The Referendum Thread

[oaksoft]

Well, that's bollocks, as I work in Scotland but don't have that vote.

But if I ever do decide to retire, I'll sell one of my small London places and can buy a big castle in the Glens. Then let the government pay for my care, cos wee Eck will let me still be a heavily subsidised Scot.

Ach go away bluto and talk to someone else.

[RickMcD]

I see that misreporting Scotland still haven't picked up on the FT story. Do you think they would've been so slow if the story was "vote yes and be 11% worse off".

Mibees it's just coincidence; I'm sure the story will be sitting in the pending file, next to the UWS report on. BBC being biased against yes campaign.

I've only seen what I assume to be a synopsis in the link Salmonbuddie posted. I had to read the FT every day for over thirty years and wasn't the least bit sorry to give it up when I took early retiral. If this is typical of their reporting today I'm afraid standards are dropping. Maybe Reporting Scotland prefers not to promote lazy journalism. I know you'll howl 'foul' or some such. Look at the article again, take off your Yes specs and try a critical analysis.

Just in case you're in any doubt, although I'm in the disenfrancised No camp, if Scotland votes for Independence I really do hope it is a massive success. I've got children who live in Scotland and a lot of friends (believe it or not) and family who live there. I really hope it works but if it doesn't, I'm not suggesting Scotland will go down the plughole. I am suggesting it is a risky business and a risk that is a bit of a needless gamble.

[waldorf34]

I think the reason a no vote is romping the polls and is the clear favourite with all bookmakers is very little to do with party politics. The reason is simply that there isn't a convincing case for independence, and there never has been.

Check the voting on this site!

[bluto]

Ach go away bluto and talk to someone else.

Once again, a fear of engaging with facts and issues - just because your assertions are challenged, please don't see it as a threat to your manhood.

We all make mistakes.

I hadn't thought you were an intellectual pygmy: my apologies if I've overestimated you.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

I've only seen what I assume to be a synopsis in the link Salmonbuddie posted. I had to read the FT every day for over thirty years and wasn't the least bit sorry to give it up when I took early retiral. If this is typical of their reporting today I'm afraid standards are dropping. Maybe Reporting Scotland prefers not to promote lazy journalism. I know you'll howl 'foul' or some such. Look at the article again, take off your Yes specs and try a critical analysis.

Just in case you're in any doubt, although I'm in the disenfrancised No camp, if Scotland votes for Independence I really do hope it is a massive success. I've got children who live in Scotland and a lot of friends (believe it or not) and family who live there. I really hope it works but if it doesn't, I'm not suggesting Scotland will go down the plughole. I am suggesting it is a risky business and a risk that is a bit of a needless gamble.

The BBC in Scotlandshire only does lazy journalism!

I'm looking at an article saying Scotland would be 11% better off just by not being part of UK. It also states that we would have a GDP better than France and even without oil and gas revenue our GDP would still be better than Italy. This is published with nice pretty graphs to explain it in a newspaper that is openly pro union. It also has a quote from an economist who takes a differing view. I'm not sure why it shouldn't be of interest to the debate and the "impartial" state broadcaster?

Edited February 4, 2014 by TPAFKATS

[Lex]

Check the voting on this site!

Ha, well that's me convinced!

Not surprising to see another major business leader come out against independence. The boss of BP, a major player in the Scottish oil industry, wants a no vote.

So not only are virtually all the major trade unions are backing a no vote, but most major business leaders are too. And no wonder, remaining part of the UK is not only in the interest of the Scottish worker, but also in the interest of big business.

[FTOF]

Not surprising to see another major business leader come out against independence. The boss of BP, a major player in the Scottish oil industry, wants a no vote.

A "nothing" comment expressing a personal opinion which appears to be pandering to "project fear".

What better way to deflect from the fact that BP's profits are down.

Also BP, as a company, are so scared of Scottish independence that they are doing this:

"BP plans to invest £10bn in the North Sea between 2011 and 2016, its highest ever investment in the region."

Source - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26028481

Edited February 4, 2014 by FTOF

[smcc]

Not surprising to see another major business leader come out against independence. The boss of BP, a major player in the Scottish oil industry, wants a no vote.

It seems that one of his major worries is how long it would take for Scotland to be re-admitted to the EU. Strange that the Beeb has omitted this from their website, when I heard it quite clearly on the radio earlier today. It does not seem to have occurred to him that there is a strong possibility that rUK might not be in the EU in a few years time!

[oaksoft]

Not surprising to see another major business leader come out against independence. The boss of BP, a major player in the Scottish oil industry, wants a no vote.

So not only are virtually all the major trade unions are backing a no vote, but most major business leaders are too. And no wonder, remaining part of the UK is not only in the interest of the Scottish worker, but also in the interest of big business.

The boss of BP can bash his gums all he wants - welcome to democracy.

He would however better serve his company by investing his time into making sure they stop getting fined for polluting the environment across our planet.

Most major businesses support a No vote? Most?

You'll be able to provide details of where greater than 50% of all major businesses are saying that.

Good luck finding 50%. There must be literally thousands of businesses in Scotland which can be classed as major.

Oh and you might want to address why his fear is so great that he's investing billions of pounds in the North Sea anyway as raised above.

Edited February 4, 2014 by oaksoft

[groucho]

Ha, well that's me convinced!

Not surprising to see another major business leader come out against independence. The boss of BP, a major player in the Scottish oil industry, wants a no vote.

So not only are virtually all the major trade unions are backing a no vote, but most major business leaders are too. And no wonder, remaining part of the UK is not only in the interest of the Scottish worker, but also in the interest of big business.

Do you have any proof to back up your second paragraph or is this just your opinion?

[thepaisleypanda]

The "boss" of the same company that invests in Kuwait / Libya / US / Mexico??

When we vote for independence, will they just switch off & dissappear? I think NOT!

Perhaps it is comments like this that the reason profits are dropping?

A cynic might say it was a clever deflection from his REAL issues to save the share-price of BP

[Bud Bundy]

Once again, a fear of engaging with facts and issues - just because your assertions are challenged, please don't see it as a threat to your manhood.

We all make mistakes.

I hadn't thought you were an intellectual pygmy: my apologies if I've overestimated you.

You have No say in the matter, Of Voting for Independence ? People who live and work in Scotland, Have the Choice. You Don't. Thank Fcuk ?

[groucho]

Ha, well that's me convinced!

Not surprising to see another major business leader come out against independence. The boss of BP, a major player in the Scottish oil industry, wants a no vote.

So not only are virtually all the major trade unions are backing a no vote, but most major business leaders are too. And no wonder, remaining part of the UK is not only in the interest of the Scottish worker, but also in the interest of big business.

The only trade union that openly supports the no campaign is the GMB and this was done without consulting their members , all other trade unions are staying neutral .

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Ha, well that's me convinced!

Not surprising to see another major business leader come out against independence. The boss of BP, a major player in the Scottish oil industry, wants a no vote.

So not only are virtually all the major trade unions are backing a no vote, but most major business leaders are too. And no wonder, remaining part of the UK is not only in the interest of the Scottish worker, but also in the interest of big business.

The most significant part of the article is hidden away a few paragraphs in where he says,

"My personal view is that Great Britain is great and it ought to stay together,"

So should the headline not really be - Unionist in favour of voting no?

Rumpelstiltskin must be spinning feverishly at the beeb these days

[RickMcD]

The BBC in Scotlandshire only does lazy journalism!

I'm looking at an article saying Scotland would be 11% better off just by not being part of UK. It also states that we would have a GDP better than France and even without oil and gas revenue our GDP would still be better than Italy. This is published with nice pretty graphs to explain it in a newspaper that is openly pro union. It also has a quote from an economist who takes a differing view. I'm not sure why it shouldn't be of interest to the debate and the "impartial" state broadcaster?

Just for the sake of accuracy are you referring to the FT article which started this particular discussion off? The article I read said Scotland could be better off, not would. There's a difference.

[Bart Simpson]

Annie Griffin - American Film Director - interviewed on 5 million ways to be Scottish by Cosgrove this evening...'there is far too much aggression and not enough discussion' an interesting summarised observation of the referendum 'debate'.

Is this thread case and point?

Stuart (Dickson), I whole heartedly disagree with you whilst respecting your opinion, if not the sensationalism.

An interesting programme on BBC2 tonight re: identity and it's fluid nature.

Edited February 4, 2014 by Bart Simpson

[salmonbuddie]

Just for the sake of accuracy are you referring to the FT article which started this particular discussion off? The article I read said Scotland could be better off, not would. There's a difference.

If you're talking about the one I put the link up for, Rick, then you're wrong, I'm afraid - this is what is says, read it again if you don't believe me:

"If its geographic share of UK oil and gas output is taken into account, Scotland’s GDP per head is bigger than that of France. Even excluding the North Sea’s hydrocarbon bounty, per capita GDP is higher than that of Italy. Oil, whisky and a broad range of manufactured goods mean an independent Scotland would be one of the world’s top 35 exporters."

Not "could be," "is" - a blunt assertion that I hoped in vain would put an end to this particular aspect of the debate. As ts says, the FT is hardly noted for its pro-Nationalist stance.

[zurich_allan]

If you're talking about the one I put the link up for, Rick, then you're wrong, I'm afraid - this is what is says, read it again if you don't believe me:

"If its geographic share of UK oil and gas output is taken into account, Scotland’s GDP per head is bigger than that of France. Even excluding the North Sea’s hydrocarbon bounty, per capita GDP is higher than that of Italy. Oil, whisky and a broad range of manufactured goods mean an independent Scotland would be one of the world’s top 35 exporters."

Not "could be," "is" - a blunt assertion that I hoped in vain would put an end to this particular aspect of the debate. As ts says, the FT is hardly noted for its pro-Nationalist stance.

The wording is difficult here though - it specifically says 'its geographic share of UK oil and gas' - but legally speaking - maritime boundaries are not based on geography, and are very much open for negotiation (and currently a reserved matter for the UK and not Scotland to legislate on), and you can bet your bottom dollar that Westminster would fight tooth and nail for an agreed share of oil and gas, and that Scotland (and I will say absolutely catagorically) will not get the full 100% of that in any post-independence agreement. And yes, it is perfectly legal for RUK to negotiate that, and Scotland legally cannot simply lay claim to it (although I would argue that certainly morally speaking they ought to be able to). A lot of people don't know that maritime boundaries were changed barely a decade ago already, so that as far north as Dundee (I am deadly serious), although when you look out you are initially looking at Scottish water, if you go out to still within visual distance barely a few hundred metres out, you're actually looking at English waters. So no - the article doesn't put an end to the debate I'm afraid - it's just one scenario that is definitely not a certainty.

Edited February 4, 2014 by zurich_allan

[bluto]

Oaksoft'll be along soon to tell you why that's wrong, za.

He'll have a gut feeling about maritime boundaries that trumps any input from you.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

The wording is difficult here though - it specifically says 'its geographic share of UK oil and gas' - but legally speaking - maritime boundaries are not based on geography, and are very much open for negotiation (and currently a reserved matter for the UK and not Scotland to legislate on), and you can bet your bottom dollar that Westminster would fight tooth and nail for an agreed share of oil and gas, and that Scotland (and I will say absolutely catagorically) will not get the full 100% of that in any post-independence agreement. And yes, it is perfectly legal for RUK to negotiate that, and Scotland legally cannot simply lay claim to it (although I would argue that certainly morally speaking they ought to be able to). A lot of people don't know that maritime boundaries were changed barely a decade ago already, so that as far north as Dundee (I am deadly serious), although when you look out you are initially looking at Scottish water, if you go out to still within visual distance barely a few hundred metres out, you're actually looking at English waters. So no - the article doesn't put an end to the debate I'm afraid - it's just one scenario that is definitely not a certainty.

Another Westminster steal on our nationality and resources that went quietly unreported at the time. It's only coming out a little more noisily now. Can't recall who was involved, but I'm sure it wasnt the usual tory suspects - closer to home...

[zurich_allan]

Another Westminster steal on our nationality and resources that went quietly unreported at the time. It's only coming out a little more noisily now. Can't recall who was involved, but I'm sure it wasnt the usual tory suspects - closer to home...

I definitely agree with you on this - it very much was done on the quiet - kept very low key. Though it was actually done by the Labour government at the time. I don't think the manner of the alteration of boundaries was very ethical at all, in my opinion.

Edited February 5, 2014 by zurich_allan

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Agree. Just how close is dundee to dunfermline?

[zurich_allan]

Agree. Just how close is dundee to dunfermline?

I think around 50 miles - why so?

[Guest TPAFKATS]

I think around 50 miles - why so?

I'm sure the clunking fist anonymous dunfermline mp was involved.

Surely it's less than 50 miles

[Stuart Dickson]

It wasn't a secret. I remember watching TV and seeing a bit of an argument about it at the time. The debate centred around whether international boundaries were defined by extending a line along it's land boundary or whether you take the coastal end point of a boundary and draw a line out from there along the longitudinal line. If I remember correctly it was done as part of the devolution agreement and it happened prior to the millennium. Donald Dewar was First Minister and I think I'm right in saying that Henry McLeish was the man who was blamed for agreeing to the deal.

It's just typical of Scottish politics that the nationalists have waited till now to make a fuss about it like it was all a big secret. There were parliamentary debates on the topic both at Westminister - where Alex Salmond took part - and in Edinburgh and the SNP accepted the change with minimal fuss because it gave them the devolution that they so badly wanted. It's not something that has "just happened" or "just come to light".

Edited February 5, 2014 by Stuart Dickson