[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

I don't think the SNP would have gained a majority in 2011 if there was a Labour Government voted into Westminster in 2010. So yes the debate would be very different, there wouldn't be one!

Not yet anyway. But it seems almost certain to have happened at some point, for some reason.

Shame there has to be so much squabbling involved.

molgrips - Member
...Yeah I would piss my pants if in 30 years' time the Scottish Tories have swept to power and rUK is run by socialists

What's wrong with that?

It's difficult to get into power in Scotland without very strong support from the electorate - it's called democracy.

They seem to think that an arbitrary line on a map is a way to divide people and their endeavours. I have two kids - they share a room, and all their toys. If I were to draw a line down the middle of the room and start segregating their stuff - well that wouldn't be considered very nice by anyone.

When one kid is hogging all the toys, it's one way of dealing with it. The line on the map is the border of Scotland. We are a country, not a homogenous region of England. If the Westminster govt hadn't squandered the revenues from the oil, we wouldn't have this problem.

The UK can afford to spend the oil money as it makes up a small percentage of our GDP. Without oil money the UK will do just fine. An iScotland on the other hand could be in trouble.

An iScotland on the other hand could be in trouble.

And with enough genetic modification pigs could fly.

jambalaya - Member
Does anyone think the debate would have been materially different if there had been a Labour Government in Westminster ? I think not but the Yes would have had a few less easy targets for it's Westminster / UK elite jibes

[quote=fasternotfatter ]The UK can afford to spend the oil money as it makes up a small percentage of our GDP. Without oil money the UK will do just fine. An iScotland on the other hand could be in trouble.
Oil and gas money is a greater %age of Norways GDP than it is of Scotlands. I don't see them looking around for some "broader shoulders" to share it with.

The line on the map is the border of Scotland. We are a country, not a homogenous region of England.

You're both a country, and not a country. It's arbitrary. See, that's what annoys me about this whole thing - the idea that there's something fundamentally separating Scottish people and English people. There isn't. We are all humans, just the same.

Do you really stand on a hill looking over the border and think "those people over there are different. They need to stay with their stuff, and we need to keep ours' ... ?

Can you explain why it's YOUR oil and not OUR oil, or Aberdeen's oil?

When one kid is hogging all the toys, it's one way of dealing with it.

Wow.. not a very good one.. I'd teach them to share!

Oil and gas money is a greater %age of Norways GDP than it is of Scotlands. I don't see them looking around for some "broader shoulders" to share it with.

But there is internal concern on their dependence on the sector, however with low net debt by European standards, they can weather an economic storm and potentially re-orientate their economy, which they are already trying to do. Scotland will have much higher debt so less room for manoeuvre.

molgrips - Member
Can you explain why it's YOUR oil and not OUR oil, or Aberdeen's oil?

I think you should ask whoever was behind changing the maritime border between England and Scotland so that the English waters suddenly included oil fields previously in Scottish waters. Absolutely no need for it if we were truly Better Together.

I'm sure they'd manage to explain the concept.

I'm asking you.

It also serves to ignore completely the history of the Border - the border clans switching allegiance on a regular basis, and the fluidity of the border itself.

(Having lived a stones throw from the border for a couple of years, I'd thoroughly recommend George MDF's 'Steel Bonnets', its well worth a read for the history and feel of the region)

It also serves to ignore completely the history of the Border - the border clans switching allegiance on a regular basis, and the fluidity of the border itself.

Yes, and the fact that borders are a pretty arbitrary concept in general in Europe.. and the world I suppose.

International law and convention would seem to say that it is 90% Scotland's oil Molgrips. You are right that people are basically the same all over the world. That doesn't stop them having different beliefs or different politics etc. Scotland is a country as are England,Wales, and Northern Ireland. Perhaps it's the UK that is a state but not a country.

Scotland is a country

UK is a country, so that renders that argument (for what it's worth) pointless. Of course, Scotland votes differently to England, but I could draw any number of lines on a map and produce the same result. Why shouldn't I?

Did Scotland benefit from Wales' mineral wealth, incidentally?

Did Scotland benefit from Wales' mineral wealth, incidentally?

Only to the extent it kept the Welsh in Wales - you have got to take the easy wins!

molgrips - Member
Scotland is a country
UK is a country, so that renders that argument (for what it's worth) pointless.

I don't know if Scotland benefitted from Wales mineral wealth or not Molgrips. I'd be interested to hear what it is that makes the UK a country aside from its recognition as a sovereign state ,and what makes Scotland

both a country, and not a country

Oil and gas money is a greater %age of Norways GDP than it is of Scotlands. I don't see them looking around for some "broader shoulders" to share it with.

Exactly why they need an oil fund and the UK doesn't.

I’m following the referendum with interest, both for the general political intrigue, and the fact that I was/am considering retiring/semi-retiring to the Dumfries and Galloway area [currently live in Cumbria].

I’m of a slight left leaning persuasion, so understand not being pleased with the current Tory policies, the quoting of which seemed to get the biggest reactions during the Darling/Salmond debates – Bedroom Tax, NHS, child poverty, food banks. It would suggest that to a lot of people a big reason to vote for independence is to get rid of a transient Lib Dem/Tory coalition. I now wonder what the arguments and cheers would have been about if it was Labour government in power.

Also what seems to be coming to fore, which is disappointing, are the ‘we pay more into the UK than you do’ and ‘it’s our oil’ arguments.
I have never thought about whether I am paying in more or less into the UK [or EU] than I get out, or whether I am paying more or less than the average English, Welsh, Scottish or Northern Irish resident. It now seems that a lot of people have been thinking about this, and are not happy. I now know from this thread that for the last 33 [or is it 34] years that the Scots have paid more than the average English person – thanks – I assume the situation has been different in the past, and will be different again at some point in the future if there is a 'NO' vote.

I now wonder what the proportions have been for the previous 200-odd years. Who was keeping score?

As for ‘it’s our oil’ – does anyone know what proportion of the UK natural resources that have been used to help finance the Union for the last 300 years have come from each constituent country – coal, tin, copper, iron ore, gas, oil, fish, men during the war, mill workers, miners, great thinkers..... I’ve no idea, but it seems someone should have been counting.
It seems churlish to say now that ‘it’s our oil’.

Good luck to Scotland whichever way the vote goes. I may still end up spending my retirement up there, but I hope the vote is ‘No’ as I would like to see the obvious passion stirred by this debate used to make the UK a better country [state?], and not to introduce another border/divide.

I'd be interested to hear what it is that makes the UK a country

Having an overall government would be my guess.

I'd be interested to hear what it is that makes the UK a country

300+ years of shared history? Go back 100 years and Scottish Nationalism is virtually non-existent as a political idea.

whimbrel - Member
...but I hope the vote is ‘No’ as I would like to see the obvious passion stirred by this debate used to make the UK a better country [state?], and not to introduce another border.

I'd like to think that whichever way the vote goes it will benefit the rest of the UK. There's some deep rooted inequities in the power structure that need to be destroyed.

Yes please for the border though. 🙂

epicyclo - Member
Yes please for the border though.

...and the divide? 😉

I now know from this thread that for the last 33 [or is it 34] years that the Scots have paid more than the average English person – thanks – I assume the situation has been different in the past, and will be different again at some point in the future if there is a 'NO' vote.

I now wonder what the proportions have been for the previous 200-odd years. Who was keeping score?

What you need to remember is that for the majority of those 33 [or is it 34] years (right up until fairly recently) we were lied to. We were told we were heavily subsidised by everyone else. We couldn't afford to go alone. A tactic used to subdue an independence/home rule movement at the time. That is the problem. No doubt if the truth were told things may have been different, that is why a lot of people are thinking about this now. No doubt for the previous 200 years exact proportions of contribution varied throughout. Thing is there was no keeping score as you say because we weren't being lied to then so there was no need to.

I now wonder what the arguments and cheers would have been about if it was Labour government in power.

People see through that so tbh I don't particularly think the arguments would be all that different.

Scotland has paid a certain amount into the UK and a certain amount has been spent in Scotland. After that is taken into account how much is left of what they paid in, 1%? 2%? At best they have helped to subsidise Wales and Northern Ireland and they think they are owed 10% of all UK assets. Dream on.

Before oil you say?

[img] [/img]

Lol at that vague and incomplete snippet being used as evidence of anything...

[img] http://wingsoverscotland.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/image-1.jpg [/img][img] http://wingsoverscotland.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/image-2.jp g" target="_blank">http://wingsoverscotland.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/image-1.jpg [/img][img] http://wingsoverscotland.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/image-2.jp g"/> [/img]

So you raised 11% tax, got 11% expenditure, excluding public debt costs and military costs which were not split, whilst England subsidized Ireland.

Well I'm not an expert on early 20th century accounting practices, but from what I can see. Scotland contributed 11% of revenue and spent 11% locally and contributed 11% to Imperial funds. England contributed 84% spent 77% locally and contributed 86% Imperially. What is this trying to show?

What is this trying to show?

They don't like paying for debt?

@scotroutes
You have obviously been keeping score 😀

That the majority of money generated in Scotland is spent in Scotland and that Scots are owed maybe 1% of UK assets.

You are spot on whimbrel.

Its the best opportunity we have for genuine change in a generation.
And we need a change.

Didn't realise Scotroutes was THAT old.......

International law and convention would seem to say that it is 90% Scotland's oil Molgrips

I've seen this quoted several times already on this thread and elsewhere but never seen it substantiated and I can't find anything which would indicate that it's set in stone. Do you have a link to the actual law?

For example the "United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea" says;

"In cases where this Convention does not attribute rights or jurisdiction to the coastal State or to other States within the exclusive economic zone, and a conflict arises between the interests of the coastal State and any other State or States, the conflict should be resolved on the basis of equity and in the light of all the relevant circumstances, taking into account the respective importance of the interests involved to the parties as well as to the international community as a whole."

Which seems to indicate that it would be up for negotiation.

There aren't half a bunch of nasty trolls on this thread. Here is my response to the trolls - oh look you don't have a vote - suck it up sweet cheeks.

"In cases where this Convention does not attribute rights or jurisdiction to the coastal State or to other States within the exclusive economic zone...

So why do you think the Convention would not attribute the oil to the state within the EEZ - i.e. Scotland? Is there any other situation in the world where oil resources in one country's EEZ are attributed or shared with another country?

Postal vote away.

18 days, 22hrs to go.

An honest question - why did you get a postal vote? There's a very large number of postal votes issued for the referendum, and I'm wondering why that is.

I'm away to Sheffield for a wedding.

I'm taking my Passport just in case. 😀

Edit, wedding actually on the Sunday. But I've friends down there so it's good to spend some time rather than an overnighter.

😀

There can't be 600,000 people all going to weddings, though...

Girlfriend is postal voting too, but she's away to Rome for work.

She's postal voted for the last couple of years, as the job involves a LOT of international travel.