Scots Independence Referendum

[Disco Duck]

Why are all events always held in England and not other countries of the Union?

By always, I take it you mean the 3 Olympic games which have been held/will be held in London? In which case, the answer is because London in the only city in the UK with the size and scale to cope with an Olympic games. They are not awarded to countries - they are awarded to cities.

Football events are awarded to member countries of FIFA. Hence England was awarded Euro 1996 rather than Britain. We are a separate member country of FIFA at our own request, so we can't bleat about that stopping us from getting games. England has more compliant stadia than Scotland. Even the Netherlands has better stadia than us and it's never hosted Euros on its own.

The Commonwealth Games HAVE been hosted in Scotland, arguably a disproportionate number of times - twice in Edinburgh to my recollection, then the one coming up in Glasgow.

[Swampy]

by the time you introduced sole into the conversation, I clarified my position to be 'main', if that wa swhat you took from the original post then I apologise for my lack of clarity - now please stop claling me a psychopath or I'll hunt you down and gut you slowly .

I didn't say you were a psychopath. I said you were advocating a psychopathic position, which isn't at all unusual.

Will it counter balance having to pay a Scottish workforce of 100 guys 30,000 a year against paying a malaysian workforce to do the same job for less than a third of that? That's the dilemma.

In many cases no, in some cases yes.

Geographically we're hopeless, off all the major ocean trade routes, it's a b*****d.

Certainly the location isn't an advantage but if you look at places like Perth (Australia, not our pishy excuse for Perth) it is npot an insurmountable manager.

New economy jobs, there are huge subsidies on MEMS manufacutirng, renewable energy sources, new fuel types.... we need to get in a position where we are world leaders in something, that's the industry current plan, try and get ahead now, it's the only way we can get and maintain jobs that don't fritter away every five years....

And this is ONLY possible under the aegis of the UK?

Quite so, but then, the only ones I have to worry about are our lot. I think it does differ in scope world wide, we just seem to be sitting on a nadir of competency - albeit it's a 30 odd year nadir....

I'm not trying to defend our oaf-rich councils and the like, I just wonder how this problem is best combatted. If it's inherent in all countries then I don't really see it as a problem that can be solved as it's going to happen if we devolve down a Republic of Greenock or build up to a one-world government.

[Disco Duck]

This post has nothing whatsoever to redeem it. It is pish from top to bottom.

I have no comeback.

[xbl]

I have no comeback.

Its just going round in circles though. There is no point in advancing things further. Effectively, you don't care about the strength of Scotland, or any region, or any city. You have this curious attitude where so long as someone else is doing okay, we can sit back and feed like pathetic parasites. Thats like hypothetically saying yes, there is no work in Falkirk, but hey, Dundee has lots of jobs!

We COULD try and generate more work in Falkirk and boost the economy so that Falkirk doesn't need to suck in the profits of Dundee, that way Falkirk could be financially independent and there is no money to go round. But nah, Dundee is doing alright, so there is no need to make an effort.

Its a pathetic attitude, and possibly the worst out of any unionists I have ever spoken to. I am ashamed to share a country (Scotland or the UK, it doesn't matter) with a parasite like you.

[Guest Big_Andy]

We should stop believing in the fairytale that Scotland will wake up a day after independence and become richer. It won't. We'd have to work bloody hard to restructure our society with state responsibility. I personally believe in smaller states where my voice is more likely to be represented in politics, and I also believe that the mythical identity of 'Scotland' - if such a entity exists - needs a kick up the arse instead of being a glut of public sector shite and not much else.

Only independence, for me, would see to that.

That post sums up EXACTLY how I feel. We would take around 5 to 10 years to get structures in place to deal with Scotland being independently governed. During this time, and perhaps for a good while afterwards, we will be a struggling nation financially, but would EVENTUALLY be better off. That is assuming whoever we vote into government immediately after a vote for independence had the correct plans in place to invest the obvious income from fossil fuel extraction into much more longer term investments such as possible tax benefits for electronics companies for example. Attracting businesses to an Independent Scotland is a must, and the way to do it is to reduce taxation on incoming business. The flip side is, to pay for it all, the average joe would have to be taxed a bit higher than in the former United Kingdom. Things would eventually even themselves out, and if the oil and gas did run out, we should still have a country with stable employment and finances.

What worries me is who would best govern an Independant Scotland and plan for the future benefit of the country rather than short term financial bliss.............

SNP? Probably wouldn't exist long after independance, as I reckon they will split into their left and right 'sides', forming two new parties.

Labour? Most likely party to govern an independant Scotland in my opinion, due to their Socialist background (even though they have more or less ditched it).

Conservative? Think they would still be what they are now in Scotland. Insignificant.

Liberal Democrats? Not enough students available to vote for them to ever get into government on their own. Like the Tories, insignificant, just slightly less so.

Others? Far too insignificant.

Anyhow, who out of all the politicians in this country can be trusted at all?

[H_B]

By always, I take it you mean the 3 Olympic games which have been held/will be held in London? In which case, the answer is because London in the only city in the UK with the size and scale to cope with an Olympic games. They are not awarded to countries - they are awarded to cities.

Football events are awarded to member countries of FIFA. Hence England was awarded Euro 1996 rather than Britain. We are a separate member country of FIFA at our own request, so we can't bleat about that stopping us from getting games. England has more compliant stadia than Scotland. Even the Netherlands has better stadia than us and it's never hosted Euros on its own.

The Commonwealth Games HAVE been hosted in Scotland, arguably a disproportionate number of times - twice in Edinburgh to my recollection, then the one coming up in Glasgow.

Exactly correct.

The Glasgow Commonwealth games is an interesting one as well, given that it will create a number of capital and sporting investments in the Glasgow area.

How exactly will this concentration of funding help the people of Inverness, or Hawick?

[Death warmed up]

All Scots from Lerwick to Berwick share a comradeship and should stick together.

You seriously believe this?

[Swampy]

Indeed. However, I find I have nothing in common with people from, say, the Outer Hebrides. They've fought with people from my part of the world in the past, and they are geographically remote from me.

Why, therefore, should they be in the same country as me, but the English not?

That's what I've always found bemusing about the Independence argument.

I share little in common with my next door neighbours, never mind some farmers from Dumfries.

Why is it in any way better that a government in Edinburgh (that I may very well not have voted for) spends my money?

We can extend this argument the world over, though. For the record I don't subscribe to this "we're all homogenous Scots who share an identical history" garbage but as long as the line's drawn it makes sense to use it if it lessens corruption, advances freedom, and perhaps even generates wealth B)

It wouldn't bother me in the slightest if the peoples of Orkney and Shetland decided to go their own way.

[Swampy]

Exactly correct.

The Glasgow Commonwealth games is an interesting one as well, given that it will create a number of capital and sporting investments in the Glasgow area.

How exactly will this concentration of funding help the people of Inverness, or Hawick?

Hopefully not at all so we can stop bidding for such massive wastes of time in future

[H_B]

We can extend this argument the world over, though.

I agree. I want to see barriers come down, not new ones created. This is an argument we have rehashed a number of times though. Ultimately I don't agree with an increase in borders globally unless it is to protect an indigenous population, or to provide with secession rights a people being marginalised within a larger whole.

It wouldn't bother me in the slightest if the peoples of Orkney and Shetland decided to go their own way.

I suspect that may change the economic landscape somewhat though.

[H_B]

Hopefully not at all so we can stop bidding for such massive wastes of time in future

Absolutely. I have been very much against it from day one, as I was the Olympics.

It's just hypocritical to me to whine about Londpn's Olympic infrastructure being irrelevant to Scots then not accepting that Glasgow's Commonwealth infrastructure means f**k all to those of us not living in Glasgow.

[Swampy]

I agree. I want to see barriers come down, not new ones created. This is an argument we have rehashed a number of times though. Ultimately I don't agree with an increase in borders globally unless it is to protect an indigenous population, or to provide with secession rights a people being marginalised within a larger whole.

But we live in a world of nation states and until that dynamic changes completely then a little erased border here and there isn't going to make a difference. Just because the lines on the maps are in different places doesn't mean that they aren't as meaningful as ever.

Consider this: there are more nation-states extant in the world right now than at any time since the modern concept's birth with the Treaty of Westphalia. But would you say that state-on-state conflict is at anything even approaching its highest point? I wouldn't.

Also simply because borders increase in number doesn't mean that they increase in intensity. I think that the Baltic states in particular, being three small fragments, are now more open, prosperous and stable now than they were as part of the USSR.

[Wug]

So when oil runs out in the middle of the next decade, what then?

Where have you heard such tripe?

[Swampy]

Where have you heard such tripe?

Labour party meeting, probably.

[Disco Duck]

Effectively, you don't care about the strength of Scotland, or any region, or any city. You have this curious attitude where so long as someone else is doing okay, we can sit back and feed like pathetic parasites. Thats like hypothetically saying yes, there is no work in Falkirk, but hey, Dundee has lots of jobs!

I don't care about the strength of Scotland over the strength of the UK as a whole, except in as much as it affects the ability or me and mine to get a job that we like. So therefore I guess I care about the economic strength of the central belt.

Beyond that, I don't care whether a job is created in Arbroath or Aberystwyth. Why should I? Neither have anything to do with me. At some points in history some parts of a country will do well and support others, at other points that will change.

By your own argument, Glasgow has been suckling on the economic teat of Edinburgh and Aberdeen since the 1970's. Should we therefore make Glasgow indepdendent so that it is forced to sort out its problems? People who don't want Glasgow independent are parasites...

[Disco Duck]

Where have you heard such tripe?

Exaggeration, but the point is there - we are about 10 years past peak production in the North Sea and output will be minimal by 2020.

[Wug]

Look at BP's published Resources/Production ratio. We have around 40 years left, according to "official" figures but it's actually a bit more.

Also, I've never understood the idea that when the oil runs out, Scotland's fucked. The North Sea standards (safety and technical) are the basis for any engineering worldwide. "As an engineer", Renton should know that Scotland has some of the best engineering skill-sets in the world and some of the best experience to boot. Surely this will be put to good use with renewable energy production when the oil runs out?

We have the "windiest" coastal conditions in the world - that's electricty sorted. We have 300 years left of coal resources - that's fuel sorted. We have some of the largest and technically brilliant businesses based in Aberdeen - tha's our future sorted. Scotland has a terrific basis on which to build a successful independent nation.

I'm not too sure of my own politics on Scotland's independence as I don't plan to spend the rest of my life here but, from my point of view, "Unionist" pish is more pish than "Nationalist" pish.

[xbl]

By your own argument, Glasgow has been suckling on the economic teat of Edinburgh and Aberdeen since the 1970's. Should we therefore make Glasgow indepdendent so that it is forced to sort out its problems? People who don't want Glasgow independent are parasites...

No, we should try and strengthen Glasgow. You've actually just summed up the Unionist flaws rather well. You have admitted that Glasgow is not doing as well as other cities, and yet rather than want it strengthened, you've turned it into an attack on those in favour of independence. How appropriate.

[Disco Duck]

No, we should try and strengthen Glasgow.

Why not have it independent? Why is that any more ridiculous than having Scotland independent?

[Wug]

Exaggeration, but the point is there - we are about 10 years past peak production in the North Sea and output will be minimal by 2020.

North sea oil production reportedly "peaked" in 2000 at 6.4 million barrels per day. Next year we will produce this amount +/- 10%. Some estimates now say peak production, certainly East of Shetland, is 2014. We haven't even fully explored the continental shelf West of Shetland.