Quizzes & Puzzles57 mins ago
A question for Scottish ABers
49 Answers
On the Today programme this morning Alex Salmond once again spoke of ‘Scottish oil’ which, of course, does not exist; it is UK oil.
If the Scots get a referendum on independence it will have to be made clear to them before they vote exactly how much of the North Sea will be, by international convention, Scottish waters, and which oil rigs that will encompass (ignoring for the moment the fact that much of the infra-structure does not belong to Scotland anyway).
What I’d like to know is what Scots people imagine at the moment will become Scottish oil if and when independence comes. What are they expecting?
If the Scots get a referendum on independence it will have to be made clear to them before they vote exactly how much of the North Sea will be, by international convention, Scottish waters, and which oil rigs that will encompass (ignoring for the moment the fact that much of the infra-structure does not belong to Scotland anyway).
What I’d like to know is what Scots people imagine at the moment will become Scottish oil if and when independence comes. What are they expecting?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by chakka35. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
for a question directed at Scots, there seems to be an awful lot of input from the English.
My view as a Scot? Alex Salmond is an erse. When it comes to it, most Scots will not vote for independence. The rise in the SNP vote is as a consequence of having no viable alternatives. If the Labour or Lib dems could get their act together there would be a very different political map in Scotland.
In the unlikely event there was a split then Scotland would "own" oil in its part of the North sea. If oil is taken out of the equation and there is a positive flow of tax into the Scotland, that is to do with economies of scale. Much of Scotland is rural but still requires to have a road network, electricity and water supplies etc so therefore per person it costs more to provide a basic standard of living. I would also point out that these rural areas have a very high proportion of English settlers who have moved here to take advantage of the lower housing prices and thus priced many locals out of the market.
My view as a Scot? Alex Salmond is an erse. When it comes to it, most Scots will not vote for independence. The rise in the SNP vote is as a consequence of having no viable alternatives. If the Labour or Lib dems could get their act together there would be a very different political map in Scotland.
In the unlikely event there was a split then Scotland would "own" oil in its part of the North sea. If oil is taken out of the equation and there is a positive flow of tax into the Scotland, that is to do with economies of scale. Much of Scotland is rural but still requires to have a road network, electricity and water supplies etc so therefore per person it costs more to provide a basic standard of living. I would also point out that these rural areas have a very high proportion of English settlers who have moved here to take advantage of the lower housing prices and thus priced many locals out of the market.
cheers quiz - I really do think that the SNP are gaining due to the dissatisfaction with other parties rather than anything that they themselves are offering. When it comes to it, I believe that the majority of Scots (or rather "people living in Scotland") don't want full independence and that is nothing to do with oil or taxes.
For me the whole Scottish parliament is just a money pit. They could have achieved the same end by simply allowing the already democratically elected MPs in each of the UK countries to have a sub committee where they debated and voted on some evolved powers. That would have saved the construction and maintenance of the buildings and the wages and costs of running an entirely new layer of government.
Maybe that money could be better spent on our services and reducing our debts.
For me the whole Scottish parliament is just a money pit. They could have achieved the same end by simply allowing the already democratically elected MPs in each of the UK countries to have a sub committee where they debated and voted on some evolved powers. That would have saved the construction and maintenance of the buildings and the wages and costs of running an entirely new layer of government.
Maybe that money could be better spent on our services and reducing our debts.
My assessment of the Yae or Nae debate differs from annie's. In the 45 years or so that I have been conscious of the Scottish/English conundrum, I have sensed a steady and accelerating trend in opinion, first toward devolution and then (following that) the logical conclusion of independence - once you come to one view, the other arrives on the horizon. Those who now say they are uncertain or even doubtful used to be opposed even to the point of saying independence would be a disaster and was unthinkable, those who now are in favour used to have doubts. What is interesting is how many "incomers", mostly English, are unopposed and even strongly in favour.
Of course there are people who are born into a political view just like some are born into a religion, never to change or moderate it throughout their lifetimes. There will be people who will say Scotland could never survive as an independent country, even though there are many examples within Europe of countries that survive very well with fewer natural assets and similar or smaller populations than Scotland's. No amount of evidence would persuade them that an independent Scotland would do well, for them it might be an issue of religious doctrine. The people of the other small countries would not entertain a suggestion that they unite with a neighbour to form a UR (United Republic). There is plenty of evidence that smaller units are more efficient and generally better run and official surveys consistently show that people in small countries score very highly on all types of satisfaction/happiness indicators.
There are Scots who cannot wait for independence because they dislike both the English and the Union. There are those among the English who truly look down on the Scots and would welcome a separtation of Scotland but on both sides I believe these minorities will not make the crucial difference to the overall reaction. However, with many English there is the apprehension/fear o
Of course there are people who are born into a political view just like some are born into a religion, never to change or moderate it throughout their lifetimes. There will be people who will say Scotland could never survive as an independent country, even though there are many examples within Europe of countries that survive very well with fewer natural assets and similar or smaller populations than Scotland's. No amount of evidence would persuade them that an independent Scotland would do well, for them it might be an issue of religious doctrine. The people of the other small countries would not entertain a suggestion that they unite with a neighbour to form a UR (United Republic). There is plenty of evidence that smaller units are more efficient and generally better run and official surveys consistently show that people in small countries score very highly on all types of satisfaction/happiness indicators.
There are Scots who cannot wait for independence because they dislike both the English and the Union. There are those among the English who truly look down on the Scots and would welcome a separtation of Scotland but on both sides I believe these minorities will not make the crucial difference to the overall reaction. However, with many English there is the apprehension/fear o
.....many English there is the apprehension/fear over what Scottish independence would hold up, the implied rejection akin to that of a lover spurned, not something that has an equivalent in Scotland.
My belief is that if independence comes about then not only will the people of Scotland develop pride in having control over and responsibility for their destiny and an increased sense of belonging to their country (the English should not resent that) but both sides will benefit from the shock to the conscience it would bring. It seems to me that the same things afflict Scotland as the rest of the UK. These are divisive social structures and attitudes, outdated and creaking laws and institutions riddled with a patchwork of updates and alterations that resulted from a lack of clear vision and all crying out for radical reform, a chronic and paralysing dislike for and even fear of the slightest change, a sense of insecurity and doubts about which way to proceed, poor general public education, and quite simply too many people facing backward in life. Such a visible, symbolic change as Scottish independence would, I believe, provide something that the whole of the UK needs, a very useful and productive catalyst and impetus for a serious rethink and change, powering all parties toward the attitudes and values that produced the UK's heyday era(s). Britain used to be (figuratively) great but is currently stuck and declining. Previously it was the military strength of the (combined) UK that was the foundation on which imagination and initiative flourished but this is a different world we live in. Now cooperation produces benefits, not confrontation. I think Scotland and England would make very good partners post-independence and there would be very strong ties, stronger than between Britain and her former colonies. I see nothing but good times ahead as a result of independence, including Scotland making its own mistakes and learning from them.
My belief is that if independence comes about then not only will the people of Scotland develop pride in having control over and responsibility for their destiny and an increased sense of belonging to their country (the English should not resent that) but both sides will benefit from the shock to the conscience it would bring. It seems to me that the same things afflict Scotland as the rest of the UK. These are divisive social structures and attitudes, outdated and creaking laws and institutions riddled with a patchwork of updates and alterations that resulted from a lack of clear vision and all crying out for radical reform, a chronic and paralysing dislike for and even fear of the slightest change, a sense of insecurity and doubts about which way to proceed, poor general public education, and quite simply too many people facing backward in life. Such a visible, symbolic change as Scottish independence would, I believe, provide something that the whole of the UK needs, a very useful and productive catalyst and impetus for a serious rethink and change, powering all parties toward the attitudes and values that produced the UK's heyday era(s). Britain used to be (figuratively) great but is currently stuck and declining. Previously it was the military strength of the (combined) UK that was the foundation on which imagination and initiative flourished but this is a different world we live in. Now cooperation produces benefits, not confrontation. I think Scotland and England would make very good partners post-independence and there would be very strong ties, stronger than between Britain and her former colonies. I see nothing but good times ahead as a result of independence, including Scotland making its own mistakes and learning from them.
Well we have a lot of other natural resources Chakka and also if we did have our own government then companies would have t set up Head offices etc to run in Scotland thus creating more wealth. Not sure if that would balance the books but there would be more coming in. Im undecided. Think Scotland gets enough room to make laws just now and should keep it that way.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank63 mins ago
ChatterBank82 mins ago
Crosswords82 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles84 mins ago
