Jump to content
Cold?
Local
Radar
Snow?

Scottish Politics 2011-2017


Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: New York City
  • Location: New York City

    I still have to disagree in regards to the Scottish language. Like the Welsh language it is a callosal waste of public funds teaching it in schools (i have no objection to parents teaching it to their children like many asians learn Arabic) as it will never be spoken outside of a 200 mile radius and in a globalized world the future is a handful of languages (English, French, German - i suspect Mandarin will eventually lose flavor).

    Just because other countries doing it does not mean it is a good idea.

    Why bother teaching any languages then? Let the French and Germans learn English, save yourself even more money! Whilst you are at it cut out rubbish like music, no one needs to learn about music at school and PE for that matter, learn how to do a forward roll in your own time.

    Bilingual children learn a third language easier, and achieve better at their school studies.

    Do you know what is a colosal waste of public funds? The Scottish Office.

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Spotted a post you think may be an issue? Please help the team by reporting it.
    • Replies 30.9k
    • Created
    • Last Reply

    Top Posters In This Topic

    • Scottish-Irish Skier

      8874

    • mountain shadow

      1528

    • skifreak

      1435

    • frogesque

      1306

    Top Posters In This Topic

    Popular Posts

    And that ignorant, offensive, rant sums up exactly why the YES campaign failed  

    Good god. What a load of boarish spiteful bile from bad losers has been posted during the night. I actually dread to think how Scotland would be run if this is representative of how the yes vote behav

    I'm disappointed in the lack of grace shown by some across the net in accepting this No vote. A complete lack of any empathy and understanding as to why fellow Scots didn't vote Yes.   I personally

    Posted Images

    Posted
  • Location: Leeds/Bradford border, 185 metres above sea level, around 600 feet
  • Location: Leeds/Bradford border, 185 metres above sea level, around 600 feet

    Why bother teaching any languages then? Let the French and Germans learn English, save yourself even more money! Whilst you are at it cut out rubbish like music, no one needs to learn about music at school and PE for that matter, learn how to do a forward roll in your own time.

    Bilingual children learn a third language easier, and achieve better at their school studies.

    Do you know what is a colosal waste of public funds? The Scottish Office.

    I would love for them to speak English but nevertheless they are the second and third languages of the world.

    Music is an optional subject at high level (GCSE upward) but PE should be taught as it is beneficial to health and can invoke a competitive spirit.

    True but what i am saying is there are more efficient languages.

    Probably, yes.

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Leeds/Bradford border, 185 metres above sea level, around 600 feet
  • Location: Leeds/Bradford border, 185 metres above sea level, around 600 feet

    You seem very misinformed and verging on the unpleasant. You apparently spend your time trolling (e.g. when you visited the Scottish thread and the mods deleted all your unpleasant posts) but you stand quite alone in that respect on this forum generally and certainly do not represent your countrymen in this respect in my experience.

    Firstly, this thread is not intended to 'annoy the English' or Welsh, or N. Irish for that matter which you seem to think it is? It is a thread about Scottish Politics, just as there is one about Westminster (UK) politics. If we assume that Scots are as interested in the weather and politics as our neighbours are, then we can assume that maybe ~8.4% of the people are on this forum live in Scotland. I presume they have a right to discuss the politics of what's happening at Holyrood just as much as people living in Wales have the right to chat about Welsh politics as people in England do about English politics? Do you disagree?

    Lots of people from other parts of the UK have visited this thread and e.g., asked questions, posted articles on Scottish politics (including yourself), suggesting they are interested in the subject, even if only in passing. Nobody is forced to read this thread or contribute to it. I hope those visiting have maybe learned some stuff they did not know – that was the intention and remains so, in addition to people living in Scotland discussing local politics.

    The fact that lots of people in England, Wales and N. Ireland - as you note - support the efforts of Scots to improve democracy in their country and stand on there own two feet financially is very welcome. We Scottish supporters of independence wish the best for the people of England, Wales and N. Ireland too. And yes, why should the way 8.4% of the people living in the British isles are governed matter to much to the rest? Well you'd need to ask Westminster politicians that; they seem dead against it for some reason. I'd say Scottish independence would mean England losing a surly lodger and gaining a friendly neighbour. It seems many of your countrymen agree going by the polls.

    Please note that the £ belongs to Scotland just as much as it does England; as does the Bank of the United Kingdom (BoE). Unless of course you are suggesting Scotland is not an equal successor state and so is a colony? In many ways, that would be a very good thing as under international law an independent Scotland would thus start out completely debt free and could still use the £; which is of course a fully tradable currency. I presume you have not delved much into economics? Or at least as much as George O* who made the same mistaken assumption? The same applies for the Euro - any country can use it if they wish. Montenegro is an example.

    I'm not sure why and independent Scotland would have needed to bail out Halifax (the owners of BOS) nor National Westminster and other English companies run by these plcs? If these banks had been based in Scotland, paying corporation tax to Holyrood, then I suppose those funds would have assisted in this. You are aware that many banks were bailed out jointly by countries based on asset bases? Dexia is a good example.

    Anyway, I assume since you don't care much about Scottish politics you won't be visiting this thread again? Or maybe you are for some reason really worked up about it and will keep popping in and giving us your pearls of wisdom? I presume the former to be the case.

    *Note that I can have a dig at Dave and George just as much as you can have a dig at, e.g. Ed. For the moment, Westminster does still control many aspects of Scotland's governance. Maybe that is what is peeing you off? I guess you vote Tory? Or maybe UKIP? It seems only old school Tories feel they have a god given right to tell everyone how best to do things. Why is that? Even in England, where they are quite popular, most people don’t vote for them.

    In the past fifty years just three times has England voted for anybody over the Tories (1964, 1997, 2001) as a whole. The other Labour governments were mainly down to you guys and Wales.

    They may not get above 50% but then neither does any other government.

    I would also add that when people are shown policies without party affiliation we see time and again that people say they like those policies until they find out they are Tory policies. The Tories have an image problem but not a policy one.

    I would also add that it is the Tories (Thatcher) who have defined British politics..

    "My greatest victory is not that over the unions but over Labour in forcing them to move to the right". Thatcher.

    They did of course screw you guys over.

    • Like 1
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Odiham, Hampshire
  • Location: Odiham, Hampshire

    The problem I have with these trolls making comments on here is how incredibly misinformed they are. I actually have to read the things they write to check it is not tongue and cheek. But no they really are pretty ignorant. I wil say this once more please listen. The bank of England is the British bank not the English bank. Furthermore it is now independent and is not answerable to Cameron or Salmond. It would not seek permission from England to allow Scotland to use Sterling this would be between Scotland and the bank not Scotland England and the bank. Have we nailed this one! Secondly why does it bother you that Scots want a thread to talk about Scottish politics. If ye dinnae like it keep yer nebb oot. I have no interest in a lot of threads in this site but would never dream of just writing deluded uneducated crapp just for the hell of it. Now do me a favour if you must comment on things please don't regurgitate the likes of Alan Unionist Tory Cochrane from the Torygraph. Go and actually find out the truth cause it will not be in the English press.

    Oh and please go and check where the RBS liabilities come from. 90% are outwith Scotland as RBS is a global bank.The UK government did not bail out Scotland it bailed out a Bank who's headquarters happened to be in Scotland.

    Firstly, I'm afraid we haven't "nailed this one". The BOE is indeed the central bank of the whole of the UK, however if Scotland were to choose to leave the UK it is clear that it would have no right to keep the currency of the UK.

    Secondly, it doesn't bother me at all that Scots want a thread to discuss Scottish politics.

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Carryduff, County Down 420ft ASL
  • Location: Carryduff, County Down 420ft ASL

    Firstly, I'm afraid we haven't "nailed this one". The BOE is indeed the central bank of the whole of the UK, however if Scotland were to choose to leave the UK it is clear that it would have no right to keep the currency of the UK.

    Can you provide evidence of this please?

    The Pound Sterling is as much Scotland's as it is England's. Please explain how England will stop Scotland using the Pound Sterling after independence?

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Odiham, Hampshire
  • Location: Odiham, Hampshire

    Can you provide evidence of this please?

    The Pound Sterling is as much Scotland's as it is England's. Please explain how England will stop Scotland using the Pound Sterling after independence?

    It's not about "how England would stop Scotland using the Pound Sterling". Sterling is the currency of the UK. If Scotland were to choose to become independent of the UK, it would have no more right to use that currency than it would have the right to use the US Dollar.

    The rest of the UK (or if you like, the central bank of the UK, i.e. the BOE) might decide to allow Scotland to continue to use Sterling, but Scotland would not have the right to do so

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Lochgelly - Highest town in Fife at 150m ASL.
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and cold. Enjoy all extremes though.
  • Location: Lochgelly - Highest town in Fife at 150m ASL.

    May will be very important; the collapse of Labour at council level in Scotland - which appears inevitable - will change things massively. There is every possibility that those supportive of independence within Labour (they are there, but fearful of speaking out against London policy, as Patrick Harvie of the Greens mentioned recently in the news) will come forward, splitting the party into pro and anti-camps. The pro would survive and prosper, the anti would not. If Labour voters find their party (or an element of it) supporting independence, they will swing that way too. Glasgow, their heartland, has a habit of returning majorities for yes in independence polls.

    I see that the Brown criminal, aided and abetted by the McLeish criminal, are trying to stop that from happening! Photographed by the Central Fife Times playing footie with candidate ex Dunfermline FC Manager, Jim Leishman. I can safely predict, thanks to gullible Central Fife voters ,that he will, unfortunately, firmly plant his backside on that seat!!

    Edited by Blitzen
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl

    I see that the Brown criminal, aided and abetted by the McLeish criminal, are trying to stop that from happening! Photographed by the Central Fife Times playing footie with candidate ex Dunfermline FC Manager, Jim Leishman. I can safely predict, thanks to gullible Central Fife voters ,that he will, unfortunately, firmly plant his backside on that seat!!

    Yes, he's been doing rather well since he decided to stop working for his consistuents and go off on we jollies speaking at functions. Made 1.4 million so far. Ok, for his 'charity', but I would have thought it better he turn up for duty at the House of commons and e.g. champion the clean up of the MoD radioactive mess at Dalgety Bay in his own consistuency.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk...litics-17072715

    Tony has made even more - 12 million I understand. The party of the working man! Social justice, equality and all that!

    http://www.dailymail...5-000-HMRC.html (Sorry for quoting the mail but I just grabbed the first story about it on google).

    They did of course screw you guys over.

    Yes, Thatcher may have made a successful 'English' PM, but she was a massive failure as a British one. That is the challenge for a UK government; to 'Unite' the united Kingdom. That is always going to present a problem given that England is 10x the population of the second largest home nation (Scotland) and votes quite differently too it.

    I grant you that the Scots and Welsh Labour vote has stopped Tory victories on numerous occasions, but that's not down to voters like myself (SNP) who have never voted Labour and are against the West Lothian Question problem! http://cdn.nwstatic.co.uk/forum/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.png

    The way I see it is the result of the 1979 Scottish home rule referendum should have be accepted. The empire was ending and it was time for things to modernise. We might be lliving in something more akin to a federal UK now, more suited to the democratic wishes of all the home nations. However, the 'British' political establishment does not like true democracy unfortunately, and that includes Scots unionist parties too! It is the latter I have the biggest problem with; their primary interest seems to be feathering their own nests.

    RE the BoE chat.

    I am fine with Scotland being treated as a colony and ergo not having a controlling stake in the BoE/not legally have a right to the £ as this would of course mean an independent Scotland would take no UK debt with it. As a fully tradable currency, there is nothing the rUK could do to stop Scotland using the £ anyway.

    Sadly, the Treaty of Union has the seals of Scotland and England on it, meaning they are equal partners and so must share, as appropriate, both assets and debts according to the Vienna Convention. http://www.ilsa.org/...icmats/VCLT.pdf

    ---------------------------

    EDIT.

    Labour now voting against themselves. Its becoming farcical. Their utter hatred for the SNP (because the SNP are now Scotlands social democratic party, usurping labour) prevents them doing anything constructive.

    http://newsnetscotla...g-loss-of-wages

    http://www.bbc.co.uk...entral-17073340

    Stirling Council has failed to set a budget after Labour councillors voted against their own amendment, causing the motion to be defeated. :doh:

    ------------------------

    Good summary article here about what I noted earlier regarding how Europe forced the UK to improve its poor standard of democracy, forcing Westminster to allow Scots to acutally have a say in how their country was governed.

    http://newsnetscotla...the-labour-myth

    Scottish Devolution and the Labour myth

    ....Establishment hostility reached its sordid peak with the orgy of corruption that was the 1979 referendum. It is not the subject of this article and there is no need to repeat facts that we all know. Thatcher’s arrogant coup d’état in the face of a perfectly adequate majority vote similar to that of the 1975 EEC referendum left Scotland stunned, bewildered and disorientated. It took a long time for the Scots to collect their wits and for the reaction to set in.

    ....When the monitoring committee got round to the UK in June 1996 its report was politely damning. It dealt not only with Scotland, but also with Wales, and it undid the Thatcherite changes to the administration of London. Later additions dealt with other constitutional deficiencies like the method of appointing Scottish judges. The most humiliating of all was that it bracketed the UK in a group with Bulgaria, Croatia, Latvia, Moldova and Ukraine as one of six states having “major problems in meeting standards of democracy.â€....

    ...The Tories had stubbornly dragged their feet over the UK’s accession to the Charter of Local Self-Government, but then, in March 1997, a few weeks before the election that brought Blair’s Labour government to power, the Council of Europe pointedly spelled out the sanctions that would be applied, in a series of escalating steps, to any European state that did not “fully and swiftly comply with the basic democratic principles that are at the heart of the European Ideal.â€

    In plain language, get Scotland, Wales, etc. sorted out or be expelled from the Council of Europe in the most humiliatingly public manner – a step that would have had devastating international consequences, especially just a few weeks before the UK presidency of the European Union.

    As discussed earlier, this is why the release of Government papers on devolution have been blocked 'in the public interest'. The UK prides itself on being the pinnacle of democracy, but it is nothing of the sort. The contents of those documents would be utterly humiliating and would likely cause repercussions not just in Scotland, but UK-wide.

    http://www.scotsman....apers_1_2104336

    EDIT, seems there is a fair bit of Stuff in the National Library of Scotland RE Scottish appeals to the United Nations after the YES result in 1979 referendum was overruled.

    Memorandum to the Council of Europe (posted before, but very relevant) 1980: http://www.tsemp-c2.org/report/Document/01.pdf

    Edited by scottish skier
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: @scotlandwx
  • Weather Preferences: Crystal Clear High Pressure & Blue Skies
  • Location: @scotlandwx
    Posted
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl

    I rather liked AS's comment.

    Mr Cameron laid out the “emotional and pragmatic†case for the Union. But he also used a speech in Edinburgh to hold out the prospect of the Scotland Bill, now going through Westminster, being overtaken by further future devolution.

    Mr Salmond drew a unflattering parallel between Mr Cameron’s remarks and a promise made by the former Conservative Prime Minister Sir Alec Douglas-Home, before the 1979 devolution referendum, that an incoming Tory government would make a better offer to Scots than Labour. That pledge was later ditched by Mrs Thatcher.

    “We’ve been through this before in Scottish politics. What’s the old saying, ‘Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me’? Scotland, I don’t believe, will be fooled twice.â€

    More 'Jam tomorrow', this time from Darling.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk...litics-17086940

    We've heard it all before. There are plenty alive that remember how Mrs Thatcher started off her reign with a good old lie to the Scots (see pic below) - started as she meant to go on! Dave keeping up the good work!

    Scots voted Yes (52%) in 1979 but this was technically, according to Westminster rules (they've never been great with sums), a 'No' even though it was a Yes... :unknw:

    No jam of course anyway as British politics does not require you to actually carry out any manifesto pledges. After all, people only have the choice between two parties, so as long as both don't do what they promise, they're laughing!

    -----------------------------

    EDIT. The 1997 Devolution document plot thickens....

    http://www.heraldsco...ling.1329620642

    Anger at LibDems over Devo secrecy ruling

    LIBERAL Democrat ministers have been accused of hypocrisy after blocking the release, under Freedom of Information law (FoI), of cabinet papers showing early splits over devolution.

    Despite priding themselves on pioneering FoI, the deputy prime minister Nick Clegg, Scottish Secretary Michael Moore and other senior LibDems vetoed the release by over-ruling a judgment of the UK's Information Commissioner.

    .....But Attorney General Dominic Grieve, a Conservative and the Coalition's most senior law officer, last week used the "nuclear option" under FoI law south of the Border to veto any disclosure by claiming there were "exceptional circumstances" involved. The Sunday Herald has established the ultimate decision to use the veto was a collective one by the Coalition cabinet, taken after it had been briefed by Grieve – meaning that LibDems ministers were actively involved and supported it.

    So it seems the information commissioner did believe it 'in the public interest' that the devolution documents be released, however, the Government feels it is not in its interests so vetoed it. It would be so nice to have a government that acted in the public interest.

    post-9421-0-25773300-1329659710_thumb.pn

    Edited by scottish skier
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Leeds/Bradford border, 185 metres above sea level, around 600 feet
  • Location: Leeds/Bradford border, 185 metres above sea level, around 600 feet

    As i recall the 1979 was a No because the turnout was less than 40% and i actually agree with that. It is one of the many reasons i find union strikes infuriating when they get a turnout of about 30%.

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl

    As i recall the 1979 was a No because the turnout was less than 40% and i actually agree with that. It is one of the many reasons i find union strikes infuriating when they get a turnout of about 30%.

    The turnout was a respectable 64%, more than in 1997.

    http://en.wikipedia....eferendum,_1979

    Was very likely higher, but the electoral register was out of date and e.g. included lots of dead people. The latter were considered to have voted 'No' under Westminster rules.

    EDIT, I'll let you off though as I've read it reported like you said in some newspapers (think it was the Mail); presumably the journalists for which lack internet access. :D

    Edited by scottish skier
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent

    Yes The Bank Of England is actually the Bank Of The UK. A lot of uneducted people are not aware that the Bank was set up by a Scotsman. They kept the Bank Of England name after the Act Of Union when it became the bank for the whole of the UK. The same way that Westminster became the British parliament. It was formely England's parliament. So the Bank of England was set up and funded by the whole of the UK. Most of this is irrelevent anyway as the bank was dererulated by Gordon Broon and is now independent. Interest rates cannot be controlled by Westminster now and this will be the same position for Scotland and England post independence. Yes there is a lot of deliberate mis-information flying around and it is mainly English and Scottish Unionists who peddle these half truths. Personally I would rather continue with the present bank for a few years then when things stabalise join the Euro or set up a Scottish currency. They might not say it but that is the SNP's long term objective and it is perfectly legitimate.

    I thought the idea was to leave the UK and be independent. I accept I may have that idea wrong, but, surely, full independence means control of one's own currency? Oh, and trust me, I am no unionist - and I fully subscribe to all notions of self-determination - but if Scotland want to leave the UK, please do; but you leave behind everything the UK has to offer, too. Don't worry about us left in the union, either: we'll do just fine thank-you.

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Odiham, Hampshire
  • Location: Odiham, Hampshire

    I thought the idea was to leave the UK and be independent. I accept I may have that idea wrong, but, surely, full independence means control of one's own currency? Oh, and trust me, I am no unionist - and I fully subscribe to all notions of self-determination - but if Scotland want to leave the UK, please do; but you leave behind everything the UK has to offer, too. Don't worry about us left in the union, either: we'll do just fine thank-you.

    I wouldn't bother Boar. November either doesn't get it, in which case he should have our sympathies, or he chooses not to get it, in which case you are wasting your breath.

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent

    I wouldn't bother Boar. November either doesn't get it, in which case he should have our sympathies, or he chooses not to get it, in which case you are wasting your breath.

    It's not that, though, is it?

    It seems to me that the Scots want to have the best of both worlds. If they truly want to be independent - something which I fully support based on firm principles of self-determination - then do it. But you can't hang around holding onto sterling until it suits you; ignore the debt of the Scottish banks - which, I am absolutely certain, would be passed onto the ingratiated Bank Of Scotland in the event of independence. Oh no. The Scots want the union to take the dross, and to take the good bits themselves. That's not the spirit of self-determination in my view. As I said, I am quite prepared to concede that I am uneducated in these matters, but, that's what it looks like on the tin.

    Edited by Boar Wrinklestorm
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl

    I thought the idea was to leave the UK and be independent. I accept I may have that idea wrong, but, surely, full independence means control of one's own currency? Oh, and trust me, I am no unionist - and I fully subscribe to all notions of self-determination - but if Scotland want to leave the UK, please do; but you leave behind everything the UK has to offer, too. Don't worry about us left in the union, either: we'll do just fine thank-you.

    France, Germany etc are not ‘independent’? I think you are missing the point; the referendum is about sovereignty, i.e. Scots voting whether they wish to govern themselves or not, as is normally the case for countries. Issues such as what currency Scotland adopts, whether it stays in the EU etc are all somewhat superfluous to the question.

    I would imagine the rUK would be very keen for an independent Scotland to keep the £; would make life a lot easier with respect to, e.g. garages kept with a consistent supply of diesel/petrol, gas kept flowing to homes, the lights staying on etc. Certainly, hissy fits over currency would be in nobody’s interest; could do serious damage to both economies on a very short timescale if there were problems with the above.

    As I said before, I’m not sure I’d mind Scotland being considered a colony and so “leaving behind everything the UK has to offer†which would of course include national debt, i.e. Scotland would have no debt. However, as the UK is based on a treaty between nations, Scotland has a right to the £, a say with respect to the BoUK, 8.4% of the armed forces, embassies etc but also must take a share of the debt should it vote for independence. C’est la vie!

    I’m not sure there would be any reason for Scots to be concerned about the rUK, other than to wish it success. After all, it would remain one of Scotland’s major trading partners. A healthy rUK economy would be to the benefit of Scotland as much as it would be to people living in the rUK.

    Re the banks... That old chestnut.

    Halifax (took over BOS) is not a Scottish Bank and neither is National Westminster RBS. They are international plc's who trade on the London stock exchange and pay corporation tax to the treasury. Around 5% of assets are in Scotland = Scotland's share of liability. You can't have the best of both worlds!

    Edited by scottish skier
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent

    No Mr Skier.

    RBS are current regulated by UK law, but, under the terms and conditions of being in a contract therein are governed by Scottish law. The head office is registered in Scotland. It's a Scottish enterprise and in the event of independence we will transfer the debt obligations to your national treasury. Surely as part of independence you don't want to ditch Scottish business?

    That they pay tax to HMRC is because currently that's where ALL of the UK pay tax to. When you're independent, you can have the tax revenue, or, in this case, you can stomach the losses.

    Edited by Boar Wrinklestorm
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl

    No Mr Skier.

    RBS are current regulated by UK law, but, under the terms and conditions of being in a contract therein are governed by Scottish law. The head office is registered in Scotland. It's a Scottish enterprise and in the event of independence we will transfer the debt obligations to your national treasury.

    That they pay tax to HMRC is because currently that's where ALL of the UK pay tax to. When you're independent, you can have the tax revenue, or, in this case, you can stomach the losses.

    National Westminster Bank (London, England)

    Churchill Insurance (Bromley, England)

    Child & Co. (London, England)

    Direct Line (Leeds, England)

    Green Flag (Leeds, England)

    Coutts & Co. (London, England)

    Ulster Bank (Dublin, Ireland)

    RBS Securities (Stamford, USA)

    Citizens Financial Group (Rhode Island, USA)

    The Royal Bank of Scotland (Edinburgh, Scotland)

    Adam and Company (Edinburgh, Scotland)

    Once was a Scottish bank, now about as Scottish as McDonalds. Would have been a joint bailout of some form, just like e.g. Dexia (France-Belgium) if Scotland had been independent at the time. Unless you think the rUK government would have let all the above companies based there go under?

    If you think the bank bailout debt should be transferred, I presume you wish all the £300 billion of oil revenues to date be transferred back to Scotland at the same time to make things fair? I'd be ok with that but I can't see it happening; all a bit unrealistic/fanciful!

    Edited by scottish skier
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent

    I presume you wish all the £300 billion of oil revenues to be transferred back to Scotland at the same time? I'd be ok with that but I can't see it happening.

    No problem. However, I do note that you say "transferred back" I beg your pardon? The oil was discovered by the UK, it's revenues went to the UK, and Scotland is still part of the UK. How can it be "transferred back" ?

    The only reason HMRC has any say in it is because Scotland are STILL IN THE UK. Anything about latitude 55, by international convention, is under the jurisdiction of Scots Law [1] Based on this and not some hypothetical nationalist fervour, Scotland enacting it's oil rights will make it one of the hardest currencies in Europe. And with that you can retain your Scottish businesses - including banks registered above latitude 55 - ie in Scotland.

    It seems to me that you want to identify, from that area of the UK we call Scotland, everything positive that contributed to the UK since the enacting of the union, and take it with you. Sorry. Scotland was part of the UK. Scotland now want to leave the UK. Which is fine. Since RBS is IN THE UK, the UK treasury is holding it up. It works both ways. The UK won't ask for the money it has thus far spent in holding up Scottish Enterprise, but simply ask that you take it with you - the good, the bad, and the ugly.

    Thanks for your contribution, I wish you every success in the future. :good:

    [1] http://www.un.org/De...68_Order892.pdf

    Edited by Boar Wrinklestorm
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl

    No problem. However, I do note that you say "transferred back" I beg your pardon? The oil was discovered by the UK, it's revenues went to the UK, and Scotland is still part of the UK. How can it be "transferred back" ?

    The only reason HMRC has any say in it is because Scotland are STILL IN THE UK. Anything about latitude 55, by international convention, is under the jurisdiction of Scots Law [1] Based on this and not some hypothetical nationalist fervour, Scotland enacting it's oil rights will make it one of the hardest currencies in Europe. And with that you can retain your Scottish businesses - including banks registered above latitude 55 - ie in Scotland.

    It seems to me that you want to identify, from that area of the UK we call Scotland, that contributed to the UK since the enacting of the union, and take it with you. Sorry. Scotland was part of the UK. Scotland now want to leave the UK. Which is fine. Since RBS is IN THE UK, the UK treasury is holding it up. It works both ways. The UK won't ask for the money it has thus far spent in holding up Scottish Enterprise, but simply ask that you take it with you - the good, the bad, and the ugly.

    Thanks for your contribution, I wish you every success in the future. :good:

    [1] http://www.un.org/De...68_Order892.pdf

    What I meant is that the UK benefited from corporation tax from Scottish businesses but also got the oil revenues (the majority of people who work in the industry are Scottish BTW, like me); all of which go into the same 'British' pot which was used to prop up things both during the bailout and, e.g. during the ERM debacle.

    I have no problem with Scotland taking it's share of assets and liabilities on a fair basis, which, no doubt, would be split generally on a per capita share as appropriate for things like armed forces etc. Those parts of RBS, HBOS operating in the rUK would keep paying taxes to HMRC; those bits in Scotland to SRC(?). An appropriate part of the bank bailout debts would be attributed to Scotland too based on asset bases at the time of the bailout, i.e. Scotland bails out the subsiduary co's in Scotland and rUK bails out the co's in the rUK.

    I'm sure Westminster will be happy that Scotland retain the £ for a good while as the petro-currency aspect you mention and the strengthening of the £ that brings would be welcomed.

    And thank you for your contributions; I do hope people understand better the whats and whys about Scottish independence from reading this thread. As noted, I wish the rUK well too. My interest in independence is simply one about how exactly my country is governed. Voting for independence is no different from voting for the e.g. conservative party; both are simply exercising an individuals right to have a say in how things are run democratically.

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent

    And thank you for your contributions; I do hope people understand better the whats and whys about Scottish independence from reading this thread. As noted, I wish the rUK well too. My interest in independence is simply one about how exactly my country is governed. Voting for independence is no different from voting for the e.g. conservative party; both are simply exercising an individuals right to have a say in how things are run democratically.

    No problems - and we end up where we started: a people have a complete and inalienable right to self-determination. Based on that principle alone, who can argue against Scotland voting for their independence?

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Leeds/Bradford border, 185 metres above sea level, around 600 feet
  • Location: Leeds/Bradford border, 185 metres above sea level, around 600 feet

    I actually find it more likely that RBS will simply move to England upon independence given that the UK owns 80% of RBS and Scotland makes up less than 10% of the UK.

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl

    I actually find it more likely that RBS will simply move to England upon independence given that the UK owns 80% of RBS and Scotland makes up less than 10% of the UK.

    You might find a lot of Scots would like that idea!

    There is less than 10% of it in Scotland assets-wise anyway; only around 5% I understand (the RBS Gogarburn Headquarters). That's why it was bailed out by the UK; it is mainly an English/international bank just with headquarters here. Most activity is in the city of London. If it had been a Scottish bank, it would have been carved up/flogged off/bits closed down like the Dunfermline Building Society was.

    I guess where they keep the headquarters would depend on corporation tax levels, business rates etc and whether it felt it best to sell said headquarters (which it paid a lot of money for only recently) and buy a new place + staffing considerations. Remaining in an independent Scotland would not absolve it from what it owes the UK government (and Scottish Government, as Scots taxpayers are guarantors too) and neither would moving to England. Might want to change name too if it moved - would look kinda silly calling itself RBS group if it no longer had a headquarters in Scotland!

    I guess the branches would stay where they are - would be tricky trying to move them!

    ------------------------------------------------------------------

    EDIT.

    Will the Sun - still the biggest daily in Scotland (although sales are plummeting) - come out in support of independence.

    I'm not a fan of Rupert Murdoch, and I know any move would be about newspaper sales (they could well rocket) and that's it, but could have a significant impact. The Sunday Herald has shown signs of being more open on the debate, but to have a major daily (which is the way to reach the older, traditional, typically less net-savy voter) turn would be something.

    One to watch anyway.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk...otland-17106365

    Scottish independence: Rupert Murdoch tweets 'Let Scotland go'

    The owner of News Corporation tweeted the message: "Let Scotland go and compete. Everyone would win." It follows a message on Monday which described Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond as clearly the "most brilliant politician in the UK".

    Note the SNP are the only major party to have released details of all meetings with the press going back to 2007, what was discussed and all correspondence with Murdoch/NoW staff etc. Clean as a whistle of course.

    Edited by scottish skier
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Maddiston , Falkirk, Scotland 390ft above sea level
  • Location: Maddiston , Falkirk, Scotland 390ft above sea level
    The RBS supposed bail out routine is a so called trump card for any unionist. However it disregards that fact that this is a UK bank with 80% assetts in England and 90% liabilities outwith Scotland. In effect it was the English capital of a UK bank which was protected. If it had been 100% scottish they would have let it sink.
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl

    Well, following the murdoch tweet and rumours that followed about the Scottish Sun (currently 340,000 circulation or 8.5% of the electorate) jumping on the independence bandwagon, it looks like this is coming true.

    The first edition of the Scottish Sun on Sunday looks like this:

    Posted Image

    With a distincty non-anti independence article associated.

    http://www.thescotti...er-18-2014.html

    SCOTLAND'S date with destiny is OCTOBER 18, 2014 — the momentous day when our nation will vote on independence.

    The SNP have never needed Mr Murdoch and don't kiss his butt. In fact they are used to this:

    Posted Image

    They still won a minority and became Scotland's government. This headline sent the sun into sales collapse too in Scoltand and they only jumped to supporting the SNP (but not independence) when it became obvious ahead of may 2011 that the SNP were going to win.

    I guess this move from Rupert is to stick his fingers up at Westminster as he's not too pleased with them. I'm not keen on the man but I'm happy if he wants the Sun to back independence. At the moment, all the papers are largely pro-union.

    Also, it is the non-internet savy, often older generations who still rely on the papers for 'news' (ahem) that are most nervous about independence. This will help sway them.

    -----------------------------------

    In terms of general summary of the current confusion and silly bluster from the unionst parties, Iain MacWhirter of the Herald sums things up quite well as usual; a voice of reason.

    http://www.heraldsco...leader.16827610

    "This must have been in a parallel reality. Where I was in January when I thought I heard David Cameron quoted as saying that giving Scotland more fiscal powers (beyond those in the Scotland Bill) would be "incompatible with Scotland remaining in the UK". This was clearly the reverse of what the Prime Minister actually meant to say, which is that Scotland can have any powers it jolly well wants, just so long as it stays nominally in the United Kingdom. I must have similarly mis-perceived the Scottish Tory leader, Ruth Davidson, during the recent Tory leadership campaign when she rejected more powers for the Scottish Parliament on the grounds that "enough was enough" and that devolution max was pure nationalism. This was an another illusion created by those unreliable senses. Like the Prime Minister, she must also believe that more powers can be handed to Holyrood provided Scots vote no to independence."

    No more powers, ok yes more powers if you vote no, but no details on what those powers will be. Ruth says one thing, Dave says another then contradicts himself. A farce would be the best way to describe the 'no campaign'. That and feeble attempts at 'jam tomorrow' which people in Scotland have all heard before and don't believe a word of.

    ------------------------

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17136209

    And then with Eric Joyce going beserk and bashing Tories for real in the house of commons, it looks like we might have a by-election on our hands. While one more SNP MP is not going to change the world, it would confirm how much trouble Labour are in Scotland and be another boost for the SNP. That and the wipe-out for Labour predicted for the May council elections.

    With respect to a Falkirk by-election, the swings seen in May 2011 and in the Inverclyde by-election (which Labour held by a massively reduced majority in what was a safe seat historically) would result in a comfortable SNP gain.

    Apparently a Falkirk Labour party member want's to keep Eric in place as they believe the electorate would 'Rather have a nutter than a Nat' representing them. This is how much respect Labour have for their electorate, i.e. none.

    http://www.glasgowsn..._on_Eric_Joyce/

    -----------------------------

    And of course unionist parties like to scare Scots with stories of spain vetoing Scotland re the EU even though spain keeping saying the very opposite.

    http://newsnetscotla...sh-independence

    Example of Peter Hain at it here:

    http://www.heraldsco...-bid.1328065548

    ----------------------

    EDIT.

    Looks increasingly like we will have a by-election on our hands:

    http://www.scotsman....joyce_1_2139760

    Labour tries to oust Eric Joyce

    ERIC Joyce’s constituency Labour colleagues will today demand that the troubled politician does the “honourable thing†and stands down as an MP – even if it means triggering a by-election

    While I imagine they would have liked to hold fort and keep him in place, they've little choice. He'd already been in trouble for drink driving, add in his unparalled expenses claims and this recent incident is too much.

    http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Eric_Joyce

    ------------

    EDIT. Unionist parties love the pejorative. I understand the ameliorative 'independence' is banned in the Labour party (e.g. http://www.labourhame.com/archives/2961) in favour of 'separation, separation, separation'. Here's a potential map of Europe post referendum indicating constitutional status of countries helpfully annotated according to unionist party mantra.

    Posted Image

    Edited by scottish skier
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Guest
    This topic is now closed to further replies.
    ×
    ×
    • Create New...