[Closed] Salmond on Newsnight

North Sea oil was developed and produced because of the UK government, not Scotland. Exactly the same logic applies.

The North Sea was developed and produced by oil companies. The UK government sold the blocks and then taxed the produce. Pretty good deal for the UK taxpayer wouldn't you say?

Duckman - may I politely suggest that you re-read my posts to see what I have and, more importantly, have not said about Scottish Independence. Plus it is extraordinarily arrogant of anyone to assume that a potential break up of the Union is only a matter for the residents of Scotland. This issue matters to everyone in the Union, so please excuse me if I take an interest!

D_J - at least that's an honest statement. As for CmD bleeding the rest of the UK dry, makes you wonder how any of the politicians are explaining the welfare cuts mess to poor people in the Midlands and the North!

Ransos - because of the separate legal system in Scotland when the north sea oil fields were starting to be developed they were split into Scottish, English and Norwegian territory.

There are no UK oil fields unless you consider the English and Scottish ones combined to be UK

There are no UK oil fields unless you consider the English and Scottish ones combined to be UK

I do. England and Scotland are not separate nations.

I've nothing to add to this debate politically, but I couldn't let the above statement go unchallenged. Suntory? A giraffe is what you're having, I think. I'd honestly rather drink Bells (and it takes something to make me say that).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-15423862

'Not only did Nikka's Yoichi 1987 vintage beat dozens of other labels to claim the single malt title at last year's world whisky awards - in Glasgow of all places - its rival distiller, Suntory, won the best blended whisky award with its 30-year-old Hibiki.'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/21/japan-whisky-industry

This issue matters to everyone in the Union, so please excuse me if I take an interest!

Is this all unions or just the ones you like?
Self determination trum,ps the union each time....if you disagree imagine letting Europe decide if you can leave or they got top force you into the Euro ...still seem fair?

I do. England and Scotland are not separate [b]nations[/b]

best blended whisky

Ha ha ha ha ha. Contradiction in terms.

JY - I've told you before about the smiley button. 😉

I have also stated my view on self determination and if that was it, then fair enough. But off course, that is not quite what is on offer here, is it? So JY, you know me, just interested in the specifics and debunking pompous or incomplete arguments, especially from slimey politicians.

Duckman - may I politely suggest that you re-read my posts to see what I have and, more importantly, have not said about Scottish Independence. Plus it is extraordinarily arrogant of anyone to assume that a potential break up of the Union is only a matter for the residents of Scotland. This issue matters to everyone in the Union, so please excuse me if I take an interest!

But are we not subsidy rich spongers? And it is Scottish independence that is to be voted on? ie If we should want to leave the union we were forced into,not if England and Wales want to keep us.So why should the English have a say. The arrogance of the suggestion that you should get to decide the future of Scotland is a rallying call for the nationalist movement.Free from the burden of ScotlandEngland would apparantly be a land of high-speed rail links and honey,according to Zokes (who would appear to be in OZ)

Has anybody ever seen Ransos and Kerasae in the same room at the same time? just asking like 🙄

Plus it is extraordinarily arrogant of anyone to assume that a potential break up of the Union is only a matter for the residents of Scotland.

on windows IE 6 or something at work it has no smilleys as an option 😉

I can remeber that one and :rolls:
and 😆

Done to death surely by now]]England inteferring can only harm the union vote and that is what it will be seen as as that is what it is; it is not helpful

I think narrow win fo rth eunion , huge win for devo max if allwoed [ I dont thinkl the SNP will do anything other than ask this tbh.

The same rules, same referee line is weak even for a soundbite

Home nations rugby and International sports just became a whole lot more confusing

They already are - e.g. GB team for the olympics.

For the purpose of international conventions, England and Scotland are not separate countries. For example, Scotland cannot join the UN.

If we should want to leave the union we were forced into,not if England and Wales want to keep us.So why should the English have a say

Scotland was "forced" into the union because of its own financial mismanagement. But I agree - independence should be a decision for Scotland alone.

Scotland was "forced" into the union because of its own financial mismanagement.

Points and laughs at ransos.

Points and laughs at ransos.

I realise that it's an unpalatable truth.

For the purpose of international conventions, England and Scotland are not separate countries. For example, Scotland cannot join the UN.

And neither can England.

Just remember that in addition to England, Scotland would also be saying goodbye to Wales and NI. Therefore when talking about Independence, remember that it is not Independence from England.

Just had a quick read through the consultation document. Think I might write back and add in my 2p worth (how much will that be in groats? Is is it centi-groats?)

ransos does it really matter why the act of the union was signed, other than your petty attempt at point scoring?

Why are all you Englanders so scared of Scotland going it alone.?

Very strange if you ask me.

Ransos - there may well have been financial mismanagement but there was certainly some degree of Scotland getting caught between England and Spain - arguably two of the superpowers of the day.

Note also that immediately following the union and the access to English capital that it brought Scotland's economy started growing - to the extent that it was the second biggest in the world within 30 years (and you can guess that England's was the biggest).

Personal view is that both Scotland and England have benefited immensely from the union, but are still different countries with seperate legal and educational systems.

I don't support the break up of this partnership, but if one partner feels the relationship isn't working any more then I do support their right to leave.

And neither can England.

Just remember that in addition to England, Scotland would also be saying goodbye to Wales and NI. Therefore when talking about Independence, remember that it is not Independence from England.

Which is why I said "England and Scotland are not separate countries".

ransos does it really matter why the act of the union was signed, other than your petty attempt at point scoring?

Because some people argue that Scotland was forced into the union against its will. Because England bailed Scotland out, something pro-independence people like to forget when they're talking about oil reserves.

Ransos - there may well have been financial mismanagement but there was certainly some degree of Scotland getting caught between England and Spain - arguably two of the superpowers of the day.

That's quite an understatement: it's estimated that Scotland lost around 1/5 of its entire wealth on the Darien scheme.

It was over 300 years ago. I thought the English press still bleating on about 1966 was bad, but this is worse.

Ransos - because of the separate legal system in Scotland when the north sea oil fields were starting to be developed they were split into Scottish, English and Norwegian territory.

The English and Scottish boundaries were changed in 1991 and are therefore not the same any more it isn't simply a 55° Latitude now
Donald Dewar agreed the change with Blair at the time

Looking at election results, it is pretty obvious that England, Wales, Scotland and NI don't have a huge amount in common. The scots, NI and welsh are consistently campaigning for devolution of differing levels. In short, it doesn't seem to be a happy marriage. If independence is on the agenda, could we not just absolve the union entirely?
Could England absolve the union should they choose to?
How's about we all just go it alone?

Why are all you Englanders so scared of Scotland going it alone.?

Very strange if you ask me.

Currently polling suggests that Englanders are more keen on Scotland going it alone than Scotlanders are.

Why are all you Englanders so scared of Scotland going it alone.?

Very strange if you ask me.

I'm scared of Scotland taking a disproportionately high percentage of the UK's assets, and a disproportionately low percentage of its liabilities.

What's strange about that?

Ransos - correct, the Darien scheme. Actually the Scots and English monarch failed to support the Scots because it got in the way of some English deals being done with Spain and a compensatory deal whereby parliments were unified and Scots losses caused by English actions were made good.

Both sides benefitted.

ah so its about money not democracy or principles

Because some people argue that Scotland was forced into the union against its will. Because England bailed Scotland out, something pro-independence people like to forget when they're talking about oil reserves.

What bearing on oil wealth do the actions of a government over 300 years ago have today?

Or are you saying that Scots are incapable of managing themselves economically on a genetic level?

It was over 300 years ago. I thought the English press still bleating on about 1966 was bad, but this is worse.

You don't think that the terms of the Act of Union are pertinent? Curious...

Because England bailed Scotland out,

What bearing on oil wealth do the actions of a government over 300 years ago have today?

Or are you saying that Scots are incapable of managing themselves economically on a genetic level?

Basically, this ^

Still it must be hard, watchng the remnants of England's once-great empire sailing off into the sunset and all you can do is keep whinging onabout what happened before your great great great great great great gandparernts were even conceived off.

Over 300 years ago, got anything more current? What about where Thatcher's economic disasters would have left the UK [s]England[/s] without UK [s]Scottish[/s] oil money to bail it out.

FTFY.

I'm scared of Scotland taking a disproportionately high percentage of the UK's assets, and a disproportionately low percentage of its liabilities.

don't know why you are.

Its all been said quite clearly assets and liabilities should be split on the basis of population or gdp - both similar at around 8% for Scotland.

You don't think that the terms of the Act of Union are pertinent? Curious...

OK, can you explain, preferably using small words because I'm a bit thick, what relevance it has today?

A federal Britain - ie devolution for England - with a British parliment at Westminster and an English one at say York (or vice versa) - is not a daft suggestion.

The United Kingdoms rather than the United Kingdom if you will. I'll even offer W&NI kingdom status.

Ransos - correct, the Darien scheme. Actually the Scots and English monarch failed to support the Scots because it got in the way of some English deals being done with Spain and a compensatory deal whereby parliments were unified and Scots losses caused by English actions were made good.

Both sides benefitted

OK, can you explain, preferably using small words because I'm a bit thick, what relevance it has today?

this

watching the remnants of England's once-great empire sailing off into the sunset and all you can do is keep whinging onabout what happened before your great great great great great great gandparernts were even conceived off.

OK, can you explain, preferably using small words because I'm a bit thick, what relevance it has today?

In case you hadn't noticed, it's the reason why England and Scotland are both part of the UK.

don't know why you are.

Its all been said quite clearly assets and liabilities should be split on the basis of population or gdp - both similar at around 8% for Scotland.

It's not really that simple though. What about assets and liabilities that are based in only one of the countries?