This is a campaign that will make sure that the patriotism of the quiet majority will be heard alongside the voices of the committed few. We share a common platform on this single issue because, along with so many of our fellow Scots, we believe that a better future for ourselves and our children is as a partner in the United Kingdom.
Alistair Darling’s speech in Edinburgh launching the Better Together campaign
Have your say ahead of the referendum
Welcome to the No Scotland Blog. Here you will find links to all the latest news and features on the Scottish Independence Referendum from both Yes and No camps.
A tax break and a subsidy is NOT the same thing.
Dave – technically no, you’re correct – tax breaks and subsidies aren’t the same thing. But they have a similar effect – some money ends up bolstering the profits of the company instead of the government coffers. So for this purpose, I don’t see the difference.
gary you say your brittish what dose that mean are you Scottish Irish Welsh or English being brittish is not a nationallity is like an African saying I’m African it dosen’t tell you what country they’re from or someone calling themselves european I’m Scottish I live on the brittish Isles but my natioallity is Scottish
I was born in Africa whilst my Irish father and welsh mother were working there, grew up in England and have now lived in Scotland for 11 years. My initials are gb and my passport says British. So I class myself as British. I own property in England and Scotland and have family and friends in England and Scotland. My partner was born and grew up in England and has Scottish parents. None of which affects our eligibility to vote.
My appologies I asumed wrongly that you didn’t live in Scotland and everyone who lives in Scotland are rightly entitled to a vote oce again my appologies
No problem. It’s easy for people to get passionate about the country they have an affinity to, I understand that many people may choose to vote for independence just because they’re Scottish and don’t see why they should be governed by a different country. I’m fortunate that I don’t have any affinity to Scotland, no links through history, tradition or family. But I like living here and I want to continue to do so. I have a good job a great life and I love the lifestyle in my quite neck of the woods. I am not convinced independence will benefit me and likely it will make my life more expensive. I can’t see income tax going down or wages going up. In fact in the short term I believe it will be more expensive whilst companies and the government find their feet. But that being said I will listen to the information and make an informed decision. If independence comes then I will consider my future, if Scotland turns into a nationalist bitter place if things don’t immediately become prosperous then I can’t imagine I will stay long. Ill pack my things and sadly head back to one of the remaining British countries.
It would be interesting indeed to find.out why you think taxes would go up and wages would go down in an independent Scotland.
All available information from reputable government figures would suggest actually the complete opposite.
And we certainly don’t want to become independent so we can run Scotland the same way as it is run now. But I suppose you have to have an imagination to see these things.
We know we have to revive our manufacturing base and have nothing to do with the financial services con men who now make up the mainstay of the collapsing UK economy.
I assume you must believe we’ll be paying for our own Trident or more useless aircraft carriers and, at huge expense, invading other peoples’ countries.
Nope and thanks I can both think and speak for myself.
I believe tax will go up to cover the massive admin cost of becoming independent. I think that the cost to changeover will run into the hundreds of millions and I am sure that their will be many things overlooked which will have to be paid for urgently or will be paid late. All if these types of situations end up costing more and there will inevitably be costs passed on to the tax payer. There will be those and you maybe count yourself among them who see this as a price worth paying. But I wasn’t alive a hundred years ago and I won’t be alive in a hundred years so I care about right now and if I am expected to ‘benefit’ from a lower standard of life and Scotland looks like it is going to take decades before the promised time of oil prosperity materialise then I’m off.
Not a shred of evidence to support any of this which is just a repetition of unionist scaremongering. Of course there will be set up costs. There is if you move to a better house or get a better car. Is it your suggestion that we settle for second best forever and remain tied to a political construct that isno use to us. That is callled the “Scottish cringe” and is the refuge of the feart and the stupid. Why don’t you check the set up costs for Slovakia, Slovenia, the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Croatia, Serbia, Macedonia, the Ukraine, Georgia etc etc etc and see how they are all doing with those fabulous set up costs.
I don’t imagine for one minute that you are as stupid as you would like us to think you are.
Gary – you have neatly articulated one of the many things that I think a lot of people fear – including me. Not that there will inevitably be setup costs, but that we have no real idea how bad they will be, or how well placed the Scottish economy will actually be to ride them out.
Dave – you can’t write this off as ‘unionist scaremongering’! And everybody will have some level at which the gains (of independence) are not worth the cost of getting them, whether or not they consciously think about it. What the gains and losses of independence might be are also not quantifiable with any confidence. All we know for certain is that there will be both gains and losses (not just financial ones) and up-front and on-going costs. That’s why I keep referring to independence as a gamble with incredibly high stakes for Scotland.
It’s up to the unionist camp to convince everyone that the gains will be worth the cost and that the risks if it all goes wrong can be contained. So far, they aren’t doing a very good job of that. I’d love to see the country I have the privilege to call home enjoy a successful and prosperous independent future, so I hope they succeed, but I have to say the signs right now don’t look good to me.
Why is one of the most able people in the world running their own affairs a big gamble?
You are again repeating unionist scaremongering all of which is predicated on the proposal that the Scots are uniquely stupid and the only nation out 200 in the world incapable of running their own affairs.
That is the sum total of your remarks to date distilled down to their basics.
Sorry I made an obvious error in my last post. It is plainly not for the unionist camp to prove the case for independence!!!! It is the ‘yes’ camp that has the burden of proof here.
My apologies!!!
Gary the Scottish people won’t change or become bitter because of Independence our fight isn’t with other people it’s with westminster we want to look after our own finances and have full control over our own country we want to see Scotland thrive and prosper and that won’t happen while we are in this union where Scotland is an after thought and London and englands south/east benefit and the rest don’t and that clown Boris Johnston saying that they should receive more money than the rest of us London is sucking money from the rest like a giant hoover and to hell with everybody else
oi said wi oi ad till say………. if people lyk dat den ya can fuck aff home till ya wee parents…….. oi’m endin’ miself form dis conversation and will no longer reply till anyone…… Bye.
dis is a debate…. no need for anyone till bullying. so dat’s wi oi mean by “if people lyk dat” but de simple fact is scotland wont become on its own and if ya tink it will; enjoy hell………. but oi’m done, everyone ya canny attack meh if ya want ni but oi won’t reply so goodbye and fare ye well.
ENGLISH Dude???
Dave (McEwan Hill)
You didn’t actually answer my point in your last comment. I was not questioning your interpretation of maritime law, nor Scotland’s right under the law to whatever that law entitles it to. But I believe two parties to a transaction can negotiate whatever they like – yes, either side can insist on their legal entitlement, but that doesn’t stop them mutually negotiating something else. Are you a lawyer, that you ‘know’ for certain the implications of all this in international law and should be respected as an expert in the field? Not just what the law ‘is’ but what it’s implications might be for negotiations? In which case, please say so and I’ll take what you say more at face value.
I do attempt to research things online, as should be obvious from my posts.
I have to say that your posting style appears to me to be a kind of verbal bullying, where you are always ‘right’ and anyone who disagrees or wishes to indulge in intelligent discussion of alternative views ends up being insulted. This approach stifles debate and undermines any points you might be trying to make. I notice that in previous discussions, where you have been found to be mistaken, there was no hint of an acknowledgement or apology, and where you were politely asked for your sources for some of your assertions, you didn’t respond.
Please accept that some of us want to discuss these issues in a courteous, polite and respectful way.
Please don’t reply with another insulting post. I won’t respond to it.
A further comment on the oil question – here is the nearest we are likely to get to some ‘hard numbers’. This is an informed paper published by Professor Alexander G. Kemp and Linda Stephen from the university of Aberdeen.
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2012/03/02/HypotheticalScottishSharesofRevenues.doc
I haven’t yet had time to take in all the details of this comprehensive study, but below are two quotes which relate to the discussion here.
I’m now settling down to read this paper more thoroughly.
On delineation between Scotland and England
===================================
Over many years there has been much debate about how the delineation might be determined. In practice this would be subject to negotiation between the relevant Governments. There is some presumption that the line of equidistance should be employed to determine the boundary, and this was deployed in the negotiations between the UK Government and the other Governments which had Continental Shelves in the North Sea. But use of the line of equidistance has not been exclusively employed to determine boundaries, particularly after the ruling of the International Court in 1969 regarding the boundaries between West Germany, Denmark, and Belgium. A further legal feature is the line of jurisdiction in the North Sea for civil jurisdiction purposes established between Scotland and England in 1968 (latitude 55°50′N). Some legal opinion holds that this has set a precedent for the determination of the boundary for the division of the Continental Shelf, but this is open to dispute. In 1999 the median line principle was employed to determine the boundary between Scotland and England for fisheries demarcation purposes. This is shown in Chart 1. For purposes of the present study this median line has been employed to divide the UKCS between Scotland and England.
On the confidence we may have in oil revenue projections
============================================
It should be stressed that the projections of tax revenues are subject to much uncertainty. Thus oil prices have been very volatile and this should remain the case over the next few years. Further, there has been dramatic cost escalation in all activities in the UKCS, and a continuation of this will adversely affect taxable income. Production has also fallen at a considerably faster pace than forecast only a few years ago and predicting future production is also subject to much uncertainty. There are thus substantial downside risks to the projections made as well as some upside potential from still higher oil prices. The former risks are probably the stronger ones.
No. I am not always right. And telling you facts doesn’t constitute bullying. Have you checked the various aspects of Maritime Law and the UN Convention. There is no doubt about Scottish territorial waters (which have nothing to do with the artificial boundries drawn up by internal UK fiddling).
I note you used the fabled “volatility” device. What a hoot. Of course it’s volatile , Its been going up and down since 1979 when it was $15 a barrel.. It will continue its upwards trend as every sensible person knows and as Dennis Healey just pointed out the UK would have been bankrupt without it. This one has been comprehensively exploded by all the recent informed sources and is merely another panic attack from the Better Together campaign.
You’ll have to do better than this
I really don’t know why I’m wasting my time in reacting to this rubbish
Of course stating facts isn’t bullying – it’s helpful, assuming the facts are backed up with credible sources and not just stated ‘out of the air’. It’s statements like “I really don’t know why I’m wasting my time in reacting to this rubbish” and “as every sensible person knows” that I’m talking about – whether you intend it to or not, it comes over as an attempt to belittle and intimidate the person you’re talking to – and that IS bullying, uncalled for and unhelpful to everyone.
But to respond properly to your points …
I am not trying to get into the fine detail of maritime law and the UN convention, and I haven’t read the minutiae of either. Like most people, I’m not an expert on these things and have to rely on interpretations and analyses by others. But that doesn’t stop me applying critical common-sense, and looking at the credibility of those producing the analyses.
You state “There is no doubt about Scottish territorial waters (which have nothing to do with the artificial boundries drawn up by internal UK fiddling)”. That is in direct contradiction to the apparently authoritative source that I was quoting. Can you explain why your statement should carry greater weight than recognised academic authorities in the subject?
Your comment about oil price volatility is kind of making my point – and that made by the paper. Of course it’s volatile – the point is that that is a real uncertainty (read risk) in all predictions based on it. Yet unequivocal and blanket statements about the returns Scotland will get from oil are constantly being made, with no reference at all to the uncertainty in the fundamental data and assumptions on which those possibly tenuous numbers are based. That is a kind of misleading ‘spin’ and does nothing to get to the real facts of the debate. The truth might be a lot lower (or higher) than folk are claiming – the point is that we can’t know for sure! Though Professor Kemp obviously considers the balance of risk to be on the ‘down side’. Could you quote some of the “recent informed sources” that would contradict the professor’s view of risk so we can see directly what you’re referring to? By the way – the ‘downside risk’ referred to, I think, is more about likely production than oil price.
By the way – you say I “used” the fabled volatility device. I didn’t “use” anything – I’m not trying to convince anyone of my point of view or achieve any particular end other than to see past the spin and obfuscation and find the true issues. If anyone was ‘using’ that point – it was Professor Kemp when authoring the paper. And it seems only correct that he should include that caveat in his comments – the tragedy is that folk asserting statistics and conclusions from others choose to leave out important caveats and sources/assumptions in their attempts to persuade people of their point of view. And that is a devious kind of spin.
John
The facts are easy to ascertain. All you are repeating is tedious unionist spin.which is aimed unerringly at the uninformed.
Dave (McEwan Hill)
“The facts are easy to ascertain” ??
Obviously not that easy to obtain as you haven’t given any kind of reply to any of the points I raise.
“All you are repeating is tedious unionist spin.which is aimed unerringly at the uninformed.” ??
I wonder what of that which I have posted could reasonably be regarded as ‘spin’. I’m trying to see past spin and not trying to deceive or mislead anybody !! Describing the paper from which I was quoting as ‘tedious unionist spin’ might reasonably be considered pretty offensive by the authors (whom I believe were not pushing an agenda either way but trying to provide an objective and authoritative assessment of the evidence).
Seems you and I would be better going our own independent ways in these debates. I will continue to try to explore the numerous issues with whoever is interested in genuine understanding and courteous, informed debate. But I don’t think you and I will find much to gain by further discussion and wearying the ears of others on this forum. So don’t worry about trying to reply to this post.
I wish you well in your campaigning.
I referred you to Maritime Law and the international protocols which obviously you have no intention of sourcing so bye.
Even with out oil Scotland will be a more democratic and egalitarian country, we will be making our own policies not having them made for us. However can the same be dais for England? History tells us that Westminster sphincters are tightening once more as they drill though the bottom of the barrel.
http://bit.ly/10pZKh2
Sure – and I think England could be really hurt by Scotland splitting off.
And I agree about your point on policies. However, without oil, different experts say contradictory things about how will Scotland will manage economically. Some say it can, some say otherwise. If you put aside cultural beliefs/aspirations and stick to solid evidence, the picture is very unclear – predictions are all based on endless assumptions where nobody can really know where reality will lie.
So without oil, that makes it all a much bigger gamble with even higher stakes!
Yes but let’s not forget that there is oil and a revenue of around £12b a year. Lets not be sitting in 30 years time wondering if we should go for independence, and wondering how much longer the oil will last. Lets not have the £12b per year squandered in the next 30 years, the way it has been squandered in the last 30 years. From 2016 lets put it to very good use helping to build our country, creating jobs and securing our welfare state.
The picture is not the slightest bit unclear except to half wits. Scotland has vast reserves of highly luctrative oil. Unless you can be persuaded to believe that having vast lucrative reserves is is a bad idea because the Scots are uniquely stupid and incapable of administering their own revenues you understand that this pathetic attempt to play down oil is just another ruse by London and their lickspittles in London to keep control the one revenue that is keeping the UK afloat.
Scotland,of course in not dependent on oil revenues as its GDP and GNP without it is on a par with other similar countries lile Finland, New Zealand, Denmark to name but few and it is outperforming the UK economy at the moment. I am continually surprised by supposed Scots who seem to imagine the Scots don’t work like anybody else, run businesse and companies and so on. This phenomenum is know as the “Scottish Cringe”. Significantly Scotland’s three most successful businessmen have declared for independence
Dave – I’m not again going to be drawn into a discussion with you while you talk condescendingly about half-wits, and don’t seem interested in looking objectively at arguments, or responding to requests to quote sources for the things you claim. Post as you will but I’ll not be responding.
John
Which particular sources did you quote for some of your ridiculous bullshit? Glad you have decided to throw in the towel.
Sure there is oil. But how much there is, how cheaply it can be extracted, and how long it will last are also in dispute – though it seems certain that there will be a reasonable amount at least to begin with. BUT – what would be the effect on the UK as a whole – will England allow Scotland to take control of that oil, or will it force other concessions on Scotland in return. I know that a simple interpretation of maritime conventions would give Scotland control of most of it – but England could drive a harder bargain elsewhere if Scotland doesn’t agree to relinquish some of that. This revenue has to mean a lot to England as well – I can’t see them letting go of it without a fight, or something pretty meaningful in return!!
And suppose we did get all of it – and an independent Scotland then pats itself on the back, effectively saying “Now I’ve got the oil, I’m all right jack – you (England) go stew in your own juice after all these years of ripping us off” … then what? If England ends up in serious economic strife because of Scotland leaving with much of the resources, will that not in turn hurt Scotland too? We need the whole UK to be healthy – not just Scotland!! Just thinking aloud here – I’m no expert!
Someone else’s comment here about Scotland capitalising in a big way on fossil resources in a global political climate trying to be greener, also gives rise to wondering about ecological reputation.
Give us a break, John and stop making a fool of yourself by talking utter p*sh.
I assume you haven’t noticed the highest ever level of investment in Scotland’s oilfields. Presumably all those giant multinational companies pay no attention to the coat of extracting it.
I am confident England can be a very successful independent country, and that is said in a genuine way. Once England is focused on England and stops playing at being the big colonial master, trying to police the world and failing, we may see some real progress. Like Scotland, the English economy needs to be rebalanced. They need to break out of the Metropolitan London centric mindset and start manufacturing again. Keeping all their eggs in the City basket is insanity. The North of England is hurting as much as Scotland, they need help quickly.
I come from the Highlands, Sutherland to be specific. Often praised for it’s wild and desolate landscapes. I have another name for it. The Unionist Desert. That landscape was created deliberately by the Union who from 1745 onwards practiced such a degree of ethnic cleansing and genocide there that would make many dictators blush. But the hand of the Union also worked hard at sterlising that history right out of existence so much that only recently has the true story emerged and it has been slowly introduced to the education curriculum. To even ask about these things in my generation at school in the sixties would see you belted till your hands ran with blood. A much better fate than that dealt to my ancestors, who were slaughtered, maimed or deported for talking their own language or wearing their native dress.
Yes I am well aware that may Scots were involved in this crime, we can see their descendants to this day braying and cawing from their unelected gold plated perches in the House of Lords, and associated institutions Some of them will even deny that the Highland Clearance ever happened. Yes I am aware that there were Scots on both sides, as there was at the last civil war fought in this country in Culloden. There were also mercenaries and other nationalities employed by the UK at that time. The essential facts in all of it are stark, it was all done at the behest of an English dominated Government in London, no amount of revisionist clap trap will change that fact. Since 1707, Scotland has never once been allowed to ask itself if we want this bloody union, well we are now been asked and from the look of this poll, it is a resounding NO.
Hen Broon – you make me envious. I too am Scottish and love Sutherland – all my life I’ve wished I could live in that area, and have been there often. My ancestry is also Scottish – according to family legend, my father’s ancestors fled to Orkney following the failed revolution, and then later returned to Caithness, where my father was born. And emotionally, I’d love to see a proud and independent Scotland.
I couldn’t agree more with most of your post – both on economic comment and on the way in which Westminster seems to feel that it’s the UK’s job to police the world. I despair sometimes of the UK foreign policies!
I think though that it is a mistake to dwell too much on history when deciding the future. How Scotland will fair in the 21st century and beyond as an independent country has little to do with what happened in the previous few centuries even if much of that history is scandalous! It isn’t all in Scotland’s favour though – as I understand it, one of the major contributory factors behind Scotland being vulnerable to England’s ‘takeover’ lies with Scottish mismanagement while trying to settle the Darien colony in panama, which lost some 25% of Scotland’s liquid cash. This left it vulnerable to what Wikipedia describes as bribes and inducements for the leading classes to accept the union against the wishes of most of the Scottish people. I’ve seen it also described as a kind of English ‘bail-out’ because of the Darien losses combined with bad harvests – though I can’t remember who was saying that.
Don’t jump on me if I’ve got the detail slightly wrong – history isn’t my strong point. I only mention it as part of suggesting that history shouldn’t be held up as a major drive to go for or against independence. We should decide instead on the facts of today and where the future may go, but never forgetting our roots and history.
Purely my personal view – I’m not trying to push it on anyone else!
Under the Law the oil is Scottish and clearly defined by International Law, Maratime Law, EU Law and UN Law David Cammeron recently on television has had to admit that the oil is Scottish and no one can dispute that fact legally it’s Scottish Oil there will be no negotiation what is legally ours by law
In response to macdhubhaig – I’m not disputing that Scotland, if independent, and in the absence of any other negotiation, would be entitled to a fair (and large) share of the oil resources. But the situation doesn’t seem to be as clear as you suggest. Can I refer you to my reply to Dave McEwan Hill (which he hasn’t chosen to comment sensibly on) on June 5, which discusses both the issue of delineation between Scotland and England, and the credibility of future production predictions and costs. This is based on an apparently authoritative and objective paper to be found at http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2012/03/02/HypotheticalScottishSharesofRevenues.
However, lets assume that Scotland successfully makes the case for entitlement to (say) 95% of the oil – sure, the entitlement is there. But there have to be many other things that Scotland might wish for out of independence to which we would not be automatically entitled. Hence I could well imagine Westminster saying “if you want such-and-such, in return, we want you to (voluntarily) relinquish x% of your oil resources.” If Scotland refuses, then fine – they keep the oil, but they lose whatever else it was that they were negotiating for.
I’ve not heard that stated anywhere, but I can’t see why things won’t go that way! Perhaps Scotland might want concessions to do with their share of debt, or the management of a shared currency, or whatever – it doesn’t matter. I’m sure these issues are all up there. And Westminster may be highly motivated to negotiate hard, if they can, to keep as much of the oil as they can get away with.
What I guess I’m really suggesting is that the situation is very complex, that nobody really understands how things will turn out, and all these confident assertions being made by both sides, but especially by the ‘YES’ campaigners, to my mind, generally don’t have much credibility if analysed in any depth by objective experts.
I think you will find that Scotland will be the one with the bargaining power oil assides. I am under the impression that an independent Scotland could if we wanted to walk away debt free. Seemingly the debt is the UK’s and if Scotland was independent then they would have no debt legally. Now we know that is not going to happen as all information points to us taking our share, but it is a massive bargaining stick if need be.
That is not an “authoritative” paper. It is a speculative piece carried in a unionist newspaper – but then again I know you know that.
You have not made one point worth addressing.
You do howevewr point out that Scotland holds all the aces when it comes to post independence negotiation.
That’s very good of you John we would be entitled a large and fair share that’s a resource of Scotland John you can talk or wright all you want but the Law is the law it’s Scottish oil by all known laws and the oil in non negotiable it is Scottish and won’t be traded for anything we are also entitled to a share in UK assets that both Scotland and the rUK have contributed to we also have a 9% share of the UK bank that is a conciderable amount of money for any nation
I’m not saying Scotland would negotiate any oil away – I have no idea – and I don’t believe anyone else does either. This whole situation is too complex for anyone, even the ‘experts’ directly involved, to make blanket assertions with any credibility. And that applies to both sides in my view.
But I do notice that in almost everything controversial – including oil, debt liability, continued EU membership, implications of remaining with the pound etc. etc. etc. – are all the subject of endless, confident and contradictory assertions by both sides of the argument. To my mind, that undermines the credibility of both sides.
So I continue to search for impartial and expert authorities who can reconcile the various contradictory views together, and explain exactly why the views disagree, and specifically what data and assumptions were made by each side. Otherwise, I don’t see how I can believe much of what either side says. Sadly, neither side seems to put any effort into building this credibility into their position. Too often, they simply state what they imply are ‘facts’ without any of the caveats and assumptions that should go with them!
You would do well to pay attention to the statements from the SNP which are always supported by expert opinion, usually as a result of consultation done by impartial and non partisan bodies and note that the continuous barrage of nonsense from the unionist side, which is presented without any such guarantee, is printed uncritically in newspapers then never heard of again. When unionist spokespersons are pressed for proof on their assertions they retreat and hum and haw because they know they are telling lies
Dave – just because the report was quoted in a paper with unionist leanings doesn’t undermine what the report says. It is by leading academics, appears well researched, and looks (so far as I can tell) pretty even-handedly at all sides of the question. I doubt if the authors would agree that it was ‘just a speculative piece’. By your argument, the various sources quoted by the ‘yes’ campaign could equally be dismissed as ‘separatist claptrap’ !! (which I don’t by the way).
I pay attention to what each side says, but I don’t believe anything asserted by either side unless it also explains (or has references which let me find a clear and credible explanation) exactly why and how their assertion contradicts the other side. Without being able to reconcile and understand the contradictions, we are left with only trust as to whom we believe, and today’s politicians (of all persuasions) haven’t done much to earn my trust in recent years. And the politicians with the greatest axe to grind are those to be trusted least!
All SNP statements are supported by expert and very often Government sources. It is using a figure for future oil revenues which is extremely modest (£1.5 trillion) against a figure of £2.5 to £4 trillion being now quoted by oil experts. There is no doubt whatsover that these revenues all accrue to Scotland – as the revenues of the oil recently discovered off Ireland’s coast will all accrue to Ireland.
The whole premise of your rambling post is completely false and I know you know that.
Dave – you commented about recent high levels of investment in the north sea. Perhaps the tax breaks for ‘brownfield’ oil developments announced last year might have a lot to do with it – aimed specifically at making it more profitable for companies to extend the life of aging oilfields? Apparently government (Westminster) consider that the returns will substantially exceed the cost of the tax allowance, but presumably the returns are not great enough to entice oil companies into investing without some kind of subsidy.
That is taken simply from various news reports from the last few months up to a few days ago.
I imagine that Westminster might add into their negotiations the fact that since they subsidised some of the development, they would want a proportionate share of the revenues resulting from it. Just another complicating factor.
By the way – I answered one of the other posts this morning, but my post got caught up for some reason awaiting moderation. I’m not ignoring the other posts – doubtless my response will find it’s way online in due course.
Westminster did not subsidise any of the development. They merely lessened the tax burden they had racked up and which was having a destructive effect on investment. Stop talking nonsense – and there is a huge range of investment now going in to new developing fields.
Off Mocambe Bay the English have the gas fields we hear most of the English going on about Scotlands oil David Cammeron on television in an interveiw had to admit that the oil is Scottish now of Morcambe bay ther are a number of gas rigs we scots don’t make a claim on your gas rigs because by International Law they’re English on the English continenal shelf the very same law that states the oil is Scottish on the Scottish contnental shelf other laws that state it’s Scotlands oil is Maratime Law, UN Law, and EU Law
believe in your scottish heretidge ,vote yes for a greater more equal scotland the only thing that will let us down is people afraid of change .
I’m Irish but I’m representing right now. Everyone please read and share on. Say no to Scottish independence. Vote no! First minister says 18 September 2014 will be seen as ‘the day Scotland took a decisive step forward’ I believe Scotland should not become independent and hopefully there are others who believe too.
While Scotland might not be fully in control of its own matters I think it should remain part of the United Kingdom. Independence wouldn’t be the answer to our problems but it might happen within this decade.
If we separated from the UK, Edinburgh alone wouldn’t get 11 billion pounds a year and we would be no longer be funded billions of pounds that the Westminster gives us, including an education budget. The new Scottish government would openly dismiss the idea of student fees leaving Scotland to go in a financial problem and eventually have to bring in the fees along with the troubles it will bring from the unemployed youths.
Those preferring independence would debate that my points about financial crises is incorrect as the country has access to oil. But how long is that going to last? Oil is running out. And fast. Even though the prices are getting higher, civilians can no longer afford it to fuel their vehicles. Yes, independence might be fine for a couple of years. But it will soon come obliterating down as the supplies finally drown. And what about the Kyoto Protocol? We signed it in the hopes of building a better future and promising to decrease our carbon footprint. Wouldn’t our words of an eco-friendlier place become hollow and empty if Scotland was known for its temporary oil riches.
The economic case for Scotland independence is unravelling bit by bit and I say we should vote against Scottish independence as it is easier to prevent mass-debt than to clean up the problems afterwards.
Three credit agencies believe Scotland will not be able to retain the Triple A status that the UK currently have.
The gold standard means borrowers can usually secure a loan at lower interest rates, as there is much less risk that the money will not be repaid. If an independent Scotland failed to reach the grade, it could push up borrowing costs for the government, making debt harder to sell meaning ministers will have less cash to spend on roads, schools and hospitals.
The Triple A grade is the highest a company or country can receive and if an independent Scotland was downgraded by the ‘bond vigilantes’, it could mean we would be spending more on borrowing and less on what the country needs.
Do we really want that? I can safely say for all of us that we don’t want our country to be slipping into a down-turn economic crisis.
Being independent will mean we’ll have to change our passports, our currency and our wealth status. Wouldn’t be easier to just with status quo as even though it may not be fully democratic we are the 7th biggest economic country in the world.
I hope this helps and I hope scotland will not become independent. Thanks for your attention. Do not say yes. Words mean nothing but reality does xx.
Well the No campaign must be getting desperate for people to write, if this is the trash they are still coming out with, and even hiring foreigners to write for them. Scotland does not need oil to survive Jorden and Oil is not running out and wont for a few hundred years. But even if it only lasted 40 years are you the kind of idiot that would refuse a 10 million lottery win, because you might not get another.
We will use the oil now to re-establish our infrastructure, build our manufacturing base and put Scots into jobs that actually pay a living wage. It is people like you that admire a government that has taken million out of paying tax, not because they doing better but because they are so poor they are not able to pay direct tax. Though let’s be honest with VAT at 20% they don’t have to because an Item at £34 means an adult on minimum wage has to work an extra hour to pay for the VAT.
You are also a bare faced liar, because you truly are not stupid enough to believe that the UK has a triple A Status that was lost months and months ago, and we were lucky not to be downgraded again.
Please if your Northern Irish and orange don’t hide behind an Irish tag when your clearly a Brit in sheep clothing, you only damage honest Irishmen with your hate.
Ey yer a funny cunt xx. But de fuck wi ya big fuck…… I av a life so goodbye. PS: Yer beyond wrong but I’m noot even goin’ till debate wi ya.
Also I’m noot even hating and I am a true Irishman lad. I’m noot goin’ till say anythin’ else. Good luck! Buh bye
x.
I have read a lot of rubbish but this tops the lot. Can I put it round all the blogs to give everybody with half an intelligence a right good laugh?
I could write for an hour on this subject but having seen the stuff you have just written I doubt if you would understand most of it.
Before I write a few words let me explain what the OECD is. This (The Organisation for Economic Ci o-operation and Development) is a body comprising the world’s largest economies and is the definitive source of the world’s economic statistics. The OECD has resntly pointed out that
Scotland is the eighth wealthiest country in the world. The UK is in 17th position and falling.
The UK is as of now the most indebted country in the world with a per capita national debt twice that of Greece’s. As Denis Healey has pointed out only last week UK is bankrupt without Scottish Oil revenues. Scotlan however is perfectly viable without oil revenues. It has lower unemploment than the UK, much lower youth unemploment than the UK, a higher percentage of its population in woprk, more women inwork and a growth of our manufacturing base and its economy is showing growth while the UK economy is contracting. With 8.4% of the UK population Scotland produces 9.6% of of UK tax and gets less than that back every year and in fact is supporting the ailing English economy (which is why they are desperately hanging onto us. Apart from oil and gas we supply a large amount of surplus electricity to England. We have a major proportion of the renewable generation capacity of Europe and will have entirely renewable capacity by 2020 . I don’t believe you are Irish unless you are taking the piss
Dave (McEwan-Hill) …
It is really frustrating when neither side make any attempt to communicate the true situation about anything. Both sides are spinning their own ‘facts’ and confusing everybody.
For example, take a look at http://fullfact.org/factchecks/will_an_independent_scotland_be_better_off-28889
That explains that claims about whether Scotland would or would not be wealthier than the rest of the UK rest with what assumptions are made around the split of oil resources. The ‘yes’ campaign makes the most favourable assumption (based on geography). If you take an alternative view (based on population), it seems that the situation is reversed.
How can either side claim such a ‘fact’ as ‘truth’ when it has to depend on whatever settlement is eventually negotiated with the rest of the UK as part of separation. This seems to me like another example of the ‘yes’ campaign spinning facts and misleading readers. (not getting at the ‘yes’ campaign specifically – both sides are doing this !!)
You may claim that Scotland would still be better off even if most of the resources end up with England – but how can anyone make any claims about anything credible when the terms of separation will not be negotiated until after we’re asked to decide? It’s crazy!!
Couldnt a gree more John However the Westminster government could help by sitting down with the Scottish Government and irnoing out some answers for the voters. But they have declined talks with the Scots Government and the EU in attempt to answer some questions.
The reason is i fear they realise it will probasly boost the YES campaign.
Just to point out the Scottish government are not allowed to discuss the matter in full with other EU nations as they do not have the power that power is with Westminster
Absolute utter rubbish, John.
The oil revenues will be allocated geographically, as they are in every part of the world, in accordance with boundries determined by International Maritime Law
All of the oilgfields and most of the gasfields are in Scottish territorial waters and the revenues from them will be determined in exactly the same way as are the reveues from oilfields for instance in Norwegian waters, or USA waters or Nigerian waters.
Please don’t insult our intelligence
I am not insulting anyone’s intelligence.
I am not a political guru – I am an ordinary citizen who doesn’t know whether Scotland will be better or worse off independent, and is strongly inclined to vote ‘NO’ simply because this decision is obviously a risky punt for the future, made worse by spin and obfuscation from both sides. And if we choose independence and turn out to be wrong, it would be a disaster for everyone! A knowledgeable expert can sound convincing on either side of an argument – how can a ‘lay’ person see past the bullshit and get at the real issues?
You can assert that ‘of course the oil resources will be split geographically’ – but that statement, on its own, carries no credibility. I don’t know whether the UK would be forced to follow that precedent on a split or not though I believe that Scotland and the UK could mutually negotiate something completely different if they chose to. Who knows what negotiations and horse-trading would take place following a ‘yes’ referendum. Or what else Scotland might be forced to sacrifice to gain control of the oil resources? Unless this kind of thing can be sorted out definitively before the referendum (not just this issue – this is just an example) – I don’t see how anybody can support independence other than as a reckless punt with very high stakes indeed.
And I appreciate the problems that Calum McSwan mentioned about where the powers lay to decide this kind of thing. But that however, doesn’t get us to a solution. If we can’t get to the facts, it doesn’t matter why not – we still don’t have them and have to decide our voting position accordingly.
John
I am not asserting anything . I am quoting the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, to which the UK is a signatory. International law specifies that a state controls the continental shelf and associated mineral and fishing rights up to 200 nautical miles (230 miles or 370 km) off its shores.Maritime Law which states quite categorically that oil in Scotland’s territorial waters is Scottish.
It is not a matter of any negotiation.
Why don’t you look stuff up before you spout nonsense. All the information is readily available online..
This unionist level of infantile scaremongering is a continuous insult to the intelligence of any sensible person. The OECD points out that Scotland is the eighth richest country in the in the world. The UK is in seventeenth place
Dave – you said “Westminster did not subsidise any of the development. They merely lessened the tax burden”.
The profit of a business is the income less costs, one of which is tax. If the tax is reduced from the status quo, the profit goes up. That is just as much a subsidy as if a lump sum was paid over each year. Many businesses that have gone under would have been prosperous if they didn’t have to pay tax. A subsidy, or a tax reduction might have saved them. Or as in this case, encouraged them to invest further.
Whether you describe it as a subsidy or a tax break – it is the same thing – the government helps the company profits to rise by changing the ratio of cost to income.
I don’t know the fine detail of this case, but I might go research it now. However, it looks to me as though the aging fields simply weren’t profitable enough to be worth investing in under the previous tax regime – hence the change to encourage developers to develop more of the remaining oil that is getting progressively more and more expensive to extract.
Doubtless you will accuse me of nonsense and spin – if so, please back it up with sources that don’t come directly from the Scottish government or oil companies!
Dave – I have to thank you for one thing – for all that we seem to think differently and disagree on a lot, some of your comments have made me think and research more deeply about several topics than I otherwise might have. Even if that research normally tends to reinforce my original views that differ from yours. Diversity is a good thing in polite debate!
Dave – you said “Why is one of the most able people in the world running their own affairs a big gamble? You are again repeating unionist scaremongering all of which is predicated on the proposal that the Scots are uniquely stupid and the only nation out 200 in the world incapable of running their own affairs.”
—————————————————–
I have never thought or implied or said that the Scots are stupid – they are obviously far from stupid.
The independence proposition is self evidently a gamble simply because nobody on either side can make credible predictions as to what the outcome will be. Lots of opinions, but little based on solid evidence that is strong enough to get general agreement from the ‘opposing’ experts. The experts have to agree, or reconcile and explain the reasons for their contradictory views, before we can give any credibility to any of them.
I personally believe that Scotland will make itself a success whether independent or not – the scots are very capable. But at what cost? I would love to see Scotland independent, but if I end up voting ‘yes’, it will be because there is a lot more concrete plans and evidence-based predictions that stand up to informed challenge than at present. And in spite of, not because of the politicians currently in power.
However, you and I are now going round in circles – we are not going to agree, and you are not going to get the points I’m making if you haven’t by now – they’ve been said over and over again in different ways for some time.
Time that we politely agree to differ and have a change of subject!
All you have done is produce a number of issues which everybody else in the world deals with on a daily basis and imply that these would be some huge problem for the Scots.
The only problem Scotland will have difficulty dealing with is those Scots who swallow such bullshit
As I said – lets agree to differ – we are going round in endless circles. No point in going round it all yet again. If anyone reads this and wants to see the arguments again, there are plenty of historical posts to scroll back through and read.
Time for new subject.
Why we would we say No and as you say you’re Irish so it is of no concern to you this is a decision for the people of Scotland only I don’t see Ireland making any requests to return to the UK fold as they seem to be doing well concidering the crunch doing better than the UK at present
I’m British but live in Scotland. Why do you say it’s if no concern, if a person qualifies for a vote then it is very much their concern?
Scotland has over £4 trillion in northsea oil reserves I worked in oil exploration all my working life from the very beginning we were lied too the oil would only last 10 years we would watch the drilling rigs drill for oil and you know when they strike oil they have to burn off excess gas then they would cap the well on the sea bed and move off this was going on all over the northsea then we heard the bullshit in the papers there’s not much oil left or the classic was it’s the wrong type of oil no good for petrol or diesel they lied through their teeth so the scottish people wouldn’t find out just how wealthy we were today we have over £4 trillion out in the nothsea the northsea is massive and hasn’t been fully explored there is also a massive find of the Island of rockall and more of Scotlands Atlantic coast that hasn’t been touched yet the deceit and the lies regarding oil from unionist governments is unbeleiveable like the McCrone report kept secret for 30years and only relesed through the freedom of information act in it it stated scotland would be one of the worlds wealthiest countries there is more known oil in the northsea now than has been taken out thats not including scotlands oil on the Atlantic coast Scotland is a very oil rich nation and we have to protect our oil resources or we will end up with nothing and the UK will squander it like it has done on ilegal wars we have the highest levels of child poverty in western europe our people are having to use foodbanks and our old can’t even heat their homes properly in the winter we are the only nation to have discovered oil and our people gotten poorer while our oil wealth was used for the channel tunnel the Olympic village and games it is also earmarked for the new London airport ringroad and motorway and a highspeed rail link that dosen’t even come to Scotland while scottish children are living in poverty Wake up and smell the coffee vote for Scotland Vote YES
Sadly, to me it’s absolutely believable – suppression of the McCrone report (which I had never heard of but sounds absolutely plausible to me) is just another of the many actions of politicians of all persuasions which lead me not to take a thing they say at face value, whether it’s about wars in Iraq, the true effects of immigration, taxation policy or whatever – including Scottish independence. I believe many politicians and their advisors, including the SNP, will spin whatever they can get away with to achieve their goals, including clever deceptions, misleading interpretations of real data, suppression of data, quotations taken out of context, not admitting to tenuous or uncertain assumptions and occasionally downright lies, while all the time looking as ‘innocent’ and convincing as they can. And those who have a specific end in mind, such as Scottish independence, or preventing it, are the least to be trusted.
If you have had a career in oil exploration and really ‘know’ this stuff from personal experience, that is interesting – though I ask again – can you point me to any independent references that talk about the scale of the predictions being quoted around the situation as it is today?
John
Please spare us the simulated naivety. If you can use your computer to contribute on here you can use it as we all can to establish the truth. The latest authoritative forecasts on Scotland’s oil revenues came early in May for the world renowned David Hume Institute underlining comments from the OECD
“Scotland is sitting on oil and gas revenues worth up to £4 trillion according to a new report set to be published this week.
The David Hume Institute, a highly respected non-partisan body, will this week present analysis which will show that current estimates on the amount of revenue still to be generated by the North Sea have been massively underestimated”
You can read the rest of the report easily on line
I have come across the report from David Hume institute already – and want to hear the reactions from other sources to it, before deciding what to take from it.
In my searchings, I have also come across http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-22224015
This is an interesting interview with Professor Kemp (who was co-author of a very credible report I quoted earlier that you denounced as “a speculative piece carried in a unionist newspaper”). I have listened through it once, and will listen again – it seems to give a useful overview of the whole situation. I know it predates the David Hume report you mentioned, but only by a few weeks, and the professor does talk about the new fields, as well as a lot of other relevant issues that usually seem to get lost in obfuscation and spin.
I won’t summarise it here – if you are interested, you should listen for yourself.
But I think we’ve thrashed out the oil question enough for now – some of what I take from discussions so far is
* there is a good deal of oil to be had
* most of it will be Scotland’s, to keep, unless it chooses to use some of it as a bargaining counter during independence negotiations (in my view, highly likely)
* the nature of the geographical divide that would be the initial presumption of the north/south split is unclear, but not particularly relevant as there aren’t a lot of valuable fields in the area in question
* the actual revenue from the oil will be substantial, but exactly how substantial is also unclear. The extreme high and low estimates will both be wrong – the truth will be somewhere in-between and dependent on all sorts of things that we can’t predict with any accuracy
* the number that matters is not the value of the oil extracted, it is the net income after costs and the effect of tax allowances have been deducted – and extraction costs will increase as time goes by and the remaining oil becomes harder to extract
* that there will be a lot of hard bargaining from Westminster, and possibly delaying tactics when the serious negotiating starts post referendum, that might hold back the agreements and some of the early benefits – possibly for quite a long time as Westminster will be highly motivated not to lose so much of the oil resource (other reports from Aberdeen mention this).
* there could be a significant delay in the benefits of the new income coming online while the investment costs (e.g. the cost of the recent tax allowance) is recouped
* events overtake events, as do reports and forecasts – nothing is certain – we need to watch this space and not be too wedded to specific predictions! There are lots of other things affecting this that nobody knows much about right now – e.g. impact of green/climate-change opinion on intensive use of fossil fuels, what’s happening with renewables and how investment in one might affect the outlook in the other – and more.
Unless someone has something radically new to add, for the moment, I’m going to put these issues to the side and consider something else for a while.
OK then here is the deal, tell me whithin a week when the next NO meeting is in the SW of Scotland , this is Wed. 1 so by the 7 th If I hivvny heard I will boot you lot into touch.
Why because this is the most serious question in hundreds of years
and the No campaign seem compacant !!
Well I think you are wrong that a future government will cancel Nuke weapons, The present govenment is about to sign up for the Trident replacement at great cost to the nation at a time when we can least afford it .These contracts carry cancellation fees which would cost the UK too much.Billions could be saved by not replacing these morally wrong devices!
I wasn’t trying to get drawn into a debate about the rights and wrongs of nuclear weapons. But for what it’s worth, I don’t like them ethically, and it would seem daft for a small independent Scotland to try to bear the cost of it’s own nuclear deterrent. Whether Scotland should contribute to an international defence ‘umbrella’ is a different question – to which I don’t know the answer. Scotland might even benefit economically, depending on how it was done. Not that that would make it ‘right’!
But all that is irrelevant to the question that I posed. There are a large number of short and medium term issues that can change from one government to the next. Tuition fees, welfare, infrastructure investment, income tax for example. Whatever is done by any government can and probably will be changed later, whether Scotland is independent or not.
Nuclear weapons I guess are more medium term – it might take thirty or forty years before the next renewal opportunity.
But I am certain that on all these issues, in a hundred years, all that will have become ‘history’ – we can’t predict whether Scotland will then have nuclear weapons or not, regardless of what happens now. But we can be pretty sure that if Scotland goes independent, it will still be independent and more isolated than at present, for better or worse. Similarly if we separate from the UK currency, join the Euro or whatever. I am not taking a position on any of these things – I am asking what should play a deciding part in a decision for independence? In the long term (generations) – what does independence really mean for us and our descendants? And would it right to commit our great grandchildren to permanent changes in order to achieve a single political end now?
How would it change your views if Scotland stayed in the UK but managed to negotiate discretion in the nuclear weapons programme as part of increased devolution of powers. Then we might avoid nuclear weapons without independence?
Dave McEwan Hill – calling a comment ‘deeply stupid’ because you don’t happen to agree with it is rather puerile and unhelpful. I was trying to promote a bit of intelligent debate about something I’ve been thinking about, not trying to push a dogmatic opinion.
surely to god you cannot be serious with out nuclear defence missiles we leave our selves susceptible to harm and endanger our nation needlessly ,sadly we live in a world where by we need nukes .Also learn to spell yeh dafty .
We need Nukes and you call someone else a dafty. Yeah bet you believe North Korea could Nuke us, my god kill yourself before your insanity kills us all
who will win a nuclear war no one the nuclear bombs now are thousands of times more powerful than the ones dropped on Nagasaki and horoshima and the effects from those weapons don’t regognise borders and having them would make us a first strike target to nullify our nuclear arsenal why do you think they were put in Scotland as far away from London and england South/East now with independence looming they’re talking about putting them in Wales anywhere but england
Exactly. The only function the nuclear base in Scotland fulfills is that it makes Central Scotland the world’s number one target if some loony starts a nuclear war. As Scotland is unlikely to ever attack anybody else or invade anybody else’s country (a union dividend) this is pretty generous of us – especially as the MOD has just announced that the nuclear base at Coulport cannot be moved to the south coast of England as it is “too dangerous” for the civilian population. Which indicates exactly what they think of the population of Helensburgh, Inverclyde and the Glasgow area
Just as we were in WW1 we Scots are expendable
I got back from the Yes meeting with a lot of thoughts, have to see a No meeting now they said that they had offered to do joint debate but NO turned then down I still don’t like the idea of spending all that money on Nuclear Weapons and the replacement ..only the Yes to stop promise this.
Dave
Nuclear weapons policy is something that any future government could overturn and reverse – whatever the ‘rights’ and ‘wrongs’ of it, in the big scheme of things, it is temporary.
Independence and much that goes along with it cannot be reversed – it will bind our grandchildren and their descendents for generations.
Should we be basing a decision on Scotland’s future on issues that can be fixed or reversed by any future government?
Of course we should. That is what independence means. What a deeply stupid comment.
Are you suffering from some delusion that the UK never changes any policies. Why would we bother with elections?
The intention is that the banning of nuclear weapons would written into a Scottish constitution, therefore ensuring a future government couldn’t reintroduce them
That is a suggestion at the moment with very wide support. The constitution of an independent Scotland would be agreed after independence is achieved
They’re building aircraft carriers and have no aircraft to put on them it’s a joke and the old argument still stands if we are a drain on the english purse why are they fighting so hard to keep Scotland in this union? and I dont want to hear that we’re stronger together it’s because Scotland has over £4 Trillion in northsea oil reserves and the UK are over £1.4 Trillion in debt and are finding it difficult to service those loans another thing is in the northsea they are now using a technique called directional drilling they don’t need as many plarforms as before one platform can cover many wells 20 miles away or more recently well a few months back 8 new fields have come on stream and another 28 discovered a recent article in the gardian (a unionist newspaper) Stated the oil will last 100 years there has been a recent upsurge in northsea production with new Jackets for platforms being constructed at Burntisland fabricators and on the Isle of Lewis the northsea is massive and hasn’t been fully explored and there is more oil out there and there’s scotlands Atlantic coast where a massive find of oil has been discovered Scotlands oil wont run out for many decades to come
you say a lot that I completely agree with – especially around nukes, aircraft carriers and defense. I question whether Scotland, if independent, should even retain a military at all, unless for purely emotional, patriotic reasons. Or as an expensive fall-back for the police, should they meet a situation they can’t handle, as has happened occasionally in the past. Better perhaps for Scotland to contribute towards some joint UK or European defense umbrella rather than trying to maintain it’s own. What use would Scotland really have for a significant military infrastructure?
On your comments on oil – frankly, I have no idea what to believe. But I know that I won’t take anything commissioned by the ‘yes’ campaign at face value, as they have a very strong agenda to put a positive case. I hadn’t heard of some of the things you mentioned, and am hunting for independent sources that talk about them and their possible influence on the big picture. Do you have links to anything on the subject that isn’t being put forward by one side or the other or the oil companies themselves – something that is likely to be impartial?
The bullish comments that many people are making around oil futures have me thinking of the old maxim “if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is” – particularly when they’re being made by the very people that most want it to be true – and when there doesn’t seem to be an impartial consensus amongst the many expert sources. I’m not disputing discoveries, tax breaks or the consequences of heightened investment in production – but I am questioning the scale of and confidence in the predictions. Please give me some supporting and impartial references?
But lets not go another round of the same points that Dave McEwan Smith and I have been arguing about for days!
As I pointed out a few blogs ago the SNP is using the extremely modest projection of £1 5 trillion of oil revenues to come while Sir Ian Wood has suggested a figure at least twice that and industry insiders have recently suggested the real figure is between £2,5 trillion and £4 trillion.
I’m going to yes metting to listen to the other side tonight 23/4 in my home town of Prestwick , but I want to hear from the NO folks as well .There seems to be NO open public meetings from the NO side locally , Ideally I would like to see Nicola and Alistair live ,argue the pros and cons ,we are running out of time in Scotland’s biggest decision!
Hi John, glad you are againt the nukes as well, but a change of govenment in Westminster will not sort that, .Anyway I don’t see the need for them .If Scotland was independent we couln’t afford them anyway
Sure its not just the Nuclear weapons that are chance of debate you mentioned welare and the benefit system which is at the moment unsustanable , I was told by the Yes faction that the UK has a lot of the problems stem from London house price rentals requiring high levels of rent.
When Cameron was in Clydeside he more or less threatened the workers vote No or lose your shipbuilding jobs, I don;t respond to that
This last threat about monetry union being difficult if we were independent again is just not true, linked to the pound are the following
Gibralter, The Falkland Islands and rember Hongkong. It is not valid
Right then when can get to local NO meteing ? I still need more info!!
Thats enough I dinny want to hog the site.
Dave