Crosswords0 min ago
United Kingdom
Today we have another unelected numty in the House of Lords (Earl of Caithness no less) pedalling the myth the the SNP wants to take Scotland out of the United Kingdom.
The SNP position is that if the people want it then the queen would remain head of state in an independent Scotland.
The union of the crowns which brought about the United Kingdom would remain.
It is the union of the parliaments which would be reversed.
The self same numty also wants people outwith Scotland to have a vote in the Scottish Independence Referendum. I think we may have discussed this point before and perhaps agreed that it is no one else's business other than the people of Scotland.
The SNP position is that if the people want it then the queen would remain head of state in an independent Scotland.
The union of the crowns which brought about the United Kingdom would remain.
It is the union of the parliaments which would be reversed.
The self same numty also wants people outwith Scotland to have a vote in the Scottish Independence Referendum. I think we may have discussed this point before and perhaps agreed that it is no one else's business other than the people of Scotland.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by rich47. 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.
I’ll try again QM!!!
They are two different questions.
Question number one:
The Club Member/Scottish People/UK People ask themselves “Do I want to remain in the club/UK/EU?” Clearly that is a matter for the member/Scots/UK alone and nobody else should enforce their membership against their will. (Though it could be argued that given enough powers the EU might enforce the UK’s continued membership as the USSR did to its satellite nations, but that’s another story) .
Question number two:
The Club membership/UK people/European People ask themselves do we still want the individual member/Scots/UK to remain in the club/UK/EU. That should be a question asked of all the club members/all UK electorate/all EU electorate.
The Scots (principally the SNP) seem to think that only question number one should be asked. From their point of view I can quite see where they are coming from. But the matter of the constituencty of the UK is not solely in the gift of the Scots as they seem to think. What I am saying is that if the Scots want to have their say via Q1, then the rest of the UK ought to have their say via Q2. And that does not seem to be a remote possibility.
They are two different questions.
Question number one:
The Club Member/Scottish People/UK People ask themselves “Do I want to remain in the club/UK/EU?” Clearly that is a matter for the member/Scots/UK alone and nobody else should enforce their membership against their will. (Though it could be argued that given enough powers the EU might enforce the UK’s continued membership as the USSR did to its satellite nations, but that’s another story) .
Question number two:
The Club membership/UK people/European People ask themselves do we still want the individual member/Scots/UK to remain in the club/UK/EU. That should be a question asked of all the club members/all UK electorate/all EU electorate.
The Scots (principally the SNP) seem to think that only question number one should be asked. From their point of view I can quite see where they are coming from. But the matter of the constituencty of the UK is not solely in the gift of the Scots as they seem to think. What I am saying is that if the Scots want to have their say via Q1, then the rest of the UK ought to have their say via Q2. And that does not seem to be a remote possibility.
-- answer removed --
There was one question to start with, until the matter of member-out-chucking was raised merely to make a point. That one question is covered by your first answer above, which seems to be in near-complete agreement with my own view; namely that the inhabitants of Scotland ALONE are the only people whose view matters. (I do not agree that these inhabitants must of necessity be Scots, as you say.)
Are you aware that, if Scotland did become independent, the only part of the North Sea the English will have access to is the part where the oil is running short? (And yes, that takes account of the fact that the border-extension line runs sharply north-east.) Scotland, on the other hand, has north and west coasts bordering the North Atlantic, which is the very area Norway is currently enriching itself from and which will yield vastly more in future, I should imagine.
Whisky? It used to be said that there was enough money tied up in bonded warehouses on Speyside to settle the National Debt. Does England have anything equivalent to that...a product the world beats a path to the door for?
In Evan Davies's recent TV series called 'Made in Britain', it was made clear that - other than services - all we had to offer was arms-sales and the luxury market. BAe was hailed as our major manufacturer. Did you see yesterday's news? It is shedding thousands of workers. Nobody even wants our jets!
Are you aware that, if Scotland did become independent, the only part of the North Sea the English will have access to is the part where the oil is running short? (And yes, that takes account of the fact that the border-extension line runs sharply north-east.) Scotland, on the other hand, has north and west coasts bordering the North Atlantic, which is the very area Norway is currently enriching itself from and which will yield vastly more in future, I should imagine.
Whisky? It used to be said that there was enough money tied up in bonded warehouses on Speyside to settle the National Debt. Does England have anything equivalent to that...a product the world beats a path to the door for?
In Evan Davies's recent TV series called 'Made in Britain', it was made clear that - other than services - all we had to offer was arms-sales and the luxury market. BAe was hailed as our major manufacturer. Did you see yesterday's news? It is shedding thousands of workers. Nobody even wants our jets!
As far as Scotland’s self-sufficiency goes, Paragraphs 4 and 6 in this article are quite telling:
http://www.guardian.c...land.britishidentity1
As is this passage from the same article:
"In any case, whatever share of North Sea oil Scotland might finally grab, it would still struggle to be the new Ireland. Public spending is currently more than 50% of GDP and tax revenues about 40%, with the balance made up by other UK taxpayers."
The chart near the top of this article:
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article4884.html
illustrates that although revenues are high (because of the high price of oil) production is about as low as it has been since commercial extraction got under way.
Chart C1 on page 2 of this document:
http://www.hmrc.gov.u...te_tax/table11_11.pdf
Shows government revenue from UK oil and gas production peaked in 2008-09 and now seems to be in decline. I don’t know of the proposed developments you mention but I was under the impression that revenues are forecast to fall as production declines.
All very selective, I know. Personally I would love to see full independence for Scotland. The current situation is outrageous. As well the debateable financial considerations, there is the “West Lothian Question” where Scottish MPs can (and do) vote in Westminster on matters that effect only the English whilst their English counterparts have no sway of matters determined by the devolved Scottish Parliament.
It’s all a dog’s dinner and the sooner it is sorted by Scotland gaining full independence, then applying to become a member of the EU (and making their own contributions) the better. It would be interesting to see if they have any dosh left over to provide their voters with free prescriptions and university courses.
http://www.guardian.c...land.britishidentity1
As is this passage from the same article:
"In any case, whatever share of North Sea oil Scotland might finally grab, it would still struggle to be the new Ireland. Public spending is currently more than 50% of GDP and tax revenues about 40%, with the balance made up by other UK taxpayers."
The chart near the top of this article:
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article4884.html
illustrates that although revenues are high (because of the high price of oil) production is about as low as it has been since commercial extraction got under way.
Chart C1 on page 2 of this document:
http://www.hmrc.gov.u...te_tax/table11_11.pdf
Shows government revenue from UK oil and gas production peaked in 2008-09 and now seems to be in decline. I don’t know of the proposed developments you mention but I was under the impression that revenues are forecast to fall as production declines.
All very selective, I know. Personally I would love to see full independence for Scotland. The current situation is outrageous. As well the debateable financial considerations, there is the “West Lothian Question” where Scottish MPs can (and do) vote in Westminster on matters that effect only the English whilst their English counterparts have no sway of matters determined by the devolved Scottish Parliament.
It’s all a dog’s dinner and the sooner it is sorted by Scotland gaining full independence, then applying to become a member of the EU (and making their own contributions) the better. It would be interesting to see if they have any dosh left over to provide their voters with free prescriptions and university courses.
here are some more up to date info NJ - production is not in decline quite the opposite
http://www.independen...ing-boom-2021101.html
you may find this interesting as well, about a report that was made about the potential an independent Scotland would of had in the 70's that was made secret so the British government could keep to the statement that an independent Scotland couldn't be self efficient.
http://www.independen...-scotland-518697.html
"An independent Scotland's budget surpluses as a result of the oil boom, wrote Professor McCrone, would be so large as to be "embarrassing"" we could of had it all
http://www.independen...ing-boom-2021101.html
you may find this interesting as well, about a report that was made about the potential an independent Scotland would of had in the 70's that was made secret so the British government could keep to the statement that an independent Scotland couldn't be self efficient.
http://www.independen...-scotland-518697.html
"An independent Scotland's budget surpluses as a result of the oil boom, wrote Professor McCrone, would be so large as to be "embarrassing"" we could of had it all
It is interesting NJ that you say you want Scotland to be independent but come up with such negative views on the subject.
How much of Scotland's dosh did Maggie Thatcher, John Major and Tony Blair squander to keep themselves in power?
How many illegal wars did they finance with Scotland's oil fund which could have been financing a civilised welfare state looking after the vulnerable rather than supporting the ambitions of the few.
How much of Scotland's dosh did Maggie Thatcher, John Major and Tony Blair squander to keep themselves in power?
How many illegal wars did they finance with Scotland's oil fund which could have been financing a civilised welfare state looking after the vulnerable rather than supporting the ambitions of the few.
The reason why the island or Ireland should not be united is that two-thirds of the population of the province of Northern Ireland want to remain part of the UK. But then we return to the question of referendums on independence and so we travel full circle!
Of course those Prime Ministers squandered Scotland’s oil revenue on those adventures. But it was not the only money they spent. At the same time they squandered revenues from the labours of England, Wales and Northern Ireland as well. All governments of all colours squander as much money as they can lay their hands on. It’s what they do. It’s how they measure their activity. And it’s irrelevant to this question.
There is clearly huge friction between the constituent members of the UK and I believe it (the UK) has outlived its purpose. I can see no advantage in the UK remaining united (unless it is for mutual financial support, and there seems no agreement about who supports who and whether it is worthwhile). Best that Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and England go their own ways, have their own governments, raise their own taxes and spend the revenue how they like. Then there can be no arguments over who is unfairly supporting who.
I’m going for a lie down !!!
Of course those Prime Ministers squandered Scotland’s oil revenue on those adventures. But it was not the only money they spent. At the same time they squandered revenues from the labours of England, Wales and Northern Ireland as well. All governments of all colours squander as much money as they can lay their hands on. It’s what they do. It’s how they measure their activity. And it’s irrelevant to this question.
There is clearly huge friction between the constituent members of the UK and I believe it (the UK) has outlived its purpose. I can see no advantage in the UK remaining united (unless it is for mutual financial support, and there seems no agreement about who supports who and whether it is worthwhile). Best that Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and England go their own ways, have their own governments, raise their own taxes and spend the revenue how they like. Then there can be no arguments over who is unfairly supporting who.
I’m going for a lie down !!!
