Osbourne says no to currency union.

and you are assuming they will based on a hunch?

Clearly not as that would be stupid. I’m saying it’s foolish to make such an assumption.

Re Northwind, you are being far from logical. You are claiming divergence from the UK by failing to acknowledge the bits of the UK that are actually allied with your political opinions. Why not?

Scotland is not different to the rest of the UK, it’s just different to parts of it.

Maybe they’re just Canny

they can wait to see the results of the referendum, look at what sort of figures they got from the islands, and if there is a significant difference from the mainland then based on that they can claim a mandate to hold their own local ‘advisory’ blocking referendum while iS/rUK negotiations are ongoing

an islands referendum result would be difficult for rUK parliament to ignore in the negotiations/drafting of an Scottish independence bill

That is only one example though aracer. It would have to be done with other minerals also. Would Scotland have rights over North of England fracking? Would fishing income have to be split over similar lines? I know these are small compared to oil, however it seems logical to split by geography.

Yes of course Scotland would get its 10% share of any issued licenses for English fracking. I expect rUK would also be happy to split fisheries that way, though the Spanish probably have a say in that!

molgrips – Member

Re Northwind, you are being far from logical. You are claiming divergence from the UK by failing to acknowledge the bits of the UK that are actually allied with your political opinions. Why not?

Because it doesn’t make any practical difference. The fact that other parts of the UK are in the same boat doesn’t make it any better- Scotland isn’t alone in this, we’re just alone in having the ability and the desire to do anything about it.

The more you read the discussions on here the more you wonder what it is going to cost to sort it all out if the yes vote win. UK tax payers will have to pay for all this for years to come, that means you, me and everyone else, whatever country of the UK you come from. All because 2 million people out of 64 million feel they are being oppressed and are demanding there freedom from the oppressors. Equality and fairness keeps being mention, I don’t see any fairness when we all end up having to pay for this but the vast majority have not had the opportunity to vote on it because we live in England or some other part of the UK. The way you listen to Alex Salmond talk you would think it’s the few plucky Scots against all those nasty English, has he forgotten that 50% of Scottish voters don’t want Scotland to break away from the Union.

It makes a difference in the merit of your point, which is based on false reasoning.

People keep saying it’s not about nationalism, but I keep proving it is.

molgrips – Member

It makes a difference in the merit of your point, which is based on false reasoning.

Why do you think it makes a difference that some other parts of the UK also vote differently to the UK as a whole? It’s all lost in the big picture- which is exactly the problem.

Scotland would get its 10% share of any issued licenses for English fracking. I expect rUK would also be happy to split fisheries that way

I am sure they would be happy to continue to take iS resources afterwards but it is never going to happen and I assume you are not being serious.

Haven’t heard much about this issue recently did they change their minds?
They whole thing was made up in the first place, if there was a genuine movement up there you’d of heard about it.

Worth reading what the leaders of Shetland and Orkney have already publicly said about the matter…

Their residents have traditionally been extremely hostile to Scottish independence and preferred Westminster government to that from Holyrood. They were part of Norway, not Scotland, until the late 15th century.
The SNP has previously recognised the islands’ right to decide their own future but Nicola Sturgeon, the Deputy First Minister, recently angered residents by stating this was wrong because they are “not a nation”.
Asked whether Shetlanders and Orcadians would accept a vote for separation in the referendum, Mr Scott told the BBC’s Sunday Politics show: “Who knows?”
The former Scottish Lib Dem leader highlighted Mr Salmond’s claim over North Sea oil, adding: “If it’s a geographical share of oil and gas you’re after, I think Orkney and Shetland have a pretty big stake in that debate too.
“I think we have some pretty good (bargaining) chips to play and those are the ones the people of the islands should decide how they want to play in these coming years.”
Sullom Voe, one of the largest oil and liquefied gas terminals in Europe, lies off Shetland’s coastline and a 1974 legislative settlement provides it with a nest egg called the Reserve Fund, which is now worth around £650 million.
The paper, written by Mr Scott and Liam McArthur, his Orkney counterpart, said the islands “have always been and remain sceptical of Scottish central belt rule”.
The risk posed by the referendum is that the wishes of around 42,500 Shetlanders and Orcadians are drowned out by the millions of people living in and around Glasgow and Edinburgh, it argued.
Among their options is to seek “enhanced powers or independence from Scotland if Scotland were to vote for independence but the northern isles voted no,” it said, citing the SNP’s previous support for self-determination.
Another is to give the islanders “enhanced constitutional and tax status” within the UK, along the lines of the Faroes, a self-governing dependency of Denmark.
Referring to Miss Sturgeon’s comments, it said the islands’ claim on North Sea oil “certainly cannot be dismissed as irrelevant by the Deputy First Minister simply because it is an inconvenience to the case that nationalists wish to prosecute.”

It’s like a bloody rollercoaster ride![/url]

Not seen that Shetland/Orkney thing before.

ZOMFG what a bunch of **** hypocrites! Seriously!

Two days to go.

Some people here are get worked up like the fat boy having to give back the stolen cake… 🙂

Can anyone find a source for that “not a nation” comment? Genuinely curious, if I google “Not a nation” and and “nicola sturgeon” all I get is a handful of hits all of which use the exact same 3 words, with no source or context. Pretty unusual that.

Can anyone find a source for that “not a nation” comment? Genuinely curious

According to the publication on Tavish Scott’s website it was in answer to a question to NS at a Times conference in Edinburgh March 2012.

How could the No camp have misses this beauty?

Worth reading what the leaders of Shetland and Orkney have already publicly said about the matter…

Hardly surprising that Tavish Scott was (is?) trying to push this angle, there’s been very little written about since 2012 as there is no movement. If there was, we’d know about it and of course they’d be free to do whatever they want. Stay, go, I’m all for it. But trying to pass off a 2 year old article with little to no evidence of anything isn’t worthy of debate.

Original article

Because the paper is from March Molly and as noted numerous times today [ and when we discussed it previously] it is clutching at straws for the reasons mentioned

Molly you are treating a newspaper story in the Torygraph as if it is a true depiction of facts
That is foolish and naive.

Molly you are treating a newspaper story in the Torygraph as if it is a true depiction of facts
That is foolish and naive.

Good advice, that. Telegraph is a Mail for the middle-classes – seems to delight in taking the negative side of the story…

I’d not realised it was a 2-year-old article but I still think the quotes from the Shetlands leader are worth thinking about…. whether there’s a yes or a no, I suspect there’s all kinds of interested parties in Scotland and rUK (or indeed the UK if it still exists!) who have hitherto remained silent, who’ll come out of the woodwork when they realise what they have to lose or gain by the result…

The Shetland/Orkney comments are the natural progression of the democracy discussion. If anyone is to be wealthy from Oil why not Shetland/Orkney. There is no oil in Glasgow and Edinburgh and I could imagine the rural island dwellers don;t care much for the financiers in Edinburgh or the industrialsits in Glasgow.

I would expect an independent Scotland to have all the rights to Oil and Gas discovered in the future in their agreed waters. I would expect the UK to all the rights to fracking in the UK.

JY I think this is the point on the known oil/gas – it’s been sold to/by the UK now and in the future and the division would thus be by population.

Another piece from Quebec’s perspective/experience (don’t think it’s been posted, perhaps different than prior pieces from Quebec seperatists)

An Open Letter to Scotland[/url]

Molly you are treating a newspaper story in the Torygraph as if it is a true depiction of facts

Not really, I am simply responding to what I read and expressing surprise that this has not been capitalised on.

If I went around telling other people then maybe 🙂 however I am too cautious for that.

It does raise a good point though. Is there a regional split in yes/no votes? If so, let the no regions stay in the UK. But wait, you couldn’t possibly split up a country could you?

And here’s a piece from Australia 🙂

http://m.canberratimes.com.au/comment/scotland-must-brave-independence-20140911-10fbir.html

JY I think this is the point on the known oil/gas – it’s been sold to/by the UK now and in the future and the division would thus be by population.

I assume that access to the fields has been sold not the oil – as they do not know what is there they cannot sell it. I do not know how many times you need to be told this population split wont happen even your own “proof” said the 90/10 geography split in favour of iS had not been seriously challenged.
If you do not want to change your view based on the facts then please stop bringing it up as it seems pointless to keep doing this, your view is not even supported by your evidence. No one, credible, thinks it will happen as you describe

If I went around telling other people

thank god you did not post a link to the story then

May be wrong but wanting change based on one or two governments which will impact for at least one lifetime is a tad short sighted??

thank god you did not post a link to the story then

Why would I post a link to the exact same text as part of an argument?

The reason I posted it was to give at least some kind of source, as a starting point to discuss validity.

Give me some credit ffs.

To sum up a bit more on my earlier sum up……

It seems the Yes campaign is relying on those with nothing to lose and the No campaign relying on those with something to lose.

JY I imagine you’ve only seen an oil wealth distribution of 90/10 in Scotland’s favour as you are only reading the Yes material ?

As far as I am concerned the oil was discovered in the waters of my country, my taxes went towards the exploration and development costs and my government signed a long term contract for its extraction.

I would guess the contract is for a certain period and a certain number of barrels. I would also imagine the contract deals with the situation where Scotland becomes independent. The fact is I don’t know for sure and probably the vast majority of the people voting don’t know.

As far as I am concerned the oil was discovered in the waters of my country, my taxes went towards the exploration and development costs and my government signed a long term contract for its extraction.

Fair point Jamba, fair point!

jambalaya – Member
…As far as I am concerned the oil was discovered in the waters of my country…

Scotland is not your country. Even the No voters will tell you that.

Scotland is my country. It’s part of Britain, and I am British.

I imagine you’ve only seen an oil wealth distribution of 90/10 in Scotland’s favour as you are only reading the Yes material ?

do you want a spade- the only link i used was the BBC and you have had a full day to support your view and the only piece you did admitted the view i put fwd has not been seriously challenged
I think this because it is what everyone but you thinks.
It is geographically within scottish territorial waters therfore it is Scotlands after the event

clearly you will think what you wish your problem is no one else and international law dont agree with you

Hopefully the UK govt document will help you get it and I really wont discuss this further as your view has not traction anywhere

Managed to find a source yet have we?
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201213/ldselect/ldeconaf/152/15204.htm#note42

Division of Assets and Liabilities

34. All sorts of bodies and departments would need to be divided between the two countries including spending departments, the armed forces and even the NHS. Assets to be divided include natural resources such as North Sea oil and gas reserves. Liabilities include the UK’s public sector debt and other commitments including pensions.

35. What principles would apply to the division? Professor Rowthorn recalled that in the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921 the newly formed Irish Free State “agreed to assume responsibility for a proportionate part of the United Kingdom’s debt, as it stood on the date of signature”.[40] Dr Karen Henderson of Leicester University told us that in the ‘velvet divorce’ of Czechoslovakia into the Czech Republic and Slovakia in 1993 the general principle was that property should belong to the republic in which it was located, and that other assets and debt were divided 2:1 in line with the size of the two republics’ populations.[41] The ICAEW argued for a simple approach.[42]
Our witnesses agreed that shared physical onshore assets should be apportioned by location, although military installations (see Chapter 6) might need negotiation. Most also agreed that financial assets and liabilities should be apportioned on a per capita basis. As a starting point, the division of UK physical assets should be on a geographical basis. Financial assets and liabilities should be divided by share of population.

North Sea oil & gas

37. One of the traditional arguments for Scottish independence is that an independent Scotland would benefit from the bulk of the North Sea oil tax revenues instead of having to share the benefits with the rest of the UK. Professor Rowthorn estimates they would be about 5-10% of Scottish non-oil GDP.[43] Professor McCrone said that, on the expected geographical division, about 90% of revenues would accrue to an independent Scotland.[44] This assumes that Orkney and Shetland remained part of an independent Scotland; if they did not, Scotland’s reserves would be reduced by a third, with concomitant effects on tax revenues.[45]

38. These North Sea oil tax revenues are the economic bridge over which Scotland would pass to independence. Our witnesses expect them broadly to make up for loss of the Barnett formula’s effect on the Treasury’s block grant to Scotland—which allocates Scotland a share of UK public spending—on independence. But revenue from the North Sea is not assured. Output, and therefore tax revenue, is extremely dependent on the price of oil, which is set in world markets. Quite small reductions in price can make much of North Sea oil uneconomic to develop because of high costs. Therefore the benefit to Scotland of keeping North Sea oil will vary with the price.

Britain is his country. Scotland is part of Britain.*

I am voting No

* Note to molly. I might not be able to back you up on this one after thursday.

Scotland is not your country.

Whose country is it?
– Lived there on 2 September 2014?
– Didn’t live there on 2 September 2014, but do now?
– Lived there on 2 September 2014, but don’t now?
– Born there in 1967, but had to move away for work on 1 September 2014?
– Born in France, but in Scotland for work experience from August 2014 until December 2014?
– Never been there, but will wait to see how negotiations work out, and if I think I’ll be better off, I’ll move up there before independence day?
– Lived there when oil was discovered, but don’t now?

whimbrel – Member
“Scotland is not your country.”
Whose country is it?…

Ask the people who live there – they’ll tell you in a couple of days…

Scotland isn’t a country and neither is England, Wales or Northern Ireland, the United Kingdom is a country. I am British, that’s my Nationality. I suppose that’s one very significant difference between some of our viewpoints and the point I was trying to make. I really wasn’t trying to be controversial. I love the diversity of the UK but I don’t see a Scot any differently than I do someone form Liverpool, Manchester or Newcastle, we are all part of the melting pot which is the UK. Well at least for the time being.

Ask the people who live there – they’ll tell you in a couple of days…

Sorry, I thought you knew.

* Note to molly. I might not be able to back you up on this one after thursday.

I appreciate the sentiment 🙂

The term ‘Britain’ is going to become rather confusing if they vote Yes I think.

I don’t see a Scot any differently than I do someone form Liverpool, Manchester or Newcastle, we are all part of the melting pot which is the UK

+ one bloody million

jambalaya – Member
Scotland isn’t a country and neither is England, Wales or Northern Ireland, the United Kingdom is a country…

A country is a country if the people living there think it is.

If some high heid yins have done a deal with some other high heid yins and got a bit of paper saying otherwise, that’s their problem.

I see ‘Britain’ as a geographical term. Scotland is in Britain, just as France is in Europe.