The Referendum Thread

[Stuart Dickson]

Classic trolling post

Ignore the points that I made and add some bluster that doesnt actually mean anything.

There is a lot of good debate on this thread - not from you though. You don't do facts, only opinions that you cant back up. Troll off

Nonsense. I'm the person who brought up the subject of the legal issue regarding iScotland's admission into the EU and I showed what happened in the most recent case. Your posts are the ones that have been classic trolling posts - especially since ZA's posts in the subject. You've ignored everything he's said and attempted to deflect with a pathetic attempt at winding me up.

Fact is that independence has been holed below the water line and the SNP ship is sinking faster and faster every day.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Stop posting shit!

There hasn't been a case like ours previously in EU. The closest would be Germany and even that is still very different. Scotland declaring independence from UK in EU would be a first. It's not difficult to understand.

Why do you rate za's opinion anyway? He's a lazy, thick uni lecturer according to you...

I see you're still ignoring Scotland contributing more than it receives and ignoring Westminster planning to abolish Barnett and further reduce our pocket money.

Edited December 2, 2013 by TPAFKATS

[Stuart Dickson]

Stop posting shit!

There hasn't been a case like ours previously in EU. The closest would be Germany and even that is still very different. Scotland declaring independence from UK in EU would be a first. It's not difficult to understand.

Why do you rate za's opinion anyway? He's a lazy, thick uni lecturer according to you...

I see you're still ignoring Scotland contributing more than it receives and ignoring Westminster planning to abolish Barnett and further reduce our pocket money.

Oh FFS - you want me to "stop posting shit" and then you ask me a question with one of the most blatantly obvious answers. The reason I rate ZA's opinion on this subject is because he is debunking the notion that what the SNP have proposed in the white paper is going to be remotely plausible - a position I've agreed with all along.

As for your final sentence is that the new Natsi take on the story? Are you resorting to scaremongering? The coalition has already shown it's hand when it comes to how Scotland will be financed after it rejects Independence. It's been passed into law, been given Royal Assent and it's all there in the Scotland Act (2012).

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Glad you realise that its only his opinion. Granted he may know more about EU than you or I however others also have opinions.

These include Sir David Edward (he's a former EU judge & a unionist I believe). He reckons it's a question of negotiating an amendment to the treaties to form the basis of Scotland’s continuing membership.

this view was also recently confirmed by a European Commission official, who stated that Scotland can legally negotiate a continuation of its current membership from within the European Union following a Yes vote.

As for the Scotland Act, its irrelevant in the context of £3.5 bn of austerity cuts and the coalition signing up to cut or abolish the block grant. Even the english media are catching on to this and its likely to be around £4bn less than it is now. Sturgeon pointed this out last week to carmichael during their debate, he denied it and then she held up the Westminster document confirming it...

I know you aren't very clever with figures (you're admission when blaming the education system for failing you) but surely you can see that this amounts to 7.5bn less for Scotland.

Oh and there's also the fact that we currently only receive 70% in return for what we contribute to the westminster treasury. To keep this simple that means for every £1 that heads from Scotland to London only 70pence gets sent back to us "subsidy junkies"

Dont worry though, I'm sure HS2 rail line will still go ahead - good news if you work in the city of london or anywhere south of birmingham. Better together for London...

Edited December 2, 2013 by TPAFKATS

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Oh, and while we're at it here's a view on retaining the pound that I haven't noticed in the mainstream Scottish media...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-02/pound-bid-of-scots-nationalists-supported-by-traders-currencies.html

[zurich_allan]

Glad you realise that its only his opinion. Granted he may know more about EU than you or I however others also have opinions.

These include Sir David Edward (he's a former EU judge & a unionist I believe). He reckons it's a question of negotiating an amendment to the treaties to form the basis of Scotland’s continuing membership.

 

this view was also recently confirmed by a European Commission official, who stated that Scotland can legally negotiate a continuation of its current membership from within the European Union following a Yes vote. 

 

As for the Scotland Act, its irrelevant in the context of £3.5 bn of austerity cuts and the coalition signing up to cut or abolish the block grant. Even the english media are catching on to this and its likely to be around £4bn less than it is now. Sturgeon pointed this out last week to carmichael during their debate, he denied it and then she held up the Westminster document confirming it...

 

I know you aren't very clever with figures (you're admission when blaming the education system for failing you) but surely you can see that this amounts to 7.5bn less for Scotland.

 

Oh and there's also the fact that we currently only receive 70% in return for what we contribute to the westminster treasury. To keep this simple that means for every £1 that heads from Scotland to London only 70pence gets sent back to us "subsidy junkies"

 

Dont worry though, I'm sure HS2 rail line will still go ahead - good news if you work in the city of london or anywhere south of birmingham. Better together for London...  

Yes Tony, I tried to be quite clear, indeed they can legally negotiate from within, but to be successful in those negotiations they still require the agreement unanimously from all of the existing Member States.

Although indeed, it is a first time situation exactly like this, what isn't new is the concept that various already ratified treaties would have to be altered, and there is no argument that to revise and alter any treaty within the EU requires unanimous agreement from the existing Member States. To alter them without that agreement would actually be an illegal act in itself, and would not be allowed to stand under any circumstances. That is not opinion I'm afraid , it's factual.

Some of the issues are that the European Council, the Council (of Ministers), the Commission, the Court of Auditors, and the Court of Justice Judges would need to have their membership upped from 28 individuals to 29 for decision making procedures, diluting that power held by each State that little bit more. This makes gaining qualified majority decisions that little bit harder in contentious areas.

It would also result in alterations being required to the EU budget, something that was a painstaking process when the latest budget was agreed just a few weeks ago. For example, each Commissioner is entitled to hire their own small cabinet and staff, each Member State has individuals on the committee of permanent representatives etc. Before you know it, you're running literally into the £millions in staff costs alone, without a single penny being attributed to substantive issues.

Likewise, another small State in the EU Parliament is a problem for some of the larger States, especially where a qualified majority vote is required on any issue, as all it takes is for a few smaller States to group together and they can effectively veto decisions of the larger ones, even though those larger States may represent an overwhelming majority of EU citizens.

These are some of the political reasons why some States may not be so keen to allow another State in right now (not just Scotland, but ANY State). All it takes is one, and then as per what I have said regarding the unanimous agreement, the Internal negotiations would fail and we would be forced to apply through the formal accession process.

This is not to say it is all doom and gloom though! We could still apply to rejoin the EEA / EFTA, which would see us retain some of the benefits of EU Membership, albeit with no ability to effect policy to a great extent. However even doing that requires a successful application, which would also take time.

[FTOF]

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/where-does-scotlands-wealth-go/

Interesting article.

More info. in the comments link at top of the page.

Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp says:

03/12/2013 at 11:19 am

Brent crude according to the industry has a 40-60 year pro ducting life in the North Sea.

According to the industry body UK Oil and Gas (London headquartered) 40% of Corporation tax from North Sea companies paid to treasury was related to selling expertise and exploration services abroad and not simply just related to the North Sea.

According to PWC £340bn of Gov revenue has already come from the North sea but that there is £450bn still to come.

Oil will eventually run out the question is what plans do westminster have to reinvest in Scotland and in particular the North East to get us ready for that time? the answer is none and they have been widely criticised for not seeing up an oil fund to reinvest in the future as Norway have done and as the Scottish government will do.

The Scottish Gov plans to reinvest the oil monies in Scotland and not in subsidising the failing UK economy. They have a plan of re-indsutrialising Scotland in renewables and life sciences and making the adjustments required to keep our economy going as the North Sea revenues slow down.

The longer term plan is with the Yes side and the Scottish government and the failure to plan and therefore the plan to fail is with a No vote and the distant disinterested Westminster government.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

That's all well and good FTOF, but your missing something very important - we're too wee, too poor and too stupid to look after the oil and gas wealth ourselves, we need those chaps in London to manage it for us. Its like the Beverley Hills Hillbillies...

Of course the fact that it halves the UK balance of payments deficit and pays for wonderful infrastructure like the London cross rail and HS2 is just a bonus...

[Stuart Dickson]

That's all well and good FTOF, but your missing something very important - we're too wee, too poor and too stupid to look after the oil and gas wealth ourselves, we need those chaps in London to manage it for us. Its like the Beverley Hills Hillbillies...

Of course the fact that it halves the UK balance of payments deficit and pays for wonderful infrastructure like the London cross rail and HS2 is just a bonus...

You certainly are too stupid - and Independence would leave you too poor.

[bluto]

That's all well and good FTOF, but your missing something very important - we're too wee, too poor and too stupid to look after the oil and gas wealth ourselves, we need those chaps in London to manage it for us. Its like the Beverley Hills Hillbillies...

Of course the fact that it halves the UK balance of payments deficit and pays for wonderful infrastructure like the London cross rail and HS2 is just a bonus...

I thought we'd already over-invested in Scotland's infrastructure with the new Steamie... err... Sorry .... The new Parliament and a matching bridge for the perfectly serviceable existing Forth Road Bridge?!

These Jocks! Never satisfied.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

I thought we'd already over-invested in Scotland's infrastructure with the new Steamie... err... Sorry .... The new Parliament and a matching bridge for the perfectly serviceable existing Forth Road Bridge?!

These Jocks! Never satisfied.

As you know, you never invested anything in it. Scotland more than pays its way in uk and we build oor ane bridges and daft looking buildings

Obviously you've not noticed the infrastructure investments in Greater Lahndan

[saintnextlifetime]

.

Edited December 5, 2013 by saintnextlifetime

[salmonbuddie]

 

As you know , we had tolls , on relatively short bridges like the one at Erskine , meanwhile a significantly longer one on the Severn had no tolls. .

I think the Severn bridge has always been a toll bridge, snlt, it definitely is currently.

[bluto]

As you know, you never invested anything in it. Scotland more than pays its way in uk and we build oor ane bridges and daft looking buildings

Obviously you've not noticed the infrastructure investments in Greater Lahndan

As you know , we had tolls , on relatively short bridges like the one at Erskine , meanwhile a significantly longer one on the Severn had no tolls.

Methinks you sweaties protest too much.

London subsidises all the regions and, as there's about 7 times the population down here, of course there needs to be infrastructure investment. Insufficient, as you'll be aware.

There's always been a toll to leave England and enter Wales. Wrong way round, I feel. Like the northern border perhaps it should be the other way round to keep the natives in their places. :

Edited December 5, 2013 by bluto

[bluto]

You need to be quicker in this game, snlt!

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Methinks you sweaties protest too much.

London subsidises all the regions and, as there's about 7 times the population down here, of course there needs to be infrastructure investment. Insufficient, as you'll be aware.

There's always been a toll to leave England and enter Wales. Wrong way round, I feel. Like the northern border perhaps it should be the other way round to keep the natives in their places. :

on many levels but this oft quoted myth London subsidises all the regions is quite hysterical

[bluto]

Oops. Sorry.

Just realised I had posted again on a thread I bowed out of only days ago.

The shrill sounds of nationalism are too much to bear.

I'm pleased that top economist brain Salmond has convinced his acolytes that London doesn't spread its wealth around. However....

If it has genuinely been all Scots money that was ploughed into that Parliament AND yet another Forth Road Bridge, then there surely has to be some question about native Scots being able to manage their country and economy?

I was quietly almost proud, when I thought it had been a great con.

Edited December 5, 2013 by bluto

[Wilbur]

This whole issue is a conundrum to me. I don't think of myself as stupid or uneducated but my mind remains a fog in this debate.

I still haven't made up my mind about which way to vote in the referendum issue.

Genuinely, I do admire Salmond because he doesn't take any sh!t from the (so called) mainstream partyleaders. Unlike Joanne Lamont and Ms Davidson (I confess I can't remenber her first name) he doesn't have a boss at westminster to kow-tow to and check with that we are towing the party line with before having a fart.

On the other hand, I still feel that a Union is probably beneficial to all and eliminates the obvious risks involved in a small country going it alone. Maybe I'm hedging towards safe as opposed to speculative.

I need some guidance from those who are better-informed. Answers please from those with no political bias to influence their answer to my fundamental questions.

Why is it that the 3 mainstream parties favour the Union and oppose an independent Scotland. All the propaganda from "daan souff" tells us that Scotland and the Scots are leeching off the good people of Engurland so why would they want us to remain a burden to them ?

In particular, why would David Cameron and his Conservative Party be opposed to hiving off a region that (as a generalisation) hates the Tories and offers the Labour Party a handicap advantage of maybe 30, 40, or 50 seats at a UK General election ? If we are a burden why wouldn't he be delighted to detach us from the rest of the UK and make future General elections a dawdle for the blue brigade ?

If someone would care to clarify this one for me maybe I will be in a better position to decide which way to vote next year.

Thanks in advance.

[TediousTom]

Well my young fellow forum user's, well indeed.

Today the chancellor of the wonderful and all is well UK government announced that the state pension will not be paid until one reaches the age of 68 years (for anyone in there 40's and below).

As to why anyone would be stupid enough to believe the phrase "better together" is somewhat beyond me. Between them the Tory and the Labour have spunked our over taxed monies, jizzed it away, ejaculated it into the abyss!

I am just grateful that my younger family members are Scottish and as such hope remains for them for the United Kingdom has never been in such a poor state and I recall many a poor state in my time.

When Robert Bruce was crowned he wisnae crowned King of Scotland, naw, but created King of Scots proving that this land cannot be owned by any man but merely borrowed for the length of wan life span.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

68 and rising, with the aim of removing a fair swatch of the population from requiring a pension (look at average life expectancy rates for Scotland and areas in North of England).

His wonderful coalition are also just about to remove 800,000 people from fuel poverty. Sounds great until you discover that they are achieving this by redefining fuel poverty

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/800000-people-lifted-out-offuel-poverty--by-redefining-it-8976232.html

[oaksoft]

Why is it that the 3 mainstream parties favour the Union and oppose an independent Scotland. All the propaganda from "daan souff" tells us that Scotland and the Scots are leeching off the good people of Engurland so why would they want us to remain a burden to them ?

In particular, why would David Cameron and his Conservative Party be opposed to hiving off a region that (as a generalisation) hates the Tories and offers the Labour Party a handicap advantage of maybe 30, 40, or 50 seats at a UK General election ? If we are a burden why wouldn't he be delighted to detach us from the rest of the UK and make future General elections a dawdle for the blue brigade ?

If someone would care to clarify this one for me maybe I will be in a better position to decide which way to vote next year.

Thanks in advance.

It could be argued that those parties believe Better Together. It could also be argued that they fear losing influence across the world as the UK effectively ceases to exist in the eyes of everybody else. Labour and Lib Dem are rightly afraid of the RUK becoming a one party country. The Tories are more worried about losing their influence with the USA and EU risking the rebate and everything else.

Finally, Scotland has natural reserves which London won't want to lose control over such as fishing, oil and others.

IMO it's power and money which drives the BT brigade.

You'll have to make your own mind up on this.

For me this is very simple.

It's primarily and solely about who makes the decisions which affect Scotland and it's a no brainer.

Everything else is up for grabs depending on who gets voted in.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

It could be argued that those parties believe Better Together. It could also be argued that they fear losing influence across the world as the UK effectively ceases to exist in the eyes of everybody else. Labour and Lib Dem are rightly afraid of the RUK becoming a one party country. The Tories are more worried about losing their influence with the USA and EU risking the rebate and everything else.

Finally, Scotland has natural reserves which London won't want to lose control over such as fishing, oil and others.

IMO it's power and money which drives the BT brigade.

You'll have to make your own mind up on this.

For me this is very simple.

It's primarily and solely about who makes the decisions which affect Scotland and it's a no brainer.

Everything else is up for grabs depending on who gets voted in.

This.

Not forgetting that there a re a significant growing number of Labour (& others) who dont think we are better together and will vote for independence. It's only a matter of time before a "major" Scottish politician defects to the yes vote.

[thepaisleypanda]

This.

Not forgetting that there a re a significant growing number of Labour (& others) who dont think we are better together and will vote for independence. It's only a matter of time before a "major" Scottish politician defects to the yes vote.

Charles Kennedy??

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Charles Kennedy??

I suppose the "major" adjective when used with a better together holyrood politician might be stretching it so yeah, why not him.He's certainly not saying much in the debate at the moment. Maybe he sees it as a chance to secure a place in holyrood after the yes vote. Scottish politics could do with someone like him - lets face it, he's only up against wullie rennie...

Malky Chisholm is one of a number of labour in scotland who doesn't seem as though his heart is really in it when attempting to promote the better together cause...

[salmonbuddie]

Charles Kennedy? Malcolnm Chisholm? Aye right. In denial, but not as much as Henry. He'll be first.