Stuart Dickson Posted October 22, 2013 Report Share Posted October 22, 2013 (edited) If (and it's a big, but not impossible, if) we vote yes, I'd like to see a development fund set up using oil revenues to fund the research, design and trials needed to establish the technology and to ensure we have the skilled workforce and facilities to build (and export) the hardware. That will never happen because it will always be far cheaper to construct the hardware in Asia, Africa or Eastern Europe - unless of course you do as I suggested a while back and scrap the national minimum wage. I'd vote for that - but I'm not sure it would be much of a vote winner in Scotland. Edited October 22, 2013 by Stuart Dickson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluto Posted October 22, 2013 Report Share Posted October 22, 2013 Aye, because the shooglies overspent. Down to the unionist Labour party council, not the SNP government. Or Salmond, for that matter. Local Scots, then? : Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted October 22, 2013 Report Share Posted October 22, 2013 So that'll be the Yes campaign dead in the water then The Grangemouth industrial action and the action's of a billionaire possibly in cahoots with Home county support has created a situation , perhaps even set in motion a demonstration , that getting to an Independant Scotland will not be possible .....................??!! Jist askin like............... A bit worrying all the same when you think about it in broader terms............building works and Capital spend disasters The Holyrood Parliament ...... a shambles The Edinburgh Shooglies ............. a shambles The current Grangemouth issues...........a vulnerability that needs Central Government aid to resolve. Hmmmmm...................me no likeee You'll soon be able to add to that with the purchase of an airport in Ayrshire which has been making heavy financial losses for years now and the SNP's pledge to pour taxpayers money into developing the airport that no-one uses so that it's a nicer airport that no-one will use. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted October 22, 2013 Report Share Posted October 22, 2013 Thanks, SN, all good reasons for voting yes. Seriously? An Independent Scotland would leave us lurching between an SNP government who win elections with pledges to spend money then pull capital projects because they've run out of cash, and a Labour Government who have an obsession with spending and wasting money and running up national debt. And then you come back and ask the question why people think that an independent Scotland would raise taxes.....it would be f**king laughable if it wasn't peoples lives and futures we were dealing with here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salmonbuddie Posted October 22, 2013 Report Share Posted October 22, 2013 Local Scots, then? : Aye, all the smart ones are at Holyrood or Westmonster....never trust those east coasters! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salmonbuddie Posted October 22, 2013 Report Share Posted October 22, 2013 This was ll so civilised, knew it wouldn't last..... The Scottish Parliament has been guilty of being one of those early adopters. You know - the kind of people who just had to sign up to a £100 per month contract to get the first ever mobile phones despite their being no network coverage - or the kind of people who bought Betamax Video Recorders. The wind farms we have now are grossly inefficient and expensive. The technology is in it's infancy. It might not cost billions to decommission but it will cost £billions to replace the inefficient and expensive wind turbines that we have now with the latest, newest, bestest thing that someone else comes up with when the technology is a bit more developed. The investment in wind power has been a gross and devastating waste of money, and the really sad fact is that the whole process hasn't benefited Scottish businesses, Scottish technology or given Scotland a greener footprint since most of the turbines are being shipped in from Asia. The SNP should been booted hard in the balls for their insistence that Scotland spend so heavily in under developed technology - a technology that sensible countries have ditched years ago as soon as the reality was clear. Try to keep up, StuD, that will be us. And no, it won't, not even if it's not us, not when compared to the equivalent cost of fossil fuelled stations or nuclear stations. I spent the best part of the last three weeks in the US where it is being reported that in parts of Europe there are going to be major power blackouts by November 2015 - and Scotland was named as one of the parts of Europe most at risk with the lack of investment in traditional energy generation being seen as one of the principle reasons. Now whether it's true or not is open to debate - but you tell me what kind of damage does that kind of coverage in the National US media do for Scotlands prospects of inward investment from US business? The report went out across as number of news networks including CNN and Fox the day before the Westminster Government announced that a deal had been done to allow EDF to develop a private nuclear plant on the Hinkley site. November 2015 you say? There's a coincidence, has Project Fear been active in the US, too? Why would Scotland have a problem when it's a net exporter of energy, and will remain so for some time to come. Oh, the highlighted bit, that's why......where are the profits going? How much have they been guaranteed? Risible or laughable, which adjective shall I choose..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted October 22, 2013 Report Share Posted October 22, 2013 Oh hurry up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seaside Nipper Posted October 22, 2013 Report Share Posted October 22, 2013 Aye, all the smart ones are at Holyrood or Westmonster....never trust those east coasters! Aha, common ground then...........that's a start l Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salmonbuddie Posted October 22, 2013 Report Share Posted October 22, 2013 This has already been hinted by Bluto I think it was but Scotland couldn't be totally classed as "independent" even if the majority of the Country say yes because the Yes people are telling us that the plan is to retain things such as:- Great British Pound Lizzie Windsor as Head of State National Health Service Now, while I wouldn't object to these things myself and would be happy to retain the NHS if people vote "yes", stating that these are things that they are keen to retain suggests that the "yes people" think that they couldn't set up all of these things from scratch and have Scotland be able to run itself 100% without a helping hand from the big next door neighbour. Ireland effectively retained the GBP for 50 years after independence. Like Canada, you mean? It's already been replaced by NHS Scotland, that's why prescriptions are free in Scotland (and Wales, for that matter) but not England. Unless you're suggesting we do a StuD and replace the system with vouchers? Of these, the first two are sensible measures until we've had time to draw breath and figure out what we want to do differently - if anything. For me, the third is a given, a sign of a modern, civilised society which will never change. Unless the Tories get their way..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callum Gilhooley Posted October 22, 2013 Report Share Posted October 22, 2013 yes, stopped by Alec Salmond..................to bale out the cost of his shooglies The " shooglies " were opposed by the SNP in Edinburgh right from the start. They made several attempts to block the programme but were over-ruled by the majority Labour f**kwits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted October 22, 2013 Report Share Posted October 22, 2013 I know what they cost and what they produce. I work in engineering and deal with this so called dream answer on a regular basis. The amount of ground they have to make up to become worthwhile is, in my opinion, not economic. There is also the point which I made earlier, and Bluto reiterated, the blight on the landscape or shoreline. PS What are cars? You know about the current models which none of us are discussing. We're talking about research not engineering. As a rule scientists try not to engage installation engineers in research discussions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted October 22, 2013 Report Share Posted October 22, 2013 The only sustainable option for the future is to reduce our energy usage Oaksoft. We can do it easily and cheaply by providing a better telecommunications network, encouraging businesses to allow people in job who could work from home to work from home and showing them that by putting in place some very simple changes to their lives they will increase the amount of disposable income they have at the end of every week. Everything else uses up resources. Even the so called renewables need resources. You need a lot of metal to construct wind farms, you need to make the turbines, and then transport them to site - with each blade requiring a lorry of its own to transport it to site, after having been shipped usually from half way round the world. Then you need to cut down trees to create the space to install them. It's an absolute fallacy that wind turbines are some how eco friendly. We've debunked your tree cutting nonsense in another post so let's leave that. Expecting people to cut their energy consumption whilst thousands of companies introduce new gadgets every day is fantasy. Metal? They use metal for wind turbines? f**k me I thought they used liquorice and honey. I must have a look at what oil rigs are made out of. My mum reckons they are made of recycled cardboard but I'm not so sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted October 22, 2013 Report Share Posted October 22, 2013 You know about the current models which none of us are discussing. We're talking about research not engineering. As a rule scientists try not to engage installation engineers in research discussions. Research? Oh, guessing? Aye, because they don't know what the fcuk they're talking about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seaside Nipper Posted October 22, 2013 Report Share Posted October 22, 2013 The " shooglies " were opposed by the SNP in Edinburgh right from the start. They made several attempts to block the programme but were over-ruled by the majority Labour f**kwits. Yes cg, let's go with Edinburgh's shooglies..........an utter vanity project, irrespective of who what how, the fact is the dosh was pulled away from the very much needed rail link to Paisley International to plug a hole in the capex budget as much on necessity as on the grounds of east / west rivalry and signalled the end for Labour's Purcell........whatever happened to him btw ? Drugs, fake marriage, dependency issues and questions of sexual orientation......then the Priory. Hmmmmmm, news has been a bit thin since !?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callum Gilhooley Posted October 22, 2013 Report Share Posted October 22, 2013 Yes cg, let's go with Edinburgh's shooglies..........an utter vanity project, irrespective of who what how, the fact is the dosh was pulled away from the very much needed rail link to Paisley International to plug a hole in the capex budget as much on necessity as on the grounds of east / west rivalry and signalled the end for Labour's Purcell........whatever happened to him btw ? Drugs, fake marriage, dependency issues and questions of sexual orientation......then the Priory. Hmmmmmm, news has been a bit thin since !?! im not denying the fact that the trams have been a massive black hole for public finances, not even that money had to be found from elsewhere ,incl airport rail link, this is all true. What is NOT true is that they were "His" shooglies. That is plainly wrong. wouldnt you agree ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddiecat Posted October 22, 2013 Report Share Posted October 22, 2013 Great point. I headed south cos I wanted to be better paid for what I could do. No other Scottish companies could compete with my then employer. In London there were shoals of companies offering more, and also offering opportunities to work overseas. Oaksoft says, "Not a single person has provided a reasonable explanation as to why we should allow another country to control everything meangful that we do." He, like most people, ignores the HUGE ELEPHANT in the Scottish room. We live within a Capitalist system. THAT is what dictates most meaningful decisions in your life, not the Nationality of your neighbours. It's not 'the other country' that is to blame. It was Capitalism which dictated that I (and generations of Scots) leave my homeland in an attempt to find a better life. Blame Capitalism. That... And I had been seduced by the Swinging Sixties and ALL that London had to offer. (Btw, it's not England that distorts the politics in the UK. It's London alone. A lavishly wealthy city state more powerful than all else that surrounds it. All the regions of England - and Wales, too - suffer equally as much as the moaning Scots. And I guess the very thought of Scots abandoning/condemning the other parts of the UK to constant Conservatism is what really riles me...) yes i know it's london area that causes the distortion - thats what i meant by southern england. i tried it but didn't like it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddiecat Posted October 22, 2013 Report Share Posted October 22, 2013 Who is talking about higer taxes in Scotland? This is the sort of default to fear nonsense which is plaguing the debate. the snp stated that taxation will have to increase to fund independence Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottd Posted October 22, 2013 Report Share Posted October 22, 2013 the snp stated that taxation will have to increase to fund independence Did they? Being as Scotland's taxpayers currently contribute £500 per head more than they get back in spending I'd doubt it. With control of our own resources I'd guess taxes would be more likely to be cut. And anyway who says the SNP will be our post independence government? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddiecat Posted October 22, 2013 Report Share Posted October 22, 2013 Did they? Being as Scotland's taxpayers currently contribute £500 per head more than they get back in spending I'd doubt it. With control of our own resources I'd guess taxes would be more likely to be cut. And anyway who says the SNP will be our post independence government? yes they did scott they said taxes will have to increase or public spending will have to be cut to provide an oil fund, i'm not saying they would be the ruling party but they are the majority party at the moment so i base my thoughts on that, yes it could change but i personally dont think it will Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddiecat Posted October 22, 2013 Report Share Posted October 22, 2013 We have also produced a simple document contrasting what SNP Ministers say in public with what they are being advised privately. You can read this here and share on Facebook and twitter here Read the Scottish Government’s paper, revealed under FOI law, here. Looking at how oil money has been needed to pay for public services over the last 20 years SNP’s confidential cabinet paper concludes: “If the Scottish Government had wished to invest in an oil fund, without having to increase its borrowing, there would have had to have been a corresponding increase in tax receipts or reduced public spending.” If the SNP are being told this in private why can’t they just be honest with the Scottish people? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted October 22, 2013 Report Share Posted October 22, 2013 No offence to the people of Canada and Ireland but my concern is Scotland. What happened fifty years ago in another country when I wasn't even alive is quite frankly none of my business. Yes, we have NHS Scotland but NHS Scotland still operates under the original principals of the original NHS. A free prescription for everybody is one of the worst things they ever did. There is no reason why people who can afford to pay for their prescription should not be doing so. I wasn't suggesting anything like vouchers or anything like that don't remember Stuart D posting that but if that's what he thinks then that's his opinion which he is entitled to but giving vouchers out isn't my thing either. The facts of the matter which you seemed to sidestep a bit are that Scotland could not say:- "Right everybody! The people have voted for independence. We will now go it alone as an independent nation relying solely on our own hard work and enterprise and we will have our own currency (or the Euro) and we will no longer have Elizabeth II as our Head of State. This is it now people, we are what we are and we know longer have to answer to Westminster and Downing Street so we must make it work." They know it can't be done! They know they have to cling on to "big brother" in some way otherwise the Country will be finished! I am not having a go at the SNP in particular as I believe that no Party could run Scotland as 100% independent! If it could be done then they should show us how it could be done and be brave enough to say we don't need to have the Royal Family and the Great British Pound! But you know what - as I said it can't be done so they want people to vote yes, still have "big brother" to help us along and retain a Queen who isn't actually Elizabeth II of Scotland! All you seem to have here is fear but very short on facts. "It cant be done" - I bet your ancestors were fully paid up members of the flat earth society Oh and btw - removing the parasite that is auld liz (and her family) is nothing to do with the Scottish independence referendum, but I guess it adds to the fear and removes the debate...again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted October 22, 2013 Report Share Posted October 22, 2013 We have also produced a simple document contrasting what SNP Ministers say in public with what they are being advised privately. You can read this here and share on Facebook and twitter here Read the Scottish Government’s paper, revealed under FOI law, here. Looking at how oil money has been needed to pay for public services over the last 20 years SNP’s confidential cabinet paper concludes: “If the Scottish Government had wished to invest in an oil fund, without having to increase its borrowing, there would have had to have been a corresponding increase in tax receipts or reduced public spending.” If the SNP are being told this in private why can’t they just be honest with the Scottish people? Thats great...oh wait its actually a political statement by the bitter together campaign. Not sure why it needs to be "revealed" under FOI if you can go onto the official website of the Scottish Government to read it An increase in tax receipts is not necessarily the same as increasing taxation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted October 22, 2013 Report Share Posted October 22, 2013 Apologies, I thought I had focused on all of the post by grouping it as all being shorton facts and full of fear. You seem to think we all know something but are happy to keep what it is a wee secret? I'm happy to try and have a debate about the upcoming referendum based on what are, at the moment, facts as opposed to these "fear tactics and dark arts". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted October 22, 2013 Report Share Posted October 22, 2013 (edited) Sterling is as much Scotland's currency as England's so why the fuss about being linked to it especially in the short term. Independence has nothing to do with changing from having the queen as head of state to becoming a republic - ask Canada, or Australia, or anyone else visiting for next years wee jamboree in Glasgow I believe that a government white paper will be published next month - why not wait for that before spouting any more pish? Edited October 22, 2013 by TPAFKATS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted October 22, 2013 Report Share Posted October 22, 2013 Ireland effectively retained the GBP for 50 years after independence. Like Canada, you mean? It's already been replaced by NHS Scotland, that's why prescriptions are free in Scotland (and Wales, for that matter) but not England. Unless you're suggesting we do a StuD and replace the system with vouchers? Of these, the first two are sensible measures until we've had time to draw breath and figure out what we want to do differently - if anything. For me, the third is a given, a sign of a modern, civilised society which will never change. Unless the Tories get their way..... Yeah I was talking about replacing the system with "vouchers" You can call them vouchers if you want be the rest of us would call it bank notes and lots of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.