devil's advocate thrown in. Its not intended to come across as SNP or 'Yes' pimping, although if you're on the other side of the fence I imagine that's how it comes across (I'm in favour of independence, but have no real loyalty to any party and am much more interested in policies). I should have used quotes and been a bit more diplomatic in the original post, as this feels like its grown arms and legs and gone in tangents now.

EDIT: Gone blue as the italics were all over the place! Its also a good Ross County colour Smile

(04-06-2015, 10:19 PM)Wicky Wrote: Is that not true of most developed countries with smaller populations?

Like we could have been Wink
 
Reply
#13
Nice constructive post - adds to the debate. I will try and do likewise!

My understanding is that if it had been a yes vote last year - and absolutely no apologies for pointing out that 55 is more than 45 (22% more in fact!) - we would now be in a period of negotiation, but I am not sure that England & Wales & NI would have felt under any obligation in connection with those negotiations to support the Scottish economy any more than absolutely necessary during that period. That's what I meant by "invest". It seemed to me that the Westminster parties had a "good riddance" mandate from their own electorate. So I am quite sure we would already be feeling the pinch in Scotland. And, for example, absolutely no prospect of a City Deal for Inverness or Aberdeen.

That's not to say that Scotland would never pull out of economic straits, but it would not have been the best way to start as an independent country, and would have seen off a fair chunk of the oil reserve time without the projected income levels. There can be no guarantee that oil prices will recover quickly (if ever) to previous levels given that the USA are heading towards oil and gas self sufficiency through fracking, and that the Russians need the money and will therefore keep pumping without too much concern about any supply/demand balance.

And an E&W&NI economy in much better shape, right next door, would have been an uncomfortable reminder of what had been lost.

So I am glad we dodged that bullet and do not want to risk facing it again any time soon.

Not sure that any of this is particularly constructive, but anyway that's what I think.

P.S. Been unexpectedly impressed by Ruth Davidson in the Scottish TV debates.
 
Reply
#14
(04-09-2015, 11:17 PM)Wicky Wrote: Nice constructive post - adds to the debate. I will try and do likewise!

My understanding is that if it had been a yes vote last year - and absolutely no apologies for pointing out that 55 is more than 45 (22% more in fact!) - we would now be in a period of negotiation, but I am not sure that England & Wales & NI would have felt under any obligation in connection with those negotiations to support the Scottish economy any more than absolutely necessary during that period. That's what I meant by "invest". It seemed to me that the Westminster parties had a "good riddance" mandate from their own electorate. So I am quite sure we would already be feeling the pinch in Scotland. And, for example, absolutely no prospect of a City Deal for Inverness or Aberdeen.

That's not to say that Scotland would never pull out of economic straits, but it would not have been the best way to start as an independent country, and would have seen off a fair chunk of the oil reserve time without the projected income levels. There can be no guarantee that oil prices will recover quickly (if ever) to previous levels given that the USA are heading towards oil and gas self sufficiency through fracking, and that the Russians need the money and will therefore keep pumping without too much concern about any supply/demand balance.

And an E&W&NI economy in much better shape, right next door, would have been an uncomfortable reminder of what had been lost.

So I am glad we dodged that bullet and do not want to risk facing it again any time soon.

Not sure that any of this is particularly constructive, but anyway that's what I think.

P.S. Been unexpectedly impressed by Ruth Davidson in the Scottish TV debates.

Very well put together,we did dodge the bullet,the way the world has evolved in years more so in recent times togetherness is strength econically.
Im an old buddy,and better together is better for us,
 
Reply
#15
Thanks Wicky.
A lot of that is fair, I disagree with it, but they're decent points and as speculative as my counter-points!

The geopolitical influence on the oil price will see it rise again I'm sure. I'm also not convinced that E&W&NI economy would be so much stronger than ours without oil, even at a depreciated oil price, given how reliant on it they have been. Similarly for other of their investment's within Scotland, it would be a slow bleed for them to pull out as they are more Capitalist than spiteful, so would do what suited their balance sheets best. The resource involved in pulling out, and loss of market up here, would likely be too much for most I imagine? I'd hope it was bluster, similar to the noises made before the devolution vote, or made by some more partisan companies prior to some General Elections. I think/hope we would also have a better/fairer/more lefty system in place than E&W&NI, so I'd be duly smug about that! Tongue

It maybe boils down to how pessimistic you are re- an independent Scotland's economy, how important the economic factor is to you, and how happy you are with the other factors under the current system.

As you've likely picked up I (like most folk I've met in favour of independence, though I'm no poster boy) am pretty optimistic re- an independent Scotland's economy, relative to sustaining a country our size; I appreciate the economic factor obviously, but put a lot of weight on other factors, so it's not the over-riding factor for me at all; and I have serious reservations regarding Westminster's will/ability to address those other factors (some lazy generic titles: environment, social, foreign 'policy', further de-centralisation of politics, current political system with House of Lords having power of veto and Corporations in London having voting rights, energy mix, etc.)

Given so much of that is subjective, and/or speculative when it comes to how an Independent Scotland would deal with those factors, I don't think there's much of a debate to be had..? I've got debate fatigue with folk who have their minds made up! Similarly I don't really discuss it much with those on the same side as me, it all feels a bit impotent and depressing now.

Basically, I'm not happy with the status quo, think I'd be happier with the system that our electorate would be better placed to put in place were we independent, and am sure our economy would be viable enough to make that system sustainable (economy + savings that could be made). I'm a happy clapper for independence Wink

PS: I'd agree Ruth Davidson has her good moments, and bad, but she's a lot better than a lot of her Tory colleagues in England. I quite liked Annabel Goldie too, despite myself. Disagree with their policies etc., but they both come across well quite often.
Kezia Dugdale can gtf, she's so out of her depth, and keeps embarrassing herself with a total lack of awareness and understanding. When she first came on the scene I had hopes for her, but have totally given up on her!
The fan-boy in me still hopes Charlie Kennedy can resurrect his career, have a massive soft spot for that man.
 
Reply
  


Forum Jump:


Browsing: 1 Guest(s)