If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
What is the benefit for Scotland of being independant, do you realise HOW fucked you would be?
Why would they be fucked? If I remember correctly [needs checking], the intention of the nationalists [SNP] is to become Euro citizens asap. So the wonderful EU and the Euro will be their saviour.
Instead of England bailing them out, it will be the whole of Europe. <IMG SRC="smile.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
Additionally, the Jocks claim rights over the North Sea oil fields and believe that this alone will be their saving grace - conveniently ignoring that it is due to run dry in the next 20-30 years. With our current Govt lack of backbone [and the fact that most, including the PM, are Scots], we'd probably hand it over too.
Hell, I don't understand them either, I agree thatthey would be fucked. My post was partly sarcastic because of their European approach, and we all know how bad that will be for them <IMG SRC="wink.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">.
Perhaps our resident 'nationalist' can explain to us how things will work...
They wouldn't be able to get through the Chunnel, not with the tides of illegals coming the other way <IMG SRC="wink.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
Perhaps we could arrange a swap - one Scot per Sangatte resident <IMG SRC="biggrin.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
So they would be rather be ruled from Brussels than Westminster. <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> They haven't really thought this through, have they...
What makes you think a President would have a less luxurious lifestyle? Do you think George Bush would manage to run the White House (itself hardly a slum) if he didn't have any servants?
A simple solution don't give them one.... <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
The SNP recognises that Europe is a forum for independent countries to work together. It is certainly not a unitary, centralised state like the UK. Nobody would seriously say that EU states like Finland or Italy are not independent countries. But as part of the UK, Scotland has no Independence. There is no comparison between the centralist structures of the UK, and those of the EU, where member states co-operate but retain their sovereignty.
For instance, the Scottish Parliament, even were it to use all the tax powers available to it, would still only control 5% of its revenues. If we were an independent country, we would control 99% of them – everything except our EU receipts. There is clearly no comparison between these two kinds of union.
The fact of becoming independent in Europe doesn’t give any power away to Brussels – at present Scotland doesn’t have any sovereignty at all. In fact Independence in Europe gives Scotland a say in Brussels it has never had before. That will allow us to play our part in ensuring that the EU acts as a buffer to the excesses of globalisation, as well as stands up for the economic and environmental issues that matter to all of Europe’s citizens.
Though the SNP is a strongly pro-European party, like most people in Europe, the SNP wants national governments to retain control over many key issues like their countries’ taxation, spending, and constitutions.
Scotland is very well placed to be a powerhouse economy. We already have a larger economy than many other countries like Norway, Finland, Ireland, and New Zealand.
Not many countries in Europe can rival our wealth of natural resources and our educated workforce. Scotland:
- has the EU's 4th biggest financial centre
- has three quarters of the EU's oil reserves
- provides the UK Treasury with one of its biggest single sources of revenue - whisky duty
- produces 30% of branded PCs in Europe
- has almost half of its young people in full time post-school education (compared with only a third in the UK)
And that’s just for starters. We have some of the finest food and drink products and universities to rival the best in the world. We also have a globally recognised brand and identity and a worldwide reputation for integrity – key to our success in the 21st century knowledge economy.is number 4 internationally for fund management
Scotland’s problem is not a lack of resources, but that we are controlled by a London Government whose whole economic policy is designed for the needs of the south east of England economy, not focussed on the needs of Scotland.
Scotland is a wealthy country, but not a wealthy society. That’s because the wealth of Scotland is not used for the people of Scotland. And because we don’t control what happens to our own taxes.
As a result we are tied to the long-term relative economic decline of the UK. From 1st in the world wealth league at the turn of the 20th century, the UK is now only 19th and falling.
Scotland can more than afford Independence. Peter Woods, Senior Economist at Pieda said on 23-8-97, "There is no doubt that Scotland could be a relatively prosperous independent country". And Alf Young, Economics Editor of The Herald said on 18-1-97, "Personally I have never had any doubt that Scotland could survive and indeed prosper as an independent economy".
Indeed, the late Donald Dewar, Labour’s former First Minister, acknowledged Scotland’s potential: “Quite simply, I accept entirely that Scotland could sustain Independence. I accept entirely that Scotland can have Independence if it wants it.” (BBC TV's Panorama 17-2-92)
[ 29-05-2002: Message edited by: lil_kazzy ]
New Labour’s claim that an independent Scotland would be in serious deficit are undermined by the fact that Scotland had a fiscal surplus in twelve of the last twenty years, whereas, on those same Government figures, the UK has only had a surplus in four of those twenty years. By their own logic this would mean the London parties should argue the UK can’t afford to be independent.
This is not a serious argument, it is a cynical attempt to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt.
If you take away the politics and anti-SNP propaganda and look at the bare economic facts, the black hole is in the UK’s fiscal position, not Scotland’s. Even if we look at the Government's own biased figures it is clear that Scotland will be in surplus by 2003.
And Scotland’s surplus is just the starting point. It is economic growth that matters. More economic growth means more wealth creation and more revenue for Scottish public services.
But to do all that we need a Government responsive to the needs of the Scottish economy, with the economic powers to act in Scotland’s interests.
One of the most depressing things about the arguments used by the opponents of Independence is that they base their case on the outcomes of their own failed record and offer this as evidence that Scotland should not move on.
For example, Scotland’s non-oil growth rate between 1968 and 1998 averaged 2.1%, compared to 2.4% for the UK. If that gap had been filled our economy would be worth £6 billion more this year delivering £2.5 billion more tax revenues. The Republic of Ireland in recent years has averaged 10% a year. If Ireland can achieve this without the natural resources of Scotland, think what Scotland could achieve with Independence.
We need policies to place us at a competitive advantage to the rest of the UK and the powers to deliver these policies lies only with Westminster at present.
Scotland has it all in terms of potential, what we lack is the power to deliver.
Like he did:
OO-RAH!!
Isn't that right Thanatos? It's that damn cuss word I love to say! <IMG SRC="wink.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
Be careful of Brussels though...they'll have you painting yourselves blue again...cultural thing, right!
<IMG SRC="biggrin.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
1746. Culloden was a mess. For the moment we'll stick with more peaceful methods - and if it does come down to "A Culloden" Scotland will get a better deal out of it this time, because we won't be stupid enough to march for 48 hours solid before the battle or feed our soldiers nothing.
*frowns*
And yeah, blue paint sounds like fun. There's a heritage site quite near Aberdeen and at it there is blue face-painting for the children. <IMG SRC="biggrin.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
Let us hypothesise that Scotland is declared independent as of the 1st of June, 2002. What needs to happen?
Well, it needs to be internationally recognised as an independent state. That might involve the UN, which could take some time.
As a non-state, it can't do much. Certainly, it lacks revenue generation.
What next? Ah, yes, your trade, which is so important. Whiskey duty. Oil? North Sea oil? I don't think that the EEZ extends that far south to touch some of the oil, though, I'm sure that some of it is covered.
Well, I think there might be a problem there. For a start, you now have to compete with externalist trade barriers imposed by the EU's Schengen Agreement, as well as restrictions on movement of labour, trade and capital across borders, now including that with England. You'll have to set up your own bureacracy. Government systems, and legislatures.
That also takes time.
Oh, and you'll have to negotiate for membership of EU and WTO, or you'll be seriously disadvantaged in the world market.
In the mean time, I imagine that a considerable brain drain will occur to the EU, of which you are now no longer a part, let's not forget.
So, let's say that it's 2 years before you have the similar level of trade pattern that you do now.
Well, what happens in the interim? How do you fund this new nation-state?
Well, I suppose you'll have to increase national debt, which, oh, by the way, you don't currently have. You'll have to borrow from the World Bank, or the IMF, or private financial institutions, who may or may not lend you the money.
You'll also have to spend money to secure;
Military power - what if England decides to invade? Wallace used swords, but I don't think they're much good against the British Army Challengers, or the RAF's aircraft??? International diplomatic recognition - you'll have to establish a foreign office pretty damn quick, and put ambassadors all over the world, and try and convince them that you're not mad... Maritime defence force, to patrol and control your EEZ. And to prevent invasion from, oh, the Icelanders, or something...
Your remarks smack of historical reference - the President of Grenada made a famous statement that
"Grenada would not support independence, independence would support Grenada"
Mere months later, a coup forced him out, and his state is in debt. Oh, and it was invaded by the nearest regional superpower.
Grass is greener, eh?
Reality bites.... <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
[ 30-05-2002: Message edited by: DJP ]
You're forgetting a few fundamentally important facts.
Firstly, virtually all the companies that operate in Scotland are based in ENGLAND.
The oil reserves would technically be owned by England. England is the head of the UK, and as such we own all of the UK's resources. If Scotland is given full indpendance, what's to stop all the ENGLISH companies simply packing up and leaving, and for English warships and marines to take control of the oil reserves......
Hmmm.
It's all very good having independance, but independance without any of the basic infrastructure supplied by the parent country will result in the downfall of your country.
What's to stop England from blocking our airspace, stopping Scottish nationals using our roads and shipping lanes....?
Like DJP said, Scotland would start out from the beginning. It wouldn't be accelrated into the world theatre because it was once part of the UK.
And as for the "centralised government" I have a solution.
We grant Soctland independance, then we invade you. Thus removing Scotland altogether and just making one big England.
I'd love to see you try and stop us.