Osbourne says no to currency union.

jambalaya – Member
Glasgow City Council deployed the fastest cherry picker in the world to get it down sharpish

@ben, I assume it would have been OK if had been a Palestinian flag ? Hamas OK, ISIS not ?

FYi,

Hamas Flag

Palestinian Flag

@ben, I assume it would have been OK if had been a Palestinian flag ? Hamas OK, ISIS not ?

I thought the Palestinian flag thing was good – of course Glasgow has a history of that kind of thing, we were the first city in the world to give the freedom of the city to Nelson Mandela, and renamed the square containing the South African consulate to Nelson Mandela Square.

As an interesting aside, a good friend was involved in that, and also in bringing Mandela to Glasgow after he was released – he was also one of the General Assembly members who walked out on Thatcher. He’s also a committed No voter.

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

And we need a change.

and when in another generation you decide it would be better to change back again…..oh wait!

Scotland only contributes more to the UK if you include at Oil/Gas revenues. If you look at personal and business taxes the Scots pay less. Oil and Gas are revenues aren’t monies paid by Scots, they are the resources of the UK. We discussed this a while back.

Not per head we don’t.. even with oil and gas removed we still pay in more than the UK average..

And we need a change

So do we.

and when in another generation you decide it would be better to change back again…..oh wait!

Yeah I would piss my pants if in 30 years’ time the Scottish Tories have swept to power and rUK is run by socialists 🙂

Not per head we don’t.. even with oil and gas removed we still pay in more than the UK average..

Only if you exclude London I think.

@ben, you can’t exclude London though. Top 1% now pay 30% of taxes and I read recently that the Boroughs of Kensignton and Chelsea and Westminster pay 7% of the stamp duty collected nationally.

@seoasmh, I know the flags are different, I was referring to the fact that Gaza is run by a recognised (by the UK, US and EU) terrorist organisation.

I probably shouldn’t have mentioned this though as we don’t need this thread derailed by such a discussion. So apologies for that.

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

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!

This could have gone better
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/tensions-rise-during-darling-visit-to-glasgow-mosque.1409327501

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

dunno tbh the snp’s rise to government before that in 2007 so I reckon there’s a possibility it could have been delayed but a referendum would happen sooner or later.

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.

a country is a fluid concept, has been from the beginning of time. I’d agree that Scotland isn’t a country at the moment. But it might well be soon enough, might not be depends what the people of Scotland decide.

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.

tbh labour are just Tory place holders until the Tories get back in. Neither party is all that ideologically different. Labour party maintains Tory policy when its in government then the Tories develop the ideology when they are in government.

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?

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

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