Can't Access My Hard Drive On File...
Technology5 mins 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.
Here's the argument distilled in to a map....
http://
the one comment I have is what are you going to concede on as at the moment it is all, take, take, take, from Scotland's perspective and we all know that this is not the basis of a negotiation? It may well be this attitude that is pishing off a lot of folk south of the border....
http://
the one comment I have is what are you going to concede on as at the moment it is all, take, take, take, from Scotland's perspective and we all know that this is not the basis of a negotiation? It may well be this attitude that is pishing off a lot of folk south of the border....
On the face of it I'd expect negotiations to change that maritime boundary, perhaps to somewhere between the pre- and post-1999 boundaries, or failing that some deal whereby the Scottish government accepts a greater share of debt in exchange for the more generous border. The thing about gas and oil is that the prices are volatile anyway so it can be risky to base too much policy on the money you will get from oil. It can go up as well as down, of course, but it would be something of a gamble and one that may not pay off.
Which, in a nutshell, sums up the problem with voting "yes", at least in the hopes of greater prosperity. It's a gamble where the risks/ rewards are unknown and unknowable. Better to base the argument on something closer to "we believe in smaller governments" (even in a world where the trend is in the other direction).
In turn this prompts another question. Why is Westminster worse for Scotland (where it has a representation of 59/650 seats = 9%) as compared to the EU, where Scotland currently has 6 seats out of 751 = 0.7%? Even as an independent Nation, Scotland's representation in the EU would be on a par with Slovakia's, i.e. not that much. Rather undemocratic, you might say, and yet apparently not.
Which, in a nutshell, sums up the problem with voting "yes", at least in the hopes of greater prosperity. It's a gamble where the risks/ rewards are unknown and unknowable. Better to base the argument on something closer to "we believe in smaller governments" (even in a world where the trend is in the other direction).
In turn this prompts another question. Why is Westminster worse for Scotland (where it has a representation of 59/650 seats = 9%) as compared to the EU, where Scotland currently has 6 seats out of 751 = 0.7%? Even as an independent Nation, Scotland's representation in the EU would be on a par with Slovakia's, i.e. not that much. Rather undemocratic, you might say, and yet apparently not.
Re your map, DTC, the line that continues from the last few miles of the course of the Tweed was - as the map clearly states - imposed by the Westminster government in 1999. However, I do not imagine that government's decisions will be relevant in the event of independence, now or whenever. The line will be decided by the international maritime authorities. Besides, it gives England a sea-area that stretches further north than Aberdeen! Given that that city is the hub of the whole oil game, that is surely absurd.
Accordingly, I share the view expressed in Jim's opening sentence in his 23.48 post...ie the ACTUAL dividing line has yet to be set.
Yes, Jim, the value of oil is at times unstable; however, it is in the North Atlantic that the future of exploration lies, not the North Sea. England/the UK/the Rump - as I choose to call what would be left of the UK - has no access whatsoever to that region. Even the presence of Northern Ireland is probably irrelevant, given that the Republic actually stretches further north than the North does!
THAT is what I believe to be the basis of London politicians' endless propaganda against a 'Yes' vote.
Accordingly, I share the view expressed in Jim's opening sentence in his 23.48 post...ie the ACTUAL dividing line has yet to be set.
Yes, Jim, the value of oil is at times unstable; however, it is in the North Atlantic that the future of exploration lies, not the North Sea. England/the UK/the Rump - as I choose to call what would be left of the UK - has no access whatsoever to that region. Even the presence of Northern Ireland is probably irrelevant, given that the Republic actually stretches further north than the North does!
THAT is what I believe to be the basis of London politicians' endless propaganda against a 'Yes' vote.
As QM says, it's all about Atlantic oil. The SNP wouldn't be thinking about funding independence on the basis of declining North Sea stocks, and Westminster don't want to miss out on it.
What the government should do is say, look we're all for independence, but we'd quite like to hold on to one of the North Western Hebrides.
What the government should do is say, look we're all for independence, but we'd quite like to hold on to one of the North Western Hebrides.
