Anti -Vaxxer Named Health Secretary
News0 min ago
Snp
Is the SNP finished as a party, if they lose the vote ?
What would Alex Samond do - enter the after dinner speech , circuit ?
What would Alex Samond do - enter the after dinner speech , circuit ?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Bazile. 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.
// Wharton If they lose the vote it probably won't be long before anyone up here will be able to afford a dinner.//
If they WIN the vote , it probably won't be long before no one up here will be able to afford a dinner
WHy isnt Salmond using the obvious vote winner:
vote yes - the Poond is safe with me ?
If they WIN the vote , it probably won't be long before no one up here will be able to afford a dinner
WHy isnt Salmond using the obvious vote winner:
vote yes - the Poond is safe with me ?
Orbiter, //What would be interesting is an opinion poll amongst the rest of the UK as to how they would vote if they were allowed to do so. //
Not the rest of the UK, but here's the AnswerBank poll:
http://
Perhaps it's time for another.
Not the rest of the UK, but here's the AnswerBank poll:
http://
Perhaps it's time for another.
It should be noted by everyone eligible to vote in the referendum that there are people who share NJ's views and that these people will be found everywhere, including in future UK governments. Therefore, the only way to ensure that Scotland is not kept back by the UK is to vote clearly and overwhelmingly for independence. Those voting no will at least potentially be voting for a sharp reduction in control over their own affairs.
Does this argument really hold, though, given that there are still several million people in Scotland? Independence still won't guarantee even that most people have control over their own affairs. Again, this is how our democracy works, and it will still work in at least a similar way, with lots of losers, no matter what the result is.
It's still in doubt, although looking likely to be a "no" vote. I hope very much that the "yes" voters are motivated by something stronger than a desire to kick the Tories out, or some such. That's what General Elections are for. And more than just Scotland lost out to the Tories in 2010 ... if they really are unpopular then 2015's election will see them lose power. Otherwise, however much some millions of UK voters might not want the Conservatives to remain in power, either in a Coalition or outright, that is just the way it works and those who voted for other parties have to lump it.
It's still in doubt, although looking likely to be a "no" vote. I hope very much that the "yes" voters are motivated by something stronger than a desire to kick the Tories out, or some such. That's what General Elections are for. And more than just Scotland lost out to the Tories in 2010 ... if they really are unpopular then 2015's election will see them lose power. Otherwise, however much some millions of UK voters might not want the Conservatives to remain in power, either in a Coalition or outright, that is just the way it works and those who voted for other parties have to lump it.
I think however much oil is left under the North Sea is hardly part of the point I am making, Wharton. In any case the oil is not Scotland's, it is the UK's. It was the UK government which licensed the exploration. Any government costs associated with its exploration and extraction were borne by the UK, not Scotland. Consequently any benefits that remain should be shared pro-rata should Scotland break the Union.
However, that is all very much by the by. The privileges I am talking about are those enjoyed by Scottish citizens when they have matters devolved to the Scottish Assembly which citizens of the bulk of the UK do not enjoy. The most significant of these have already been mentioned and I see no reason why the Scots should enjoy control over, say, its health budget when citizens in London and Cornwall do not. The priorities they set may well conflict with those in the rest of the UK and it is completely iniquitous that such local control is afforded to just 8% of the population. If Scotland is to remain part of the UK these inequalities need to be removed, not enhanced.
However, that is all very much by the by. The privileges I am talking about are those enjoyed by Scottish citizens when they have matters devolved to the Scottish Assembly which citizens of the bulk of the UK do not enjoy. The most significant of these have already been mentioned and I see no reason why the Scots should enjoy control over, say, its health budget when citizens in London and Cornwall do not. The priorities they set may well conflict with those in the rest of the UK and it is completely iniquitous that such local control is afforded to just 8% of the population. If Scotland is to remain part of the UK these inequalities need to be removed, not enhanced.
The Tories used to be a major force in Scotland's politics and one of the things that would have to happen, in the event of a 'Yes' vote, would be a general election there.
Clearly, the Scottish Tory Party would be a 'player' in that and they may well gain more seats in the Scottish parliament than the single ONE they currently send to Westminster. There's no real prospect of "kicking them out" as you put it, Jim, but being less affected by them would be no bad thing!
Clearly, the Scottish Tory Party would be a 'player' in that and they may well gain more seats in the Scottish parliament than the single ONE they currently send to Westminster. There's no real prospect of "kicking them out" as you put it, Jim, but being less affected by them would be no bad thing!
As I am sure you are aware, NJ, each independent country bordering the North Sea and North Atlantic is granted responsibility by international law for the contiguous area of sea out to a certain distance or to where another country's meets it.
England would have no such area other than the part west of a central line drawn roughly north-south down the North Sea and south of wherever the line yet to be agreed demarking the west-east border between Scotland and England will be. This is the very area where oil and gas finds are dwindling.
There already exists such an imaginary line, running directly due east from the mouth of the Tweed, as regards legal jurisdiction. If a trawlerman kills his skipper north of this line he faces trial under the Scottish legal system and, if south, the English. I imagine a strong case will be made that the same line should mark the two sea areas commercially as well. Even if not, and the line is further north, the northern areas are exactly where there is still lots of oil to be extracted.
You cannot, therefore, just dismiss the attraction for the rump of a ‘No’ vote!
Did the UK claim South African gold and diamonds were still ours after the country became independent because we had invested so much in the development thereof? I think not and there is no reason to suppose that will apply to oil in the Scottish sector if Scottish independence comes to pass either.
England would have no such area other than the part west of a central line drawn roughly north-south down the North Sea and south of wherever the line yet to be agreed demarking the west-east border between Scotland and England will be. This is the very area where oil and gas finds are dwindling.
There already exists such an imaginary line, running directly due east from the mouth of the Tweed, as regards legal jurisdiction. If a trawlerman kills his skipper north of this line he faces trial under the Scottish legal system and, if south, the English. I imagine a strong case will be made that the same line should mark the two sea areas commercially as well. Even if not, and the line is further north, the northern areas are exactly where there is still lots of oil to be extracted.
You cannot, therefore, just dismiss the attraction for the rump of a ‘No’ vote!
Did the UK claim South African gold and diamonds were still ours after the country became independent because we had invested so much in the development thereof? I think not and there is no reason to suppose that will apply to oil in the Scottish sector if Scottish independence comes to pass either.
It is a National Health Service, Corby (the UK being the nation). There is no justification for the budget used in Scotland being under separate political control to that elsewhere. It is not a question of how the "English" part of the budget is administered.
I am fundamentally opposed to devolution. There is no justification for it (quite the opposite, in fact). This current government is bribing the Scots to vote against independence by promising even further devolution which will almost certainly be at the expense of the bulk of the UK (i.e. England).
I am fundamentally opposed to devolution. There is no justification for it (quite the opposite, in fact). This current government is bribing the Scots to vote against independence by promising even further devolution which will almost certainly be at the expense of the bulk of the UK (i.e. England).
Oil that belongs mainly to the islands, whose preference it appears is to remain within the wider UK - and where did you get this exaggerated figure - the total bbl price or the net wealth that Scotland would gain as a share of PRT and Excise duties. On current (declining) production levels, your figure seems way excessive
1mbd x $40 = c £120 bln and then you have to discount it for the fall off in volume and the real value of money - and assuming (big time) no repatriation to the companies that actually produce it, so the net is closer to half this number to begin with.
1mbd x $40 = c £120 bln and then you have to discount it for the fall off in volume and the real value of money - and assuming (big time) no repatriation to the companies that actually produce it, so the net is closer to half this number to begin with.
actually quiz, for international oil division of boundaries (a treaty having been agreed for this way back, the exception Germany and Denmark, it is the median line between countries and for angled borders the actual angle of the border over the last 120 km or nearest, and that puts a lot of the Forties and nearby southern fields firmly in the English camp. Declining fields yes, could be valuable though for shale and also black tar oils - somethings that favours the English side if crude goes north of $150/bbl, which is not current thinking with the propensity of new oil on the market from the Arctic, Brazil and a 5% enhanced oil recovery on existing fields through new tertiary oil recovery, the likes of microwaves downwell etc........the latter equates to nearly 20% of extra oil on (large) existing fields
to explain that a little further as it may be confusing, the amount of oil that is actually recovered from a field is only about max 31%, that includes primary, secondary (use of gas and mud to pus more out) and tertiary (chemicals to lower cell cohesivity etc), the costs increasing as you go up the spectrum. New techniques on large fields like micro, couldincrease that to 35/36%, so on a 500mln bbl field that could be some 100 mln bbl recoverable (and then you divide by the flow rate per day, say anything from 5 to 70kbbd).....worth having though if the crude price justifies the extra outlay.....and wells do deteriorate over time if left shut in.
