The Referendum Thread

[Stuart Dickson]

What do you mean 'IF' ? Surves have already been done which shows there is oil ( within Scotland's waters ) BP in particular have found a large oil and Gas field in the outer Clyde.

As for trident who the hell wants nuclear weapons on their door step. Are you that crazy , saying that you have proved it time and time again Stuart. Can see you have something up stairs in your head problem is your brain dose not know how to put it all together. Ok you can put your argument forward to stay in the UK but deal in facts.

Is that REALLY what you want LS? Are you so tired of your view across the Clyde from Rothesay that you'd like to see a load of drilling ships and oil rigs fracking away just off the shoreline? Is your local beach so grubby that covering it in oil deposits and dead wildlife is appealing? Are you and your neighbours so nationalistic that for the sake of the country you'd be more than happy to see the property value of the homes you live in decimated? How very decent of you old chap. Let me just drop Ed Davy a wee e-mail to let him know that planning consent won't be an issue.

If I had paid several hundreds of thousands of pounds for my sea view home would I rather have a few barely noticeable submarines going up and down the channels to Faslane or the Scottish Government wrecking the scenery that I love so much with a full scale search for oil so close to the shoreline? Ach why am I asking - the SNP have been destroying Scotlands natural beauty for years with those f**king windmills.

[Isabella Duke]

It's quite pathetic by BT. Now that all their untruths about the financial situation after a yes vote have been seen for what they really are , they've resorted to personal attacks to deflect attention from their wholly underhand campaign.

Indeed, totally agree.

The SNP's personal attacks are a disgrace.

[Isabella Duke]

Scottish votes haven't influenced who got into power since the war. You could take out all Scottish votes and the election winner would be the same. If it is about getting someone in power that Scotland actually votes for then the only way to achieve this is by voting yes in September.

Deary me.

Leaving out the Scottish votes at the last general election, the Tories would have won outright and wouldn't have needed a coalition and Labour wouldn't have won in 1964 or 1974 without Scottish votes.

[Isabella Duke]

As for getting a government in power that "Scotland" votes for then that is irrelevant to me personally.

What I want to see if a government in power I personally voted for.

I voted Conservative - and they are doing a brilliant job - so I'm more than happy to vote no!

[Stuart Dickson]

Indeed, totally agree.

The SNP's personal attacks are a disgrace.

Agreed but it's what they do over and over again at every level.

Look at this thread. Most of the Natsi's on here don't engage in debate. All they do is ridicule and smear. Look at the list of myths and facts that was linked to on here last night. There's nothing new in any of that. Each one of the 10 points has been made by me on this thread. The article publishes the links to reports and statistics backing up the facts as they present it. Not one of those facts has been proved to be wrong by anyone in the Yes Campaign. All they do is produce a celebrity or some paid expert to post a spin filled report claiming that we should just trust these politicians to deliver for us and vote Yes. I'm sure Cockles will be pouring through the statistics now looking for a missing comma or a full stop so he can attempt to ridicule the person who wrote the article.

The only thing "positive" about the Yes campaign is the word "Yes". There's not one shred of evidence that their pledges have been costed or any detail about where there money is going to come from to plug their £12Bn per year fiscal hole. That's why the Yes Campaign will fail badly and will lose the referendum with less than one third of the votes.

[Isle Of Bute Saint]

Listen people of Scotland you dare to vote 'yes' Then us unionists will take you're Pandas away from Edinburgh Zoo do you hear me WE WILL TAKE AWAY THE PANDAS ! !

FFS !

Stuart it won't spoil views for may reasons because it's well south of Arran. Plus today oil and gas can be extrackted miles away from the source

Edited May 2, 2014 by Lochwinnoch Saint

[Stuart Dickson]

Deary me.

Leaving out the Scottish votes at the last general election, the Tories would have won outright and wouldn't have needed a coalition and Labour wouldn't have won in 1964 or 1974 without Scottish votes.

And since the war Scotland has had the UK government it voted for - whatever the colour of the rosette, from 1997 - 2010, 1974 - 1978, and from 1945 - 1957. That's around about 40% of the time which isn't bad for an electorate that only makes up one tenth of the country.

Edited to add - it should also be pointed out that in many of the years when Scotland didn't quite get the government it voted for a large percentage of the Scottish population were still left happy with the outcome. In 1959 for example more Scots voted for Harold McMillans Conservative Party than voted for Labour, however we elected more Labour MP's than we did Conservative ones and the Conservatives won the election.

Edited May 2, 2014 by Stuart Dickson

[Stuart Dickson]

Stuart it won't spoil views for may reasons because it's well south of Arran. Plus today oil and gas can be extrackted miles away from the source

Oh so it won't spoil your view or your beaches, but it might for the people of Cambletown, Arran and on the mainland around Girvan, Stranraer oh and of course off the coast of Northern Ireland. That's ok then.....

As for your second sentence, do you realise how ridiculous what you have said is. You cannot extract miles away from source, cause if you do you are drilling in the wrong place. You have to extract from the source.

Edited May 2, 2014 by Stuart Dickson

[Isle Of Bute Saint]

Stuart I work for a subsea company think you would be surprised what can be done. Soon platforms will be a thing of the past. Exploration is another matter they need to drill to find the field in the first place , However even drilling rigs can drill some miles away from the rig it"s self.

[Stuart Dickson]

Stuart I work for a subsea company think you would be surprised what can be done. Soon platforms will be a thing of the past. Exploration is another matter they need to drill to find the field in the first place , However even drilling rigs can drill some miles away from the rig it"s self.

LS. I am well aware you can extract oil without having a platform sit on top of it, but that's not what you said. You said you could extract miles away from source. You can't. If I plant carrots in my garden I can use a device to extract them from the soil, or I could go over and pull them up myself but regardless of which method I choose I still have to extract from source.

As you've gone onto say we still need a platform or a drilling vessel. Either will ruin someone's view. You still run the risk of ruptures and leaks and drilling so close to shore adds many more risks to the environment, wildlife and to the local population. It all makes those stupid windmills a ridiculous and expensive folly

[BoWSaint]

A government we vote for 100% of the time is better than the 40% you claim we have had! Dafty.

The house prices in Aberdeenshire have rocketed due to the energy industry. How do you know how close the rigs would be to the shore if it hasn't been explored. I don't think you can see any from Aberdeen beach, certainly not close enough to spoil views. And LS is correct that most wells are drilled deviated or horizontal these days putting the rigs and platforms miles away. Ofcourse there is always a very slight chance of environmental disaster or worse, an HSE disaster but with the levels of mitigation in place these days the chanced are super slim.

[Stuart Dickson]

A government we vote for 100% of the time is better than the 40% you claim we have had! Dafty.

The house prices in Aberdeenshire have rocketed due to the energy industry. How do you know how close the rigs would be to the shore if it hasn't been explored. I don't think you can see any from Aberdeen beach, certainly not close enough to spoil views. And LS is correct that most wells are drilled deviated or horizontal these days putting the rigs and platforms miles away. Ofcourse there is always a very slight chance of environmental disaster or worse, an HSE disaster but with the levels of mitigation in place these days the chanced are super slim.

There's nothing about the Scottish Government that is better dafty. Any voting system where you are asked for your second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth choice and where you land up with politicians who represents a party rather that their electorate - and where politicians can resign their whip and pick up their salaries and expenses to simply represent themselves - is simply wrong. It's certainly not better than the first past the post system that has proven to be so successful throughout the period of the Union.

As for your second paragraph here's a map of the North Sea OIl Fields. LS is talking about oil fields in the Clyde estuary. Now think about it. On a clear day you can see Ireland from the Scottish coast so where about in the Clyde estuary will these oil platforms be hidden?

[BoWSaint]

There is water a lot further north of Ireland currently unexplored; we don't need to only look where LS mentioned. I'm all for nuclear power with the advances being made with fusion down at JET and ITER and my only issue with Trident is the proximity to our largest city. But this is the reason that these waters haven't been explored. Either move Trident or scrap trident (who's going to invade Scotland in this day and age?) and there is a potential wealth sitting there.

All unknown of course, like many questions. The problem is that questions can't be answered for sure until after a YES vote. Similarly, things are uncertain after a NO vote, including EU membership, tax rates etc. If you are happy with the status quo then fine, vote NO. But a lot of people aren't happy with the status quo. The earlier mention of whether Scotland could have bailed out the banks is laughable. The UK government allowed such a mess in the first place. How did they punish the bankers for crippling the country? Nothing. SImilar thing happened in Iceland at the end of last year and their bankers got slung in jail.

The UK government does seem to be a bit of an old boys club with the rich looking after each other and throwing the scraps to the poor. The difference between rich and poor is too large. We are the 4th most unequal country in the developed world. With all the calls for the YES campaign to answer all the questions (despite Cameron repeatedly refusing a debate where they could officially be asked) I would like to see the UK government answer for the current status quo. If the union is so great then why do all the things below exist.....

[Guest TPAFKATS]

That's the 2nd pretty map weve had from dicko in the last week or so - both of them havent actually shown the area that his post was talking about...

[salmonbuddie]

The No campaign's latest embarrassment.....

[oaksoft]

We don't have anywhere near enough wind turbines yet.

All coastal regions should have them and tidal generators as well.

Sod the view. We need an alternative to oil and gas to bring price stability and sustainability of resource.

The idea that we should abandon these important principles to allow people to see flat water is frankly ludicrous.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

The No campaign's latest embarrassment.....

Even more embarrassing was bbc news & guardian making a story out of this "grass roots movement" the day after the tory donor and pr "guru" launched this.

Compliant media? BBC really is the state broadcaster right enough!

[saintnextlifetime]

There is water a lot further north of Ireland currently unexplored; we don't need to only look where LS mentioned. I'm all for nuclear power with the advances being made with fusion down at JET and ITER and my only issue with Trident is the proximity to our largest city. But this is the reason that these waters haven't been explored. Either move Trident or scrap trident (who's going to invade Scotland in this day and age?) and there is a potential wealth sitting there.

All unknown of course, like many questions. The problem is that questions can't be answered for sure until after a YES vote. Similarly, things are uncertain after a NO vote, including EU membership, tax rates etc. If you are happy with the status quo then fine, vote NO. But a lot of people aren't happy with the status quo. The earlier mention of whether Scotland could have bailed out the banks is laughable. The UK government allowed such a mess in the first place. How did they punish the bankers for crippling the country? Nothing. SImilar thing happened in Iceland at the end of last year and their bankers got slung in jail.

The UK government does seem to be a bit of an old boys club with the rich looking after each other and throwing the scraps to the poor. The difference between rich and poor is too large. We are the 4th most unequal country in the developed world. With all the calls for the YES campaign to answer all the questions (despite Cameron repeatedly refusing a debate where they could officially be asked) I would like to see the UK government answer for the current status quo. If the union is so great then why do all the things below exist.....

YES.png

Exactly . With a large chunk of European citizens already having the right to live , work and or collect benefits here , why would anyone invade . .

As for the Ruskies , there are plenty of other countries closer to home that they have their eye on , long before they get to us. .

[Stuart Dickson]

There is water a lot further north of Ireland currently unexplored; we don't need to only look where LS mentioned. I'm all for nuclear power with the advances being made with fusion down at JET and ITER and my only issue with Trident is the proximity to our largest city. But this is the reason that these waters haven't been explored. Either move Trident or scrap trident (who's going to invade Scotland in this day and age?) and there is a potential wealth sitting there.

All unknown of course, like many questions. The problem is that questions can't be answered for sure until after a YES vote. Similarly, things are uncertain after a NO vote, including EU membership, tax rates etc. If you are happy with the status quo then fine, vote NO. But a lot of people aren't happy with the status quo. The earlier mention of whether Scotland could have bailed out the banks is laughable. The UK government allowed such a mess in the first place. How did they punish the bankers for crippling the country? Nothing. SImilar thing happened in Iceland at the end of last year and their bankers got slung in jail.

The UK government does seem to be a bit of an old boys club with the rich looking after each other and throwing the scraps to the poor. The difference between rich and poor is too large. We are the 4th most unequal country in the developed world. With all the calls for the YES campaign to answer all the questions (despite Cameron repeatedly refusing a debate where they could officially be asked) I would like to see the UK government answer for the current status quo. If the union is so great then why do all the things below exist.....

YES.png

I accept that there is very likely to be large reserves of oil in the Continental Shelf in the Atlantic. I've said as much long before now. I'd imagine there would be an argument over territorial waters after the break up of the UK and ROI would certainly fancy it's chances in that area if territorial water boundaries are supposed to be extensions of land borders so an Independent Scotlands' claim to it might be a bit onerous. However let's get past that issue and consider this. The Nationalists will have us believe that those nasty English people are stealing all Scotlands wealth, yet here we see a potentially massive oil field in the Atlantic being left untapped by the Westminster Government. Why? Could it be that quite simply it's not economically viable to start extracting from such deep water fields? Could it be that the UK Government is waiting on technology being developed to make those fields viable, and less of an environmental risk? Is any of that a bad thing? And would an Independent Scotland who's economy would be so reliant on those oil exports manage those fields any better? If it's such easy money why has it not been done before now?

As for the rest of your argument I think everyone will accept that the UK isn't Utopia. It's not perfect, but we know what we have got and that's what the No Campaign has in it's favour. You're right that if the Conservatives manage to win an outright majority at the next General Election - which is as highly probable as all those results going exactly the way they would need to go for St Mirren to end up in the bottom two now - there would be a referendum on Europe. It's also true that in that referendum all of the major UK parties would be campaigning to stay in Europe whilst UKIP and some other fringe lunatic parties would be left campaigning for our exit. Is democracy really such a bad thing though? Nationalists wanted a referendum on Scottish Independence so why are they so scared of giving the electorate the opportunity to vote on membership of the European Union? I'd also be interested to hear your reasons of why you think an Independent Scotland, starting out with so much uncertainty as you've said yourself, would be able to make things "better" when it goes out on it's own? Where is all this extra money going to come from to finance free childcare when you are running at a £12Bn per annum deficit right now?

As for the banks - yeah you're right - the UK Government is guilty of having too little regulation in place to stop the likes of RBS and the Bank Of Scotland running up the kind of debts that would f**k a country, but where is the evidence that an Independent Scotland would have done better? Alex Salmond certainly wouldn't have had tighter regulation in place. He was far too busy writing love letters to Freddy Goodwin offering Scottish Government help to buy ABN Amro at whatever cost necessary. Had Scotland been independent in 2008 could we have bailed out our banks? Or would they have allowed those Scots banking with Scottish Banks to have lost all their money?

Voting for change for changes sake is dangerous and stupid especially when the side you are voting for has offered no fiscal evidence of costings to meet their pledges at all. It risks everyone's future, especially that of our children.

[BoWSaint]

I accept that there is very likely to be large reserves of oil in the Continental Shelf in the Atlantic. I've said as much long before now. I'd imagine there would be an argument over territorial waters after the break up of the UK and ROI would certainly fancy it's chances in that area if territorial water boundaries are supposed to be extensions of land borders so an Independent Scotlands' claim to it might be a bit onerous. However let's get past that issue and consider this. The Nationalists will have us believe that those nasty English people are stealing all Scotlands wealth, yet here we see a potentially massive oil field in the Atlantic being left untapped by the Westminster Government. Why? Could it be that quite simply it's not economically viable to start extracting from such deep water fields? Could it be that the UK Government is waiting on technology being developed to make those fields viable, and less of an environmental risk? Is any of that a bad thing? And would an Independent Scotland who's economy would be so reliant on those oil exports manage those fields any better? If it's such easy money why has it not been done before now?

As for the rest of your argument I think everyone will accept that the UK isn't Utopia. It's not perfect, but we know what we have got and that's what the No Campaign has in it's favour. You're right that if the Conservatives manage to win an outright majority at the next General Election - which is as highly probable as all those results going exactly the way they would need to go for St Mirren to end up in the bottom two now - there would be a referendum on Europe. It's also true that in that referendum all of the major UK parties would be campaigning to stay in Europe whilst UKIP and some other fringe lunatic parties would be left campaigning for our exit. Is democracy really such a bad thing though? Nationalists wanted a referendum on Scottish Independence so why are they so scared of giving the electorate the opportunity to vote on membership of the European Union? I'd also be interested to hear your reasons of why you think an Independent Scotland, starting out with so much uncertainty as you've said yourself, would be able to make things "better" when it goes out on it's own? Where is all this extra money going to come from to finance free childcare when you are running at a £12Bn per annum deficit right now?

As for the banks - yeah you're right - the UK Government is guilty of having too little regulation in place to stop the likes of RBS and the Bank Of Scotland running up the kind of debts that would f**k a country, but where is the evidence that an Independent Scotland would have done better? Alex Salmond certainly wouldn't have had tighter regulation in place. He was far too busy writing love letters to Freddy Goodwin offering Scottish Government help to buy ABN Amro at whatever cost necessary. Had Scotland been independent in 2008 could we have bailed out our banks? Or would they have allowed those Scots banking with Scottish Banks to have lost all their money?

Voting for change for changes sake is dangerous and stupid especially when the side you are voting for has offered no fiscal evidence of costings to meet their pledges at all. It risks everyone's future, especially that of our children.

The Atlantic side of Scotland hasn't been explored because the UK government won't allow it because they want a clear route for Trident to get in and out and they don't want any permanent structures getting in the way. That's why. We are extracting oil from incredible depths just now, regularly up to and exceeding 35000ft (inc water depth plus hole depth). The water depth varies but on the shelf will likely be less than 1000ft which is nothing. I know who would lay claim to it all but certainly Scotland would have a good claim to many blocks. Also if current maritime boundaries are honoured then an independent Scotland would get 90% of current North Sea blocks too.

I'm the first to admit that the UK isn't the worst place in the world to live. I have certainly enjoyed many benefits and privileges growing up here, but it is getting worse. The gap between rich and poor is growing and it is not a good trend. You seem to be arguing for better the devil we know.....but there is just as much uncertainty about that devil too. I don't really care too much about the EU and I don't oppose the in/out vote that will likely come after a NO vote. I only point it out as it is one of the biggest campaigning points of the NO campaign, whereas there is no certainty of staying in the EU either way.

You never know who you can believe these days. You keep going on about the £12bn deficit but there are similar articles that claim Scotland would have been £8 billion better off if we were independent for the last 5 years...

Similarly, to assess if we could actually balance the books, we are being told that Scotland is actually one of the richest countries in the world per head and here are 10 facts that show that Scotland would be a wealthy nation.

I've spent enough time on this forum to know that statistics can be skewed so I try not to blindly believe anything I read. But if Scotland is such a drain on England and they are actually bailing us out (whereas others argue that Scotland are a net contributor of tax) then why are they so desperate to keep us?

You ask for evidence that something would have been done better in the past or evidence that things will be done better in the future. Obviously this is completely impossible since the future is unknown and history can't be changed so I think this is pretty weak arguments. Unfortunately all we have to go on is the word of politicians who are as bad as each other. One side saying everything is rosy so lets stick with it; the other saying we could tweak stuff and make it better for Scotland. The future is unknown either way, but I don't want to look back in 50 years and regret that we didn't have the balls to make such an important decision out of fear of change. In all honesty, I think for the average person they wouldn't see too much difference in their day to day life after independence but I think that the potential is there for the country as a whole to be better balanced and to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor.

[Drew]

Apologies if mentioned already, but Sunday Herald officially supporting a YES vote.

Which is nice.

[oaksoft]

It's nice to finally hear someone from a position of some influence supporting Yes but like the others I'd prefer newspapers and companies to remain strictly neutral BECAUSE of that influence.

[FTOF]

Have to agree.

They should have continued with their excellent reporting of events surrounding the debate, without overtly expressing their support.

[Drew]

Have to agree.

They should have continued with their excellent reporting of events surrounding the debate, without overtly expressing their support.

It is an editorial stance, and, if the paper has any journalistic integrity, it shouldn't unduly bias their reporting.

[FTOF]

It is an editorial stance, and, if the paper has any journalistic integrity, it shouldn't unduly bias their reporting.

They certainly do seem report both sides without bias.

It sort of ventures into Weir's/Barrhead travel territory for me. Although I accept that the media should be seen to be having a far more relevant and prominent role in the debate, simply by the nature of the industry it is.

I also agree wholeheartedly with their editorial views.