Plain and simple?
Politics, as I have repeatedly noted, is a tricky business. Decisions are seldom plain and never simple.
Just look at the complex web of inter-connected issues confronting politicians in Britain at the moment with regard to oil prices.
After talks with oil industry leaders in the North-east of Scotland, the prime minister suggests North Sea oil output will be increased in an effort, over the medium term, to reduce the pressure on prices at the pump.
But how does that square with the conservation of scarce resources? How will he answer pointed comments from the SNP about the cash value of the North Sea?
The Chancellor and the PM are under pressure to abandon a planned hike in petrol and diesel tax. They say they are listening - but also keen to adhere to the government's green strategy.
Our soil
Quite. Should the UK Government relent and ease the strain on business? Or should we, collectively, bear the burden of higher prices in order to force us to change our behaviour in ways that help the environment?
Then another pressure point. The UK Government is hinting, again, that nuclear energy may be required to play a greater role in the provision of electricity.
The Scottish Government says: not on our soil.
I say again, politics is difficult. Views welcome.
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~25~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Nuclear power?
Britain is currently going to spend over 80 billion pounds clearing up the current nuclear power stations we have.
Can we not invest in re-newables?
Would re-newables not be cheaper?
If the Scottish Nationalist Government can ensure that Scotland will have 50% of her electricity needs met through re-newables by 2020 then why can the UK Government not do the same?
Can the UK Government not force through proposals that were first rejected by the Scots Gov to ensure that the UK is receiving more electricity from re-newables?
The UK Government is concerned of relying on another country for oil and gas in future.
Just where do they expect to get Uranium for the Nuclear Power Stations?
And just how much does the prices need to go up to cover the maintenance of these stations?
Complain about this comment
Increasing North sea production will make virtually NO difference to world oil prices or UK fuel prices, even if it were possible. It takes many, many months to bring new discoveries onstream so all that can be done is to open the taps wider on current production. At the moment, they are pretty much wide open anyway.
No, this is simply another opportunity to transfer more desperately needed cash into the Chancellor's coffers. In the mean time, Scotland's resources are squandered and her people and industries groan under the strain of record fuel and heating costs.
I really can't believe we just lie down, roll over and take it.
The bigger picture though, is that we should all be trying to find ways of reducing our fossil fuel consumption, it's going to be very important in the medium to long term. The last thing we should be doing is going hell-for-leather to get our oil out of the ground, we should be sitting on it. If you think it's expensive now, just wait and see what it'll be worth in a few years or decades.
Complain about this comment
The future of Nuclear power in Britain is currently being decided by a French company, two German companies and possibly a Spanish one. I don’t necessarily have a problem with this - however, why should we deregulate and open our markets when they pointedly refuse to do the same? It seems to me this is not a sensible approach to take to energy security.
On the nuclear issue I am something of dissenter within the SNP: simply put, I am not sure Scotland's energy needs can be met in the medium-term without nuclear, unless we return to burning oil and coal to produce electricity in a big way which is undesirable. However, I am more than happy to point out that the vast majority of UK reserves are indeed "Scotland's oil". It has been filling the black-holes in Brown's books for a decade, and those of governments of different stripes for many years before.
Now production is the drive to try and bring down the price at the pumps - the effect will be slow and far from spectacular even if the private sector does respond in a meaningful way. However, it remains Scotland's oil a resource of great importance to the whole UK both directly in terms of tax-take, and in terms of general economic activity.
Yet again we have seen how what will be seen in London as a shrewd bit of political posturing (or maybe even action) has entirely different and negative knock-on consequences for perceptions of the UK Government in Scotland. We are different nations/polities, our interests and aims (economic and otherwise) are different - it is artificial to link the two polities of England and Scotland politically.
Complain about this comment
It would appear to be a case of cake and eating than oil and selling for the UK Government. You cannot on the one hand say that North Sea Oil is getting rapidly worthless (with the implication, or indeed bald statement that it should therefore be discounted in any discussion of union) and yet also claim that it will be the saviour in times of trouble.
And secondly, you cannot state to all the business headquarters which appear to be located in London largely regardless of where they operate that electricity will become cheaper because we will build new reactors, which will of course be safe not due to any structural improvements but rather because they will be a long way away from London.
Finally of course, you quite properly raise the question of the environment. It cannot be said that we will support measures to reduce our impact, and then scuttle back to the oil, coal and nuclear options as soon as the first crisis hits us.
This is neither fair nor right, and I trust the rest of my countrymen and woman will be taking note. I may not agree with the specific words and phrases employed in the first post (in fact I would say such phrasing brings the point no benefit, merely harm), the sentiment is largely correct.
Mr Thomas Porter, as far as I am aware the UK government would not be able to fulfil such a commitment re renewables as easily as Scotland because Scotland's geography is more favourable; although please note I am not saying such a committment should not be undertaken. Some of the other questions are excellent ones, however.
And finally, a question of my own; is it possible to blog in Gaelic on this site? I would, of course, provide English translations
Regards to all
Complain about this comment
What Brown and Darling need to do is reduce taxes on fuel. How could they do this?. By withdrawing our troops from Afghanistan and Iraq, and by stopping wasteful "aid" to countries with corrupt regimes. We cannot afford to be a World Super Power, or the World's policeman. Charity starts at home. Isolationism?. Well, maybe; but these are exceptional times, and call for exceptional actions.
Complain about this comment
Brian, you've raised a crucial issue for great Britain and the world. Then you mention the SNP! So, no rational responses permitted, then?
So I'll keep it short. No, Brown's plan won't work. Yes, nuclear energy is a must.
Of course, in a future scenario we might buy power from England - from their nuclear stations - and thereby keep the daft "not on our soil" promise. But remember: It's England's power! They'll want to cash in on the "friendly neighbour" Jocks who ripped them off for oil when they became independent.
Complain about this comment
#6 - Dead right
MoD says Iraq has cost UK £3.1bn (28/Oct/2005) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4386654.stm
This kind of money and political will should have been spent on breaking our addiction to oil instead of trying in vain with the U.S. to secure the supply.
If these had been invested in Renewables and in subsidising the rolling-out of existing sustainable energy technologies, we'd be in a far better position to weather this storm.
With Peak Oil looming ever larger on the horizon, we should move quickly in this direction.
Complain about this comment
Eoin og: Last para: Why? Do you know someone who can't read English, but who can work a computer?
Complain about this comment
Yes, the price of oil is high, however the excise the UK goverment applies to it is ridiculous, especially since we (Scotland) produce a significant amount of it. The revenue taken from it is massive, and it is extremely ironic that rural communities in the country of its origin are penalised most.
Lets face it the the revenues it generates helps fund a post colonial Britain that thinks it still is a world player.
Grow up !! and give the people a break
Complain about this comment
I am sorry but am I just thick and unable to understand what effect upping the output from the North Sea would have on World Oil prices?
I think zippo so, why would Mrs Broon try to "incentifise" the producers to do just that?
Maybe so he can rake in even more money per day, week and month to pay for his other cockups?
Pillage Scotland's oil, drain it quick, fill his pockets and to Hell with Scotland's future.
Greater need hath no man than to ensure his political survival.
Time this wombat was drummed out
Complain about this comment
Brigadier John: No, rather unfortunately there are no gaelic monoglots - everyone is bilingual at least.
I was just wondering as I quite fancied practicing my own Gaelic (not great but coming along) and I thought it would be appropriate to see a bit of gaelic on the board. Just curious, I suppose.
But I have no desire to pull away from the real debate here, although if I can comment further, it would appear that there is little dissent from the idea that Scotland is being used, in some (including my own) eyes, unfairly, and that this is perhaps not the most fair of roads to have taken.
In my mind, the debate is more on what the result shall be, and how the SNP will play the very powerful cards that Labour just handed them. Poor Ms Alexander - she presumably will not be looking forward to FMQ.
Although I'd love to read some speculation, I suppose we will have to wait and see how it all pans out
Complain about this comment
Brigadierjohn: I actually find that statement , very offensive.
If someone want to blog in gaelic this should be supported not questioned.
but on the subject of Oil....I find it ironic that on one hand we are being told there is no oil left, its not worth a button , but in times of trouble were supposed to ignore what they have told us and now just let them pump OUR seas dry and and shore up a failing economy.
Complain about this comment
Gu Rich Glasgow Princess: 'S e ceist ceart a bh' ann aig Brigadier John, tha sin ceart gu leor dhomh. Nach bitheamaid ro chruaidh
=
To Rich Glasgow Princess: It was a fair question that Brigadier John ask, fine with me. Let us not be so harsh.
But as you say, on the subject of the hypocrisy in the government's statements, I agree.
Complain about this comment
It is unacceptable that the people in the UK who live closest to the oil reserves pay the most for it at the pumps.
I see there is a programme on next Wednesday (4th June), on BBC1 at 10.45pm entitled 'Truth, Lies, Oil and Scotland', which the R.T. advises will study the role of NSO in the economy and politics of Scotland since 1975.
Here's hoping for a full and balanced analysis, which gets into the nitty-gritty of the McCrone cover-up, and how the Scottish public have been lied to by successive UK Governments about the value of NSO, etc.
Complain about this comment
Brian
A few points come to mind over the Broon spin.
The trip to Banchory was a cover your a** trip, I must be seen to be doing something, even if it is a waste of time and money.
Was it not Broon who took about £1billion from North Sea producers in his budget two years ago, and was told then that this would reduce investment in exploration?
What about pre May 2007 when we were told you could not depend on North Sea Oil as it was running out.
The present tax on petrol is not a green strategy, it is a Broon tax. Tax on one liter is 57p in UK 37p in Germany and only 30p in France. Any crocodile tears over world prices is just more Broon spin.
Of course someone who has never bought a liter of petrol in his life understands our pain, aye right.
Complain about this comment
Rotundular
It is on the English Broadcasting Service, I would not hold your breath waiting for a full and balanced analysis.
Complain about this comment
Richglasgowprincess: You're too touchy. Eoin graciously accepted my question as fair and answered it. So mind your own business.
Now, just indulge me for a minute while I try out my French and Italian. I might have more readers than Eoin...
On your main point, surely the best thing for our wee arguments would be for the oil to run out? We could all do our sums from the same base. Someone might then start talking about our wonderful country as, for example, a world-leading tourist destination. That's a natural resource worth protecting.
Or is your vision of the future one of floating around - as a richglasgow princess, in fact - while our neighbours sweat and toil and envy our oil?
Posso pagare con carta di credito?
Or, as they might say in Paris:
Pas de lierre, en que nous!
Ochone, ochone!
Complain about this comment
Going from the recent Oil stories, here's how I see it;
1) When the Oil strike at Grangemouth happened and 1/3 of Scotlands Oil production was stopped re Forties pipeline, our economy lost £50,000,000 per day, £25,000,000 per day going straight to Westminster!!!
2) To get a whole, multiply by three;
3 X £50,000,000 = £150,000,000 per Day x 365 = £54,750,000,000 per year to our economy.
3 X £25,000,000 = £75,000,000 per Day x 365 = £27,375,000,000 per year to Gordon Brown's UK Executive.
3) North Sea Oil is being extracted at a rate of approx 1 million barrels per day!
4) It is claimed that there are 25,000,000,000 barrels of Oil in the North Sea! (I thought it was 27,000,000,000 and more is found each day)
5) So 25,000,000,000/1,000,000 = 25000 Days = 68.5 Years to extract this amount of Oil at this rate.
6) These figures were mainly at the time of the Oil strike and Oil seems to be worth much more now. The UK Government is known for understating Scottish Oil reserves etc. Gordon Brown is planning, To Boost, To Extract our Oil, for the benefit of Westminster, faster than ever!
7) SCOTLAND AND BY CONSEQUENCE ALL SCOTS AND RESIDENTS OF SCOTLAND ARE BEING RIPPED OFF.... ROBBED!!!
There is only one Answer!!!
Complain about this comment
For "Truth, Lies, Oil and Scotland" see the following link page 5.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/proginfo/nations/scotland/scpiwk23.pdf
Complain about this comment
Now Brigadier, no need to provoke. And lets not let a slight linguistic tangent pull us away from what appears to be our agreement - a rather poor show all round by the government in Westminster.
Rotundular - many thanks for the alert on the programme, that should make interesting viewing. And thanks to Scottish Cyclist too - all too often arguments are based upon what the papers have said, or the general feeling of the day - hard figures come in use as well!
I shall no longer speculate upon what will happen with this longing for nuclear and further, enhanced extraction of oil from an area that is unarguably Scottish - I look forward to seeing the next twist in the tale. Come on Salmond - don't let them off lightly!
Complain about this comment
#6 fred - spot on . i wish we would stop kidding ourselves on. we are not a great world super power. and we can not police our own wee island cos we are wasting all our money trying to show off, never mind trying to police anywhere else. so nuclear power will save the day? so planning etc will be some of the powers mr brown wants back for westminster then in this 2 way street. a fine double whammy take all the oil out the north sea and build all the nuclear plants in scotland and leave us with all the nuclear waste isn't it great being scottish
Complain about this comment
brigadierjohn wrote: Brian, you've raised a crucial issue for great Britain and the world. Then you mention the SNP! So, no rational responses permitted, then? So I'll keep it short. No, Brown's plan won't work. Yes, nuclear energy is a must. Typical union response we know what is good for you and the planet. Could I suggest before one believes that nuclear energy is the way forward that these WMD factories are as polluting if not more polluting than using fossil fuel to generate electricity. Link here [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator] The remaining oil that is left in the world shouldn't be used to subsidise the nuclear industry to create long term jobs for those involved in that industry.
Complain about this comment
I fail to understand why in a country blessed with so many mountains and valleys we cannot expand our hydro- electric power capability.
Personally I have no wish to have a nuclear power station sited on my doorstep - I would have thought Chernbyl would have been enough to put anyone off.
The sooner Hunterston closes for good the better.
Complain about this comment
The SNP (sorry, Scottish Government, sorry Alex Salmond Ltd) harp on about "renewables". Fair enough, and I agree with it in principle.
But let's be practical about the issue. It is not always windy, and tidal power may not be sufficient.
Then you have the problem for energy on demand.
The enivonmentalists want us to use wind and wave power. However, they then complain about birds being hit by wind turbines and sea life being destroyed by tidal barges.
So what are we supposed to do?
The Green Party would do well to live in reality. People at the moment want and need power. Scotland is not Benidorm. It is cold here.
If the Scottish and Westminster Governments are serious about environmental issues, then why do they not commit some funding towards ensuring that all houses and buildings, pipes and so on are fully insulated?
The cost may be high, but the long term effect would be worth it. Much better to spend this money than on wasted wars in other countries.
Sheneval (#24) asked why we cannot expand out hydro-electric power. The reason is that conversationist groups are against this because it damages the environment!
Complain about this comment
"Politics is difficult".
Listening to their constant drivel is a lot more so.
The truth is that the people are tired of politicians.
Complain about this comment
Gordon Brown just wanted to hog the news to kid on that he was 'doing something'. Fact is that it was him who disincentivised North Sea exploration by increasing the Petroleum Revenue Tax. To fill his monumental socialist black hole of spending.
Why did he have to travel to Scotland to do so anyway? Don't they have phones at number 10? More posturing. Look at me, I feel your pain. I've travelled up to Scotland. I'm not hiding in my bunker chewing my fingers off. No sir, not me.
Who does he think he's kidding?
Even if an oilfield the size of Saudi Arabia was discovered today it would still take years to get any on stream. He must know that but still he goes through with this pantomime. He really does treat the voters with contempt doesn't he?
Then he waffles on about needing more nuclear power. Well, no kidding Sherlock. What's that, it took you eleven years to get to that Damascene moment and still no additional installed power. And more to the point, still nothing even on the drawing board. Not even planning applied for.
Soon we'll be like South Africa. Blackouts and industry told to go slow to conserve available power. Because the numpty government didn't take steps to ensure there'd be enough capacity. What is it with socialists and their inability to keep the lights on?
You've had eleven years. You could have re-opened the mines and be pouring our coal into a whole bunch of new generators by now.
What exactly did you do with the hundreds of billions you've borrowed instead. I see the odd shiny glass and steel hospital and school. But what the hell did you do with all the cash? You squandered it all.
Complain about this comment
Some great postings on this thread, Brian.
If some of the sentiments expressed here are a genuine reflection of the majority in Scotland, I can only surmise that I am a Scot by birth, but English by culture. I say this because I am dismayed at the selfish and unrealistic attitude being expressed. All this OUR oil, OUR wealth, OUR this and OUR that. Nuclear power? Not on OUR soil! Nuclear defence? Not in OUR waters!
Given that Scotland should ever gain independence and assuming that Scotland would be allowed sole rights to the remaining reserves (does anyone REALLY believe that will happen?), do those people really believe that wealth will make its way into their pockets? The nature of politicians is that the money will simply be pee'd away on pet schemes for short-term gain, long term loss (much the same as Brown has done over the last 11 years for the whole UK). Not a lot left for the much-vaunted Sovereign fund, I think.
In the meantime, manufacturing will go (how many aircraft carriers do you think the English will have built on the Clyde after independence?). Faslane will close (you might say 'good', but that would be another local economy destroyed, with the money going to Portsmouth and Plymouth). Like it or not, the Finance industry will relocate to London. The Civil Service (a huge employer in Scotland) will relocate to England (or India - after all, if England is going to outsource work to a foreign country, might as well get good value for money).
Yes, Scotland will have the oil revenues. One of the earlier contributors calculated that the current oil reserves would last 68 years at current extraction levels. I think it is fair to assume that extraction will increase. So, in less than 68 years, what will Scotland have to live on? Tourism? Meanwhile, England will have a functioning economy and control of electricity generation and supply. I am sure they will be happy to sell excess energy to Scotland.
I am not a supporter of independence. I am a great believer in standing together as a nation and speaking with one voice.
More posting, please, in Gaelic. I don't understand a word of it, but it looks wonderful.
Complain about this comment
This has nothing to do with cutting Oil Prices, and has everything to do with getting Brown out of the hole he has dug.
He has borrowed and spent on War, WMD, Dodgy Banks, U Turns on 10p tax to try to bribe his way to a Bi-Election win, until we have now reached the point that the UK has reached its credit limit.
Where can he go for further cash to try to save his electoral skin?
To the cash cow that is Scotland's Oil!
He'll tell us next week that the union is best for Scotland, and that we cannot survive as an independent nation.
Aye Right!
You can't have it both ways Mr Brown.
No More!
Referendum now please.
Complain about this comment
He'll tell us next week that the union is best for Scotland, and that we cannot survive as an independent nation.
The man will say anything. I despair. Anytime he wants to give you his myopic version of how well he's doing he phones up Andrew Marr and gives a monologue on Sunday TV about how he's the best chancellor ever in history. Ever. And how he feels our pain. And how he's listening.
Pure abuse of the BBC. Put out my one-sided propaganda or I'll cut your funding.
The BBC and the rest of the press should do what they did with the IRA all those years ago. No platform. We're sick of your lies and justifications for economic hari-kari. And if they must have him on then have him silhouetted and voiced over by an actor. That might give him the message his bubble of sycophantic cheerleaders are shielding him from.
Failing that, do what he does. Anytime there's a difficult question he sends somebody else out to mouth condescending platitudinous nothings. Next time he phones up demanding to be interviewed by Andrew Marr - I'll set the questions and you'll listen to my answers. Why Marr? Because he's viewed as a serious interviewer. He gains kudos being seen blabbing Castro-like about his great socialist revolution in the same shot as Andrew Marr.
How about Marr has something more important to do and they get John Craven or who ever presents Newsround these days or The Chuckle Brothers to conduct the interview. Treat him with the respect he deserves.
Complain about this comment
Of course it is our oil. And the reason so many of us react so strongly in claiming so is because we have been so deprived of our oil and it has been far more SELFISHLY used for others benefit: namely Middle England. So keep your fearty loser mentality underwraps youngerrap
Why would any business go to the expense of moving south when independence would mean no change and possibly even lowered costs in the long run. The Business Community in Scotland are increasingly swinging towards Indpendence because as true business people they smell profitability. This will count quite consderably at the time of the referendum.
The English economy has far more to worry about. A ever diminishing manufacturing base with a large population, little real resources reliant on global capital owned by overseas interests. Scotland, with its small well educated population with huge resources and potential in energy renewables has a much brighter future IMO.
Complain about this comment
The point Brian was making is that politics is a tough business when there are no easy solutions.
Given that energy fuels the economy and the desire for life improvement demands a continuously growing economy then energy policy is right at the heart of government as the most critical issue facing any country.
The constraints are
1 Global oil prices are rising-nothing the UK or Scottish Government can do
2 Reducing tax on oil can only have a short term and temporary effect
3 Increasing oil production may moderate future price rises--but unlikely as newer oil will be more expensive to extract
4 living with higher oil prices is inevitable--either spend more or modify behaviour
5 renewables will take time to fill any gap--if ever--it may be theoretically possible for Scotland to be self sufficient in renewables--but when and what do we do along the way-and will it really happen. Suppose a totally renewable energy supply was the policy and all eggs were in that basket and we didn't succeed--demands for alternatives would be loud.
6 The nuclear solution is at least ten years away, even if started now
7 Security of supply is an issue on oil and energy bought from other countries
8 bets need to be hedged by playing the field--more oil, clean coal technology, nuclear and renewables---only the ideologically constrained would attempt to rule out any element in energy supply
9 modify behaviour by developing energy saving/reduction to all aspects of life, buildings, travel etc etc
This issue is so serious and so constrained and so difficult our politicians need all the help they can get and responses to Brian's blog could be a source of such help but it has not yet shown the quality of debate required to advance anyone's thinking on the subject.
I don't know the answer either but it would seem---increasing oil to attempt to moderate prices in the medium term, the taxation issue is a distraction, develop renewables as fast as you can afford, develop clean coal technology as fast as you can afford, develop some nuclear stations to provide energy in the medium term and hope that we can eventually get to a renewable supply before the economy collapses and modify behaviour.
The politicians are struggling with difficult issues--trying helping them rather than having meaningless squabbles amongst yourselves.
Complain about this comment
So keep your fearty loser mentality underwraps youngerrap
Aye. That's the ticket. We're Scot's wayhaaay. Wha's like us? We're fantastic we are. Are you listening? Oi, show me some RESPECT. I said, we're fantastic. We're special.
It's oor oil.
That's the mentality we're up against I'm afraid.
It's not lack of respect from England as equals that eats away at the SNP, it's their self-declared, boastful superiority. And how nobody apart from them seems to feel that way.
small well educated population
Well educated? Really? Another self-declared delusion I fear. There are some in Ireland who think their recent success was due to their well-educated population too. I couldn't conceal my pity or contempt.
You don't need well-educated. You just need a basic education and ambition. I live in Dunfermline, birthplace of Andrew Carnegie.
My dad (Irish) was eulogising about him when I was a kid. The man was a hero in Ireland. He left Scotland penniless at 13. They had to borrow the money to get away to America. By the time he was 65 he was the 2nd richest man in the world ever. Do you think he knew more at thirteen than our till-receipt degree numpties do today at 21? Do you?
No! But he had motivation and ambition. All we do, by contrast, is featherbed generations of potential Carnegies all over the UK to sit about watching day-time TV.
They're deprived. The mines have closed down. There's no more shipbuilding. They have low aspirations. And you promote these low aspirations by completely removing any incentive to get up and improve their lot. Like dynamiting their council house while they're down the pub for example.
Gaaaah. I went into the Carnegie birthplace museum again yesterday. It was deserted as usual except for the incredibly enthusiastic people who work there. No, really, they are. They get so little traffic I guess.
Every kid in Scotland and possibly the entire UK should be marched through there at the age of ten like Lenin's tomb. Shown them the tiny room where he was born. Where he shared a bedroom with his entire family. Then show them the rest of the museum.
Look, this is where hard work and ambition and basic reading and writing skills will get you. Anything you want. Don't come bleating to me in twenty years time about how the government doesn't provide you with a council house and a well paid job with solid gold pension.
But no. The likes of Brown and the Guardianistas all sit around wringing their hands thinking handing out degrees in Media Studies is the answer. Noooo. Show the kids on these sink estates real examples of how where you're from does not matter.
You just need a government that doesn't tax you to death. Or tax the wealth creators and corporations to death. After that the jobs will come. Just like they did in Ireland.
To date, all Scotland (and the wider UK) has done is effectively pay the ex-miners, ex-shipbuilders and their kids and their grand-kids to sit around waiting for something to happen. It's the cruellest betrayal of the human spirit imaginable. Removing all ambition by removing all incentive. There you go, there's your dole money, there's your incapacity benefit. Vote Labour.
Complain about this comment
This issue is so serious and so constrained and so difficult our politicians need all the help they can get and responses to Brian's blog could be a source of such help but it has not yet shown the quality of debate required to advance anyone's thinking on the subject
Gordon Brown, the great Labour hope, the cleverest man in the government, a man whose IQ rivals that of Jeremy Paxman and Stephen Fry, has had eleven years of government to effect an energy policy. In that time his sole contribution has been to increase fuel tax for consumers and petroleum tax on producers. And that's it.
So the key thing to do will be to get rid of somebody who is so book-smart but so incompetent in the real world. We shouldn't waste a second wondering what Brown will do. Because we know the answer. Nothing, like the last eleven years. Or nothing that he won't get panicked into that'll just make things worse.
We should be talking to David Cameron and telling him to get a strategy together so he hits the ground running. Forget Brown. He's yesterday's man.
What we need are nuclear power stations. Stacks of them. Like the French. Start the planning now. Get the supply contracts in place for the nuclear fuel now while it's relatively cheap. Drill a big hole in South Georgia about two miles deep, let off a small nuke (or several thousand tons of conventional explosives) at the bottom to create a nice big cavity and toss all our nuclear waste in there. 80bn to get rid of our nuclear waste? Are they flying it to Mars or something?
Complain about this comment
Portcharlotte, you make good points but you are assuming continued union, where we have recently become a net importer of oil. High oil prices are therefore a bad thing. An independent Scotland would be a net exporter of oil for decades to come. A good thing at today's current high prices. High prices are also good in another way. They mean that more of the oil becomes economical to extract, and so the reserves effectively grow.
All that would give us a buffer period to develop and expand our renewables. Filling the gap will be difficult, but at least we're a lot better off than many other countries in that respect. Wind and wave power are variable but tidal and hydro are relatively constant. Clean coal and maybe one nuclear plant thrown into the mix is maybe no bad thing, much as I dislike nuclear. The eventual goal would be, if possible, to be a net exporter of energy once oil runs out. I believe an independent Scotland can achieve that.
Complain about this comment
#35
Richard,
I do not wish to labour the point, but my personal belief is that, where oil is so crucial to the well-being of the UK economy, there is no chance that total control of that resource will be ceded to Scotland as part of independence negotiations.
Also, nuclear power aside, all of the renewable energy initiatives you mention could be achieved NOW. Clean coal technology exists NOW.
The Scottish Government has the powers to introduce them NOW.
Why don't they?
Why do you insist on independence as a necessary prerequisite?
Independence is not a certainty, but the increased demand for energy is.
Complain about this comment
How can England/UK claim a resource in Scottish territorial waters? What sort of precedent would that set in international law if it were allowed to happen?
Complain about this comment
#37
I am not sure that Scotland currently has any territorial waters.
I am no lawyer, but it is my understanding that they are still 'United Kindom' territorial waters.
I believe that Scotland can only claim Territorial Waters post-independence (i.e. when it is a seperate State).
Hence my point about independence negotiations.
I may be wrong, in which case I am sure someone will be kind enough to correct me.
Sadly, I suspect that the SNP use the oil 'wealth' as the 'carrot on a stick' with which to lead on the electorate. They should really be a bit more open and honest where this resource is concerned.
Complain about this comment
From Wikipedia:
However due to the existence of two separate legal systems in Great Britain - that of Scots law pertaining to Scotland and English law pertaining to England and Wales, constitutional law in the United Kingdom has provided for the division of the UK sector of the North Sea into specific Scottish and English components[5]. The Continental Shelf Act 1964 and the Continental Shelf (Jurisdiction) Order 1968 defines the UK North Sea maritime area to the north of latitude 55 degrees north as being under the jurisdiction of Scots law[6] meaning that 90% of the UK's oil resources were under Scottish jurisdiction[7][8]. In addition, section 126 of the Scotland Act 1998 defines Scottish waters as the internal waters and territorial sea of the United Kingdom as are adjacent to Scotland[9]. This has been subsequently amended by the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundary Order 1999 which redefined the extent of Scottish waters and Scottish fishery limits
Complain about this comment
I think the UK government should be more honest and open where this is concerned. The onus is very much on them and not the SNP.
Complain about this comment
Youngerap, your question has been very kindly and succinctly been answered by Bluelaw.
I have a map with the UK oil and gas fields marked, and the boundary of the Scottish territorial waters overlaid on top. Given time, I shall post it on the web and provide a link this evening.
Complain about this comment
#39
When in a hole, stop digging!
I wonder how long it will take the lawyers and politicians to find ways and words to reinterpret that? But I am certainly not going to try and gladly withdraw my comments.
Complain about this comment
Why would the British government argue about boundaries they themselves established? They'd look absurd and beyond petty.
Despite my justifiable suspicions of Westminster Politicos I sincerely believe the split will be amicable. I think common sense and decency will prevail and the split will not be long and drawn out.
Complain about this comment
Speaking as a half Scot half English person living in London I don’t understand what you Nats are so angry about. Sure Scotland has problems but are they any worse off than the rest of the UK? From what I can see most people in Scotland are doing OK, especially when compared to the rest of the world. Believe it or not there are poor people in London and those in Cornwell who pay just as much for fuel as those in Skye. And the North East of England suffered under Thatcher just like Clyde Side.
I just do not understand how Scotland has uniquely suffered. From the rhetoric I find here I get the impression you could teach the Armenians about misery. You constantly compare your situation to that of the Irish. But the Irish suffered for 600 year of oppression from us Brits, much of this at the hand of Scots standing shoulder to shoulder with the English. The UK is one of the richest and successful counties in the world. Sadly not everyone gets to enjoy our fortunes equally. But is that inequality based on which side of the border we live?
From reading this blog over the past year I have reached the conclusion this if the views of those who post here represent the wider population then once oil reaches $200 a barrel Scotland will be filing for divorce (no drought claiming emotional cruelty as the reason). I must ask is it just about the money? If so then there is no hope left
Complain about this comment
mcjbrown that is a very good question and I think I have an equally good answer.
Simply put no it isn't about the money. There are many many many reasons why we want independence. The reason money keeps coming up is that the pro unionist group and the anti scottish group claim that Scotland is taking more than it's fair share from the UK and that if it were independent it would be bankrupt because all we do is look after sheep and drink buckie. This has therefore become the dominant issue not because the nats chose it to be but because the others did with their lies and half-truths.
Financially I believe the case for independence to be very persuasive but there are far more reasons for independence than simply money.
Complain about this comment
It's ludicrous, absoluely ludicrous to suggest Scots are uniquely angry in this regard. In fact compared to the vast majorities of people in any comparable situation we are uniquely peaceful to the point of being submissive. I think this fact is lost on a lot of so-called impartial observers. Scottish nationalism is one of if not THE most peaceful political movements of its kind to ever have existed. That's exactly the reason why Scotland and the Scots have been treated with such disregard and neglect for so long. It is this passivity which allows people not only to goad us about our country but to assume in the most ignorant and insulting of ways that Scotland can be done with as anyone pleases. My anger is only at the lies and injustice of union as I see it. I just happen to think our history reveals a whole number of precedents in this regard and that emotionally and logically independence is a way of ending the basic injustice governing Scottish life. I simply want Scotland to be independent and sovereign and therefore normal. It's nothing really more emotive than that.
Complain about this comment
Mcjbrown,
I thank you for your comments.
To briefly summarise, Yes, I believe Scotland has historically suffered, but it has in some ways gained too, from the Union of Parliaments and the subsequent Empire.
The past, however, is not the point. It is my belief that Scotland can and will be financially better off as an independent nation again, but more importantly for me, she will able to make her own decisions and be better able to serve the will of the Scottish people. Put simply, it's the Right Thing To Do.
Yes, Scotland has problems. Many of them are pointed out here in the blogs of the past few days, but having been lucky enough to see a good few countries around the world, I can confidently say that ours is one of the very best. The thing is, there is always room for improvement and it's up to us to make it happen.
Am I passionate about that? Yes.
Am I angry? No.
Complain about this comment
The whole argument of those pushing for independence, at least as far as economic viability is concerned) rest with the oil. "Our" oil. The boundaries drawn up by the Westminster Parliament did not envisage an independent Scotland, and I have no doubt that should such occur (and it would only happen once given life by an Act of Parliament at Westminster) the international boundaries at sea would be re-drawn in accordance with international law rather than administrative convenience. Why should the English tax-payer, who has invested shed loads of money in developing the oilfields simply kiss them goodbye if they didn't need to? Scotland would get some, England would get some, and both would be holding a diminishing resource. The high point of extraction has already passed.
More to the point, and something rarely discussed on here, is what would have happened if there had been no oil? If we go back before the 1960's those calling for independence were lonely voices lost on the wind. Without the subsidy from the English taxpayer (and whatever you may think is the true position now - there most certainly was a subsidy from the English taxpayer before oil), Scotland would have been in a very sorry state. So are the Scots really such selfish, fair-weather friends that they take what they can in the hard times, but want everything for themselves when the good times roll? That is not the picture that I see when I look at Scotland and her people. Sadly it is often what the English see when they look north and listen to the sour whining from some Scots about the theft of "their" oil. I do my best to put them right, but you can hardly blame them. The English don't even have a parliament of their own for goodness sake. What have the Scots to grumble about?
Those who push for independence on the back of the oil should think long and hard about why the union happened in the first place. England gained a secure border to her north (hardly a concern these days) but Scotland gained a financial lifeline without which she would have been bankrupt. Once the oil has gone (however much is rightfully hers) Scotland will need to compete with the world, including her large and powerfull neighbour to the south. If the baby is thrown out with the bathwater, don't go crying to the English when you can't make ends meet again. I suspect they will have little sympathy.
Complain about this comment
And in case you didn't read between the lines-
Is it just about the money? No, no and thrice no.
Complain about this comment
I have another question. Define independence? Do you mean a sovereign sate with its own currency etc. like Norway or as a member state in the EU? And if part of the EU then what would be the limits of independence? How would policies on interest rates, tax, spending and the oil be effected (i.e. how independent would Scotland be)? And would that compensate for lose of control by Westminster where Scot MPs can exert considerable influence.
Complain about this comment
MalcolmW2,
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the English tax payer did not invest shed loads of money. The investment was made largely by private oil companies who paid for the privilege of exploring and exploiting the resources.
They paid for the licenses, they paid for the infrastructure, they pay tax on the oil and gas extracted. in return, they sell the oil and gas.
The exception may be BP, which at the time was part owned by the UK government, but has been sold off so you got your money for the investments there.
Anyway, England would get some. Most of the gas fields are in English waters.
I apologise if I'm in any way incorrect, I'm not in a position to do any checking up at the moment.
Complain about this comment
In response to #35 I agree with #36. I do not belong to the group who believes that all the oil will simply fall into our laps. I am convinced that the Union will end by negotiation and there will be give and take and oil will be on the table.
I have yet to be convinced by bluelaws pronouncements on the subject over several blogs. The contributions have the air of conviction and sincerity frequently found in those who don't listen and these views and apparent legal positions will not last in the heat of any negotiations to come and the international agencies won't save bluelaw. Scotland needs to build a broad international consensus on what a reasonable independence settlement would be. We'll need friends and supporters around us hopefully Alex Salmond is building that now. Simple assertations as made by bluelaw are a delusion.
The debate has to be wider, simply talking to ourselves will not advancement.
Complain about this comment
As the UK is signed up to the UNCLOS it would have to abide by the articles in the treaty. A countries economical zone is set out in the treaty as 200 nautical miles off the shore. The UK has set up this zone and has already gone a stage further by differentiating Scottish and English waters for legal reasons.
These boundaries are currently accepted internationally and I think this would be the least contentious negotiation that there would be after we vote for independence.
I have yet to hear any government official argue that 90% of Britains oil production is anywhere other than in Scotland. There is simply no way they could justify it and no goalpost manouvering would get them round it.
Complain about this comment
Portcharlotte: I hope the union doesn't end, but if it does, it will happen exactly as you say. Do you think Bluelaw agrees?
Complain about this comment
It's Unionists that are completely stuck in their past with talk of England doing as it pleases like times of yore. England itself has thankfully moved on. English leaders know full well they can no longer do as they please in these islands. There may be some bluster and brogadaccio on the part of England at the actual time of Scottish independence but I have no doubts they will be entirely reasonable when negotiating a settlement.
Complain about this comment
This issue is so much more than oil. Oil is a just a symbol of the abject failure of union to serve or even protect our interests and by the same token represents what we're mssing out on as an independent.
I can't believe just how apologetic some people are about this issue. Why would Scotland need international agreement to become independent? What utter rubbish. This is just scaremongering nonsense because you're frightened of independence and the fact it forces us all to grow up in a sense, to take responsibilty and make our country the best it can be. No blaming anyone else, just us. But you see I regard this as exciting. Just think of all the endless possibilities as an independent. Just think how better we can fashion our country, make it a vision of exactly what we want, a country that reflects us but might just inspire us. Just think how much more proud we could be if we were in control and made Scotland a really great country. The SNP have given us a taste of this IMO. So stop living in relative fear of something that is exciting but entirely normal and come 2010 just take that opportunity and do it.
Complain about this comment
bluelaw #39
Thanks for providing evidence to back up your posts.
If only everyone on here was so thorough, we wouldn't need to spend time reading so much empty bluster.
Complain about this comment
As promised, here's a link to a map of the UK oil and gas reserves and infrastructure, with the boundaries of the internationally recognised Scottish territorial waters overlaid (the thick black dotted line).
Note that the territorial waters actually extend beyond the boundaries of the map to the north and west. The dotted line is slightly misleading in that respect.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3290/2533679803_6ce29e81be_b.jpg
Complain about this comment
#56 enjoy your isolation bluelaw but we actually live in a world with a lot of other people, every major structural change has either invoved upheaval, war, disruption or agreement and mutual support. I don't think you are at all convincing.
Complain about this comment
thanks rotundular.
Complain about this comment
If I was cynical can I ask why this link
http://www.stormsmith.nl/publications/secureenergy.pdf
was removed from my previous post as being [Unsuitable/Broken] or was westminster and "friends" involved as they don't like the truth.
Complain about this comment
How is wanting Scotland to be independent in the EU at the UN, forming and reestablishing friendships, trading partnerships, contributing internationally etc etc an example of isolationism. Don't be silly. Grow up.
Complain about this comment
Bluelaw states:
"Just think how much more proud we could be if we were in control and made Scotland a really great country."
Ordinary people don't lie awake at night, worrying that we're not proud enough. They'll could have more limited concerns, like health, money or sex, or more advanced concerns like nature, science or religion. Try to remember that not everyone adheres to the philosophy of the nationalists.
Complain about this comment
You use the words "ordinary" and "limited" in your analysis of the aspirations or not of the Scottish people. This sums up the Unionist position quite nicely IMO..
Complain about this comment
Isn’t Scotland already a really great country? Surly the nationalist rhetoric is promoting a pessimistic glass half empty view of the present and recent history whilst setting unrealistic expectations for a post independence future.
I mean realistically how much better can things get. Scotland is a modern developed county with a per capital GDP in excess of $25,000, with a good infrastructure, social welfare, freedom, employment, a beautiful uncrowned county with a strong culture/history and a good level of social cohesion. I know there are problems and all this does not apply to everybody equally. But given all the problem/changes is the world like global warming, over population, poverty, inflation, war and globalisation I think Scotland like the rest of the UK is doing OK at present. Also I am not using this as an argument against independence as I assume this happy state could exist post independence.
My point is Scotland has had to endure many difficult economic and social changes in its history. Industries have grown then died. Populations have migrated. Indexes have risen and fallen. Crime and poverty has entered the inner cities. Rural communities have collapsed. But how is this different to any other western country? So how can you blame these problems on the union?
Complain about this comment
mcjbrown:
Simple.
An Independent Scotland could of been almost as wealthy as Norway.
One question.
Is Scotland as wealthy as Norway?
Answer: No.
Scots (not always Nationalists) feel if Scotland was able to generate our own income and spend our own income then we would be a much better place then we are now.
Because we would be far more wealthy and have the resources to make it happen.
Currently, we have to share our income and/is distrubuted to ensure the SE of London economy is sustained because of the amount of influence that part of the country has and of course population numbers.
Complain about this comment
Thomas_Porter
You may be right Scotland may be as wealthy as Norway at some point in the future and if that is what the Scottish people want then go for it, that is democracy. You are talking about a possibility in the future that I can’t argue against.
However at present we are still one county and the oil is a shared resource. That I think should be used to benefit of all the UK’s population
Complain about this comment
McJBrown
If only Scotland were so rosy. Scotland has some of the worst incidences of poverty in the EU and associated long term unemployment rates. Scotland has one of the highest crime rates in the EU. Scotland has one of the worst alcohol and drug problems in the EU. Scotland has one of the worst health problems in the EU. Scotland is the only country with a declining population in the EU. I could go on. This is why Unionists are essentially so quiet when pressed on Scotlands 'success' as part of the Union. They can't allude to success becaus relative to Norway, Ireland, Iceland, Denmark and Finland we are miles behind. Now, of course it would be churlish to say that Independence would be a cure-all. There would be work to do after independence no doubt. But these problems can only ever be properly addressed by the Scottish people as an independent country. These problems can never be addressed when Scotland has to compete with a myriad of interests at Westminster and without the proper legislative basis to do so. Not only that as has been pointed out so often Westminster is indeed part of the problem in dealing with these problems because they actively deprive Scotland of the means and resources to properly account for them. But aside from that there is nothing unrealistic about envisaging Scotland ad indeed seeing her become as wealthy, as affluent and as socially just country a country as Norway or others. But it means we can't rest on our laurels and delude ourselves that we have to make do with what is the current reality.
Complain about this comment
Bluelaw
You make some good points which make a strong argument. The social depredation in parts of Scotland and the UK is terrible and I believe a scandal in this day an age.
However I still do not see what is uniquely Scottish about this situation. Is a crime in Glasgow worse than a crime in Liverpool? Is alcohol/drug in Edinburgh more acute than Middleborough? Are the poor in East Kibride poorer than the poor in Brighton?
I do not accept that the union robs Scotland of resource to solve its social problems as there is the assembly in Holyrood and the present favourable fiscal arrangements.
Also I do not think the comparisons to Ireland and Norway hold up. Neither country has the industrial/urban legacy that Scotland with the associated poverty (or most other western) countries have. Ireland has been able to exploit its unique relationship with the USA, EU and UK plus was willing to implement some hard (Thatcherite) economic policies. Norway has a lot more oil than Scotland and is truly independent.
Here is a question for you. You have stated what you think are the benefits for Scotland independence will bring but what do you think will be lost if the union was to end?
Complain about this comment
Most of those are Glasgow problems, not Scottish problems.
For example, Scotland's unemployment is lower than the EU average, and it has a stable population, rather than a declining one, like Italy or Germany.
Complain about this comment
I am getting tired of Alex Salmond's whining on about the 'national outrage' of the cost of oil to Scotland when it is an oil producing nation.
What guff!
This is just political opportunism at its worst and is clearly intended to achieve nothing but breed discontent.
Scotland is not an oil producing nation.
The United Kingdom is an oil producing nation and, as such, it is a national outrage that the cost of fuel in the United Kingdom is so high.
Complain about this comment
Nonsense. Scotland has a declining population which explains the lower unemployment rate:
http://news.scotsman.com/scotlandspopulation/Declining-population-held-off-for.2671332.jp
High incidences of poverty and most shamefully child poverty occur throughout Scotland. I can't get a map newer than 2003 though I think you'll agree the nature of these things suggests there won't be much change:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2003/02/16377/18213
Complain about this comment
Yeah right. If 90% of oil reserves were off the Kent coast you'd soon hear it being called English oil. And if this resource was being used to make Scotland rich to the detriment of England you wouldn't be calling it political opportunism to say so.
Complain about this comment
Thank you for your measured and considered response McJBrown.
Of course Glasgow and Liverpool are blighted similarly. And I take no joy when saying that the difference is Glasgow in receipt of Scotish national resources has the means to escape this situation far more readily than Liverpool or indeed other neglected English cities and regions. But that is the responsibility of those who live in and identify themselves as Liverpudlian etc and is therefore not my responsibility - sympathetic as I am.
I take you point about the differences in the economic base of Ireland et al. I would say that Scotland has greater strengths than these countries in other key areas: financial management being the most prominent one. I don't think Ireland is in a stronger position because of its links with the USA though they should be applauded for a great performance of late. Scotland could emulate this and we have substantive links with the USA but really our place is within a European paradigm. Just in case you're not aware the Eurozone, not the EU, that is countries using the Euro are now bigger than the US economy. This is where Scotland can and must become a better more noticed player. The fact that our industrial base has been largely destroyed means we have to embrace new technologies and become prominent in markets much more quickly and responsively. And IMO the only way to do this is by being independent because we need the legislative means and to be in control of our own resources in order to do it. And we need the confidence in ourselves to do these things and for others to have the condifence in us which only really comes by being taken seriously as an independent.
Complain about this comment
What a nonsense argument and not at all to your normal standard, bluelaw.
It is a simple matter of fact that, until such time as Scotland achieves independence (and assuming that some portion of the oil rights go with that independence) then credit for oil production must go to The United Kingdom. I think we all agree that the oil is landed and initially processed in Scotland but that can really be described as just an accident of geography.
It is interesting, though, that Alex Salmond makes such provocative statements regarding the 'national outrage' etc, when he refuses to bring forward the independence referendum. I do not wish to re-open the 'declared timetable, etc, etc' debate, but I do find his behaviour a tad questionable.
Complain about this comment
Thomas_Porter #2
I suspect the real problem is one of scale. Using renewable energy to provide 50% of the energy requirements of 5 million people living in a fairly sparsely populated country is one thing, providing 50% of the required energy for a population of 55 million in a substantially more densely populated country is quite another.
We have an awful lot more empty space in which to stick up windfarms (assuming that they don't get rejected on the somewhat ironic grounds of being damaging to their local environment) than are neighbours down south have.
Complain about this comment
If credit for oil production is to go to the UK then is credit for the City of london's winfalls to go to the UK as well and we will never ever again hear any utterances from our Southern English friends about subsidies to Scotland and the like? No, I don't think so either.
Complain about this comment
youngerap
Please explain in what particular way we must credit the UK for oil production?
On might have thought the allocation of 100% of the revenues to London to date was credit in itself?
An if an "accident of geography" (whatever that is) overrides an entitlement to one's natural resources, then surely the claim of its own revenues any national government, including London, is in doubt?
Complain about this comment
It's interesting that none of those banging on about the rape of Scotland by the union, and the theft of "her" oil, has yet commented on, let alone challenged, my point in post 48 that before the discovery of oil, Scotland did indeed rely on subsidy from the taxes in the rest of the union, notably of course England, to provide public services in the remote regions. If it was OK for Scotland to benefit economically from the union then, why is it suddenly wrong for the rest of the union to benefit from "Scotland's oil" now? A union is just that after all. Like it or not, that is the question that people beyond the narrow confines of the SNP are rightly asking.
Complain about this comment
There's no proof that Scotland was subsidised up until the 1960's. Scotland had a decent manufacturing base which more than paid its way all the while ripping ordinary Scots off and making obscene profits of their back. 2000% in some cases. But aside from that what about Scotland's tax contributions to a BBC that ignored it or refused to employ Scots, to a civil Service that did nothing for Scotland, to a Military that gleefully welcomed poor Scots recruits, or Scotland itself acting as a great training ground for the UK and indeed NATO as gateway to the North Atlantic in the depths of the cold war. I say Scots and Scotland have more than paid their way in booty and blood and we have nothing to thank Westminster for. On the contrary they should be on bended knee thanking us for our seemingly endless toleration of them.
Complain about this comment
Bluelaw
My understanding of the Nat’s economic plan for Scotland is to promote investment with low taxes whilst maintaining high levels of spending utilising the oil money. A have your cake and eat it plan. The argument for independence being that this can’t be done now as Scotland has to share the oil wealth with the rest of the UK. Please correct me if I’m wrong. This then will create economic growth providing the means to solve all other problems. I must admit it seems a brilliant prospect. If I may paraphrase another contributor to this blog ‘ to make Scotland almost as rich as Norway’ . Happy Days….
Firstly is there enough oil to do this or would a future Scottish government need to cut back on spending?
Secondly would money it’s self solve the existing social problem?
Thirdly the real joker in the pack is the EU will they allow Scotland the independence to do this. Are not France and Germany working towards tax harmony?
Another possible future for an independent Scotland in one in which the oil money has been spent but little change has been made to the economy as the new government is locked in to excessive social welfare schemes. One where the future Scotland will be a minor player in the European second division. (As will England although I think London will maintain its premiership status.)
This in its self is not an argument against independence. But I do not understand why we should run the risk of destroying our country when the present situation is not that bad (please read my post above).
I note your sympathy of the poor folk of Liverpool but I do not understand your point that you have no responsibility. Are you taking the ‘I’m not my brothers keeper’ line hence the people of Aberdeen need not care about the folk of Motherwell (and lets cheer for Shetland’s oil). How does this philosophy sit with EU membership? Who’s founding principle is one of common cause?
Also you still have not answered my earlier question on what you think is worth keeping. What is good about the union? What should happen to the BBC? The army (navy and air force)? The monarchy? Our common citizenship? What should the legacy of our common history be?
Complain about this comment
I have as much obligation to utilise Scotland's resources on the poor of England as a Norwegian or Dane has to utilise theirs. This doesn't mean I am unsympathetic and I genuinely do think it's both practical and decent as a Scot to be concerned about England and the English but I just don't accept that Liverpool or Hackney or Manchester are my responsibility as a tax payer especially when Scotland endures so much endemic poverty itself
I read somewhere that if Scotland were independent right now Scots would be per capita third richest in the world behind Norway and Ireland. I believe given this we could maintain and even increase current public spending and save for a rainy day by starting a Norwegian style oil fund. So yes we might go from third in the world to first which would be great would it not?
But to address what you are really getting at. I think in the interim Scotland would have to become a low business rate economy to spur growth but in the long run I believe, with greater confidence, Scotland could build a more substantive busines sector which would be augmented by a highly developed financial services and services sector. I also think we are well placed in that we have a huge economy immediately to the south of which we can invest in and export to on much more favourable terms (as an independent EU partner) and as well as this use our independent profile to establish better trading links with and within the EU and doubtless further afield too. I think there is also like to be huge growth in demand for renewables which Scotland could take huge advantage of. And I didn't even mention how much of an advantage oil would give us in doing these things either ;-)
Complain about this comment
Bluelaw at present you are a UK tax payer.
If you are referring to the recent report from the ‘Adam Smith’ institute they did (I think) say Scotland could have the third highest per capita income. But with the proviso that other economic changes are made. Namely cutting public expenditure to allow tax cuts. And that I think is the nub of the issue, Independence from the UK on its own is not enough. What if EU tax harmony prevented the ‘low business rate’ economy? What concessions will Scotland have to make to join the Euro? Or If Scotland stayed with the pound how will that work?
Again I do not put this as an argument against independence. But I do not think you can guarantee the rosy future for Scotland you describe and I do not see why we all should run the risk of destroying what we have for a fundamental change which if successful will probably have little impact on our lives (both sides of the boarder). But if this project fails then we all will have to suffer the consequences.
I read you post No.80 and the comment about Scots paying in booty and blood. I’m sorry but I just do not accept this rhetoric. Half my family is Scottish (many life long Nats) and I have been visiting Scotland since 1958. Spending much of the 90’s working there. Now I am not saying I’m an expert of Scottish history or culture but you describe a Scotland that I do not recognise.
Complain about this comment
mcjbrown:
"What if EU tax harmony prevented the ?low business rate? economy?"
Ireland does it. We can to.
"What concessions will Scotland have to make to join the Euro? Or If Scotland stayed with the pound how will that work?"
It would work the way it manages now. Joining the Euro is only an idea if it proves good for an Independent Scotland and there is plans for that.
"and I do not see why we all should run the risk of destroying what we have."
Speak for yourself.
"But if this project fails then we all will have to suffer the consequences."
Project? It is far more then just a project. The report which shows Scotland to have a surplus of money left is all I need to vote for Independence. How we use that money is a different story. But I am sure that it would not include illegal wars and nuclear weapons.
"Half my family is Scottish (many life long Nats)"
You should ask them about the benifits of an Independent Scotland.
Complain about this comment
Bluelaw: There is no endemic poverty in Scotland. What we have is a statistical device to measure "relative" poverty. That is, a family is officially "poor" if its income is less than 60/65% of the national average. The figure includes gangsters, drug dealers and all those in the Black Economy claiming benefits, unemployment and incapacity. Very, very few are poor.
Poverty exists in Darfur, the townships, the favellas, all over the Third World. Would it be the fifth or sixth re-use of this fabled oil fund that would distribute foreign aid? I think your attitude to your poor neighbours is the answer. It's an attitude that stinks of a political creed the moderator might not permit me to name.
So, tell me about a future Scotland dripping with wealth. Would Carlisle folk be able to cross over and fill up at 10p a litre? Who'd manage the queues? Would there be a refugee camp south of Gretna for English folk desperate to get in? Would every Scot have a Thai maid?
Or would we become like pre-war Havana, a prosperous playground for degenerates, where none of the wealth filtered down to ordinary folk.
Never mind, we'd be moving up from third to first richest country in the world.
I had you marked down a fantasist. Let me revise that: You are a dangerous fantasist.
Complain about this comment
brigadierjohn:
Oh, John.
You cannot deny the recent report that had shown Scotland would have a surplus measuring in billions which also indicated that we would have all these different benifits and have enough to have an Oil Fund similiar to Norway.
Complain about this comment
Thomas_Porter
Everything to do with the EU involves negotiation. Tax harmony is a major issue in the referendum in Ireland this month and I think many in Dublin accept that long term they will not be able to offer low corporation tax as an incentive. Not that they need to now as it has been such a successful policy in the past. But I think you must accept the fact that Scotland may not be given the same deal Ireland has.
Currency is a big issue I do not see how post independence England and Scotland can share the pound with out conceding some sovereignty to Westminster (or at least the City of London). The other alternatives are the Euro and a new currency. I suspect the Scotland will opt for the Euro. Which means more negotiation with the rest of the EU
So I think the only real independence Scotland will have is to spend the surplus of money and to squabble over how this will be done. Maybe I being overly pessimistic and this will be enough to your country the richest in world.
Illegal wars and nuclear weapons. You may have a point here. In that we all assume a Scottish government of any flavor would have a different policy to any in Westminster and maybe this would be a good thing. But can a new Scotland disconnect its self from the past. Our shared history. Remember Scotland was an equal partner in the Empire and in setting up the capitalist west. Think of all those Scots who owned slaves, fought in foreign wars in the past, stole land from the natives in the colonies. How many Scots served in the ‘Black and Tans’? How many enjoy cheap manufacture goods from Asian sweat shops now. My point being you can’t say Scotland good England bad. We both people created the UK and we share a joint responsibility for our history good and bad.
As for my Scottish family yes I do think some would agree with you. But I think they already are enjoying the benefits of then union.
Complain about this comment
mcjbrown:
If I recall correctly, bluelaw far from being a British taxpayer, has said on this blog that he lives in Continental Europe. I may not live in Scotland but at least I still live in the UK and pay taxes which help support Scotland (as well as the other parts of the UK) Strange that an American is not entitled to free speech on here and express an opinion but ex-pats are. How does that work?.
I wonder, going back to my earlier point, how the subsidy to Scotland from England before oil can be denied, given that the Royal Mail, British Railways (before privatisation) and other public services in the remote regions and islands were paid for by taxpayers, the vast bulk of whom lived then, as now, in England. These services costed lots of money to provide. I didn't hear squealing from south of the border about the burden of keeping Scotland going - it was a union and Scots were seen as part of the UK family whose needs demanded extra funding. The Scottish economy did not produce enough to support those expensive services on its own, even before the loss of manufacturing capacity. It is only the recent perpetual whining about oil and independece from the SNP supporters, in denial about what a good deal Scotland has under devolution compared to the English, that has caused many English people to raise that question. Pretending otherwise is sheer fantasy.
As for the disproportionate number of Scots joining the armed forces, still a feature of UK life, that is an indication of the difficulty young men north of the border had (and still have) in finding jobs there. Far from the UK government (I presume that really means the English or the "union") going on bended knee in thanks, I suggest that it is Scotland that should be grateful that the union provided this lifeline for young men who would otherwise have been swelling the ranks of the unemployed. An independent Scotland may well attract some inward business investment, but it would be in direct competition with already well-established platforms, particularly the financial sector of the City of London, and the transport links in England are much more seductive for the international traveller than those in Scotland. Has the huge investment that will be needed to upgrade transport hubs to entice meaningful business investment in today's global world been properly costed by the SNP? I haven't heard it mentioned in the rosy prosectus being touted.
Independence may be a laudable aim (I disagree) but trying to portay Scotland as never having benefited from the union, as too many here seem to do, is a false picture of history, and does nothing to project Scots in a mature light.
Complain about this comment
mcjbrown:
"But I think you must accept the fact that Scotland may not be given the same deal Ireland has."
I agree with you 100%.
I only hope that the SNP will argue Scottish matters well enough in future.
"I suspect the Scotland will opt for the Euro."
There is no 'sure thing' about adopting the Euro. If it is profitable the Euro would be adopted but after a referendum on the Euro is held.
"Scotland disconnect its self from the past."
Scotland has not existed for over 300 years. Once Scotalnd has become Independent we will have a brand new slate to work with.
"My point being you can?t say Scotland good England bad."
Whoa. I never insisted England was bad. Different views yes but we all must respect a difference on opinion.
The age of Empires is over mate. Shared History? Yes. But each country was Independent far longer then we were together. I cannot ignore that Histroy for only 300 years of Britain.
"But I think they already are enjoying the benefits of then union."
What benifits?
What do they have that only the Union can create?
Complain about this comment
Thomas Porter: Yes, Thomas - but who would get the money? You and me? I don't think so! Would it mean higher wages for all Scots, or higher benefit handouts? Massive pensions? That would suit me. Would there be any point in working at all, I mean could a Scot on benefits nip over the border and shop for quality goods at poor people's prices?
I think you and I both know, Thomas, that the people in power could never create an economic imbalance in the UK (sorry, the former UK). I know, I know - you're going to tell me it exists now, and we pathetic Scots are ripped off, impoverished and downtrodden. Of course, it's "Scottish" downtrodden, not at all the same as the downtrodden in Liverpool, London, Newcastle, etc. We're special!
You cannot have much of an economic imblance with Western Europe either. Too many tax and exchange problems. So where are we going to flaunt this wealth. Maybe we could buy Belgium? A bit of lebensraum, eh?
If Alex Salmond ever becomes Sun-King-Emperor he'll build winter and summer palaces and pop the rest in a Swiss bank against the day when he's deposed. I think I've taken that too far. Maybe.
Well, Thomas, lack of ability to laugh at youself, is a sign of encroaching, staring-eyed fanaticism.
Complain about this comment
John:
I do not know who would get the surplus of money. The SNP who have proven to care about the increasing of food and fuel costs would reduce taxes. The SNP also would like to copy Irelands low tax regime to attract new investments for Scotland.
The money may not well do to you or I directly but I trust the SNP to deliver for the people of Scotland.
John I do not care about the people South of the Border. I only care about the Cities in Scotland and how we could improve their lives with the extra money Scotland could generate if we were Independent.
Nice to see how you continue with your childish come backs. Buy Belgium? Salmond then building Palaces and popping the rest in Swiss bank?
It is suprising that when you are on the verge of making a strong point you are not so 'imaginative' but when you struggle to justify certain points of mine you strike back with several stories that are never going to happen.
Complain about this comment
Like I said, Thomas, if you can't laugh...
But here's me, thinking you were a concerned, if ill-informed, young man, and now you're telling everyone you don't care about people in the south. What an impoverished philosophy! Greedy and selfish, the motto of the SNP.
You and Bluelaw, eh? Pass the money and stuff the losers. Finance minister and Social Security minister in Salmond's first cabinet. You won't be Propaganda minister, Thomas. Spinning something good out of nationalism is way beyond you.
I know you don't understand this, Thomas, but you are telling us what a mean-spirited, insular, humourless place Scotland might become. It scares me.
Frankly, I never knew before I got into these blogs how much the myths, phobias and downright lies of our history had poisoned the minds of the present generation. And blinkered them to modern reality.
Complain about this comment
John:
I do not represent the SNP, John.
And I am not ahsamed to say that I do not care about what happens South of the Border.
It is not out of hate but out of business. I am not connected to Britain outside of Scotland. I am Scottish, never British. Independent Scotland? Equal partner to England? Sounds alot better then our current relations.
I am a Nationalist and my business is in Scotland. And I could asure you that waves of Englishmen and woman would approve that Scots should keep their business in Scotland and not influence choices in England.
;-)
But I do not feel you should be afraid of the next generation John.
The only part I would fear John is how Westminister plays in future.
I am confident there will be a time where the Scots who are Pro-Union will decide to put their families and themselves first and go for Scottish Independence for the simple reason that the SNP can promise tax cuts and Westminister is scraping for an extra 70,000 extra barrels of oil out of the North Sea just to get by.
Complain about this comment
There are Americans on these blogs interested in whether Scotland becomes independent or not??? I am amazed.
Any sources or links on the great subsidy of Scotland before the 1970's? Nope, thought not. Some of you seem to think that nobody paid taxes in Scotland before the 1970's. Scotland has always paid her way one way or another.
Some Scots have benefitted from Union. Most Scots, most working class Scots haven't benefitted at all. The same poor Scots forced to go and forge Empire, fight for it and administer it as well as dissasemble it have very little to show for their efforts. There is endemic poverty in parts of Scotland. The fact that there is any poverty at all, considering how resource rich we are, is a disgrace. I will say this though, it's shameful enough the levels of poverty but child poverty in Scotland is unforgivable.
I will never understand the pessimism of so many Scots. Most countries in our position would be chomping at the bit for independence. I think such people are scared. I don't mean that as an insult or to provoke. I just don't think it's entirely rational all things considered. If you realise there's nothing to fear then why fear it.
My personal circmstances have little to do with this. I am encouraging independence precisely because living on the continent speaks volumes about how normal sovereignty and independence is. I am not demanding any direct say but I won't be quietened. I love Scotland. It's my country and I'll speak as I please.
Complain about this comment
Look. We'd be rich as a nation. We don't need oil to be rich as we're a talented bunch of people. But it would propel us into the stratosphere in income terms. Nothing to be ashamed of. We'd all adjust to it I assue you ;-)))
Complain about this comment
Bluelaw's own Scotsman article states that population decline has been 'held off' until 2036. That to me, is a stable population. We can't possibly predict further ahead than that.
And his own map shows that 'income deprivation' is overwhelmingly concentrated in Glasgow.
Do you accept that your earlier claim that Scotland is the only EU country with a declining population is without foundation? Do you accept that Scotland does not have amongst worst unemployment in the EU?
Complain about this comment
Anaxim:
Scotland did used to have a declining population.
However, because of recent immigration that has changed.
But also recent immigrants are returning home e.g. the Polish are returning home.
In future this may be shown as a decline in population in Scotland.
Only time will tell.
Complain about this comment
The map shows clearly pockets of deprivation throughout Scotland so it can't be said that only Glasgow has these problems.
I take your point regarding the Scotsman article.
Perhaps you could tell us why the Union is such a good thing for Scotland then? Tell us how union will counter the problems of deprivation and population decline.
Complain about this comment
Bluelaw:
The Union is great for entering illegal and costly wars.
Do you see Salmond sending Scotlands young to one of the most dangerous countries in the world?
If you want to continue fighting for no reward at the end then please continue with the Union.
(Britians propaganda in the run up to the 2010/2011 referendum^^)
Complain about this comment
Thomas,
you repeatedly cite the present wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as reasons why Scotland should leave the union. You make it sound as though Scotland was dragged into these wars screaming and shouting by the English. Perhaps you should consider who formed the cabinet at Wesminster that took the decisions to go to war (in defiance by the way of hundreds of thousands of marching Englishmen and women who protested against war just like their Scottish cousins). Blair, a Scot even though sitting for an English seat, Brown, Read, Darling, Browne, Cook. The influence of Scots (elected by Scots) in Westeminster government is huge, and completely disproportionate to the population of Scotland. Too often the nationalists like to portray the UK government as a tool of English domination, when, under the present administration at least, the opposite is more true.
Independence or no, Scotland has more than its share of politicians with whose views you seem to disagree. They will not simply leave the stage, but return home north of the border to immerse themselves in purely Scottish politics. Your view of the world is clouded by your (forgive me if this sounds patronising) very simplistic attitude. Complex questions demand far more than the glib answers you provide.
And bluelaw: If you think, pre-oil days, that the tax paid by a population of roughly 5million people north of the border (less of course the considerable number not contributing any tax) provided enough to pay Scotland's way without help, then you need more lessons in the economic cost of running a country, particularly one with such remote regions. Whatever her wealth today, Scotland has good reason to feel grateful for England's help in the past. Why is it so hard for some to accept that reality?
Complain about this comment
MalcolmW2 - are you American?
The Scottish mafia at Westminster thing is so overplayed as to be a joke. For a start they have never dominated in numbers as the spin has it and they act for their own interests as career politicians which at Westminster means catering to the electorak whims of Middle England. They don't act as Scots for Scotland's interests.
Scotland has always paid its way. Scotland had a vibrant manufacturing industry up until the 1970's. Hundreds of thousands of Scots worked extremely hard for little reward in relative poverty so it's absolutely disgusting of you to insinuate they were lazy and work shy. The rural regions never enjoyed lavish support so please stow your extremely ignorant notions about English munifence regarding the Scots in that period.
Complain about this comment
bluelaw:
No, Scottish blood not American. If you bothered to read what people wrote, without using your nationalist-tinged spectacles, you would maybe see that I didn't write, or infer, that the Scots were lazy or work-shy. I did allude to the fact (sorry, fact it is), that there is, and always has been, a considerable level of unemployment in Scotland, intentional as well as otherwise. The taxation level in Scotland for those who did work, at whatever pay scale, would have to have risen to unbeareable levels before oil revenues were available as an argument in order to fund the services to the remote highlands and island communities. I have lived in a highland community and know what it is like. Water, electricity, railways, post, ferries, policing - you name it - it cost a lot to provide in such areas. Once you add in the cost of benefits, defence, health, diplomatic service and all the other trappings of state, Scotland was far from contributing sufficiently to claim that she "paid her way". It didn't matter, because she was part of a union (yes the one that you disparage so much) just like some of the poorer regions elsewhere in England and Wales. That is what being in a union means.
If you think posts outlining reality are disgusting, then it is a shame that you participate in blogs such as this, because that is surely just what they are for? Refusing to acknowledge the past benefits (whatever the future may hold) of the union massively undermines the nationalist argument and exposes it for the thinly veiled narrow-minded racism that it really is. Just my view of course.
Oh, and a final thought. Politicians the world over act in their own electoral interests, If you truly believe that the SNP are or will be any different then you are truly in for a massive disappointment.
Complain about this comment
Where are you from?
You're talking nonsense. If you want to suggest Scotland needed subsidising before the 1970's then source it. The fact is Scotland never needed subsidising and never had high unemployment levels at that time. She paid her way. All this guff the Highlands. The Highlands were negelected just as their Glaswegian counterparts were. And aside from that where was wealth created in England? England had the same industrialised texture as Scotland at that time. You ignorantly fail to realise this was before the days of the City boom and the illusion of a London motoring the entire economy.
And to assume Scotland ever benefiitted from thngs like the MOD or Embassies or the BBC or the 'trappings' of state as you put it is another lie. Scots have always contributed more than they have ever recieved in return.
Complain about this comment
If you would just get off your high horse for one moment and think.
OK, I'll make it as simple as I can:
An independent Scotland would need, embassies, defence forces, health service transport infrastructure, central bank etc etc, just like every other country. Forget the oil to pay for this (it hasn't been discovered yet). Providing public services in remote areas doesn't come cheap, but there is only the Scottish taxpayer to pay for all this.
So the taxpayer. Scotland population (roughly 5 million) includes, pensioners, long term sick, children, unemployed, housewives (when I grew up in the 1950's and 1960's they stayed at home), etc etc. Not everybody pays tax. What in this can you not see?
As part of the union, Scotland also had as taxpayers England and Wales paying into the central pot. England population (roughly 55million) includes all the above, but still contributes, by sheer numbers, more to the central pot than Scotland and Wales combined. Inconvenient truth, but, hey, that's politics. The City of London, even in those far off days, was a massive earner for the Treasury. England has always (before oil) been the powerhouse of the British economy. Just as Scottish manufacturing and shipbuilding has declined, so has England's. The relative position therefor (oil apart) hasn't changed.
Now none of this is an argument against an independent Scotland today, although just because there is oil now and wasn't then, it seems to many Scots, me included, a bit rich to junk the union just because we no longer need it - some friend we would be.
I doubt your dream will come true in my lifetime, but if it did, the things that you say Scots get no benefit from, they would suddenly find they had to pay for themselves. I assume you want a modern, first world Scotland with the same luxuries like a diplomatic service when on holiday abroad as others? You would want a military? No benefit? Please, get a grip.
Complain about this comment
MalcolmW2:
I do understand where you are coming from.
But if Scotland was unable to cope as an Independent Country then I would still vote for an Independent Country.
Scotland has to learn how to fend for herself.
I am fed up of waiting for Westminister to get things done up North.
We need a Government who relies on a successful Scotland for it to work well.
Westminister does not 'care' about Scotland because at the end of the day as long as England is a success then the money will enter the Treasury and everything works as normal.
For all the wealth Britain has Glasgow is in such a bad mess. We need a Government who will put our interests first and when you are apart of a system where there are four other countries to consider then it does not work for you all the time.
We should stop cutting off one another from our potential and start allowing one another to go our own way, the way we want to go and allow no one else to tell us how far we can go before we have to turn back.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
You're American aren't you. I'm sorry but I don't feel you can possibly know the Scottish reality beyond what the dominant and oft anti-Scottish Anglo portrayal of Scotland is. If you want to indulge in sentimental pap about the British all pulling together and the poorer Scottish relative getting a handout you carry on but those of us with a real connection to that period and who have gone beyond and examined what went gone have a far different picture of what happened.
Scotland has always paid her way and was for a brief period in the nineteenth century the richest country per capita in the world. She has never been subsidised by England. Glasgow was known as one of the workshops of Empire. Edinburgh was always a financial centre. The Highlands and Islands were always rural and sparsely populated. Scotland was rich in proportion to what it produced with a vibrant manufacturing base but its working classes were ruthlessly exploited and were neglected terribly and arguably still very much are. The rest of the country had an adequate and hardly lavish infrastructure. So to suggest they were the recipients of some great English munificence is total and absolute rubbish. The whole English imperial project was to milk their satellites, not prop them up so if Scotland had been a burden Westminster would have been shot of her. She never has and still isn't which is precisely why the Unionists are trying to hang on to her - whatever the spin and whatever English voices crow about subsidies.
Complain about this comment
Bluelaw asks:
"Perhaps you could tell us why the Union is such a good thing for Scotland then? Tell us how union will counter the problems of deprivation and population decline."
The Union is good for Scotland because it allows economies of scale, something nationalists have traditionally been fretful about. For example, the UK Treasury employs 1000 people, whilst the Irish Treasury employs 500, despite a far smaller population.
Part of the reason America has done so well in the past, and China is doing so well now, is down their ability to harness economies of scale. When Salmond visited the USA, he failed to suggest that it should be broken into fifty sovereign countries, despite his belief in the nimbleness of small states.
At least one nationalist MSP wants Scotland to have its own Ordnance Survey. Even though the current UK OS does a fine job, and is self-financing (a real rarity these days). I doubt there are any substantive criticisms of the OS, it's just 'wrong' according to nationalist doctrine. Break it up!
Glasgow's deprivation will most likely have to be dealt with by Glasgow. Neither Britain nor Scotland can really help with it.
Dealing with population decline post-2036 is futurology. It'll be as different from now as 1980 was.
Complain about this comment
So how come Ireland is much richer than Scotland yet we enjoy economies of scale?
Couldn't Scotland enjoy economies of scale within the EU much the same California enjoys economies of scale within the USA?
So if Scotland received the extra billions from oil that are rightfully hers this couldn't be used to help Glasgow?
Complain about this comment
A great quote from bluelaw: "Glasgow was known as one of the workshops of Empire".
Would this be as a result of one of the benefits of the union that Scotland never had?
Just asking.
Complain about this comment
You silly person. Scottish genius and workmanship was merely exploited by Empire. Of course the profits went elsewhere...
Complain about this comment
Here's a huge question for purists: Who "owns" a country? Is it "the state" that carries authority, or is it "the people" who make up rules that best suit society as it goes along? And what is society?
I'm not clever enough to know. But I ask because conflicts have gone on all over the world on this very issue. Examples? Does a Northern Ireland nationalist accept the UK state? What about Hizbollah and Hamas?
I'm coming to the point: The last referendum here went against Independence. The next, if it happens, might go either way. So what are the chances of the outcome being accepted?
Say we become independent (let's leave aside the notion that nobody is truly independent). Will there be a unionist political Hizbollah running around. Would it remain political????
If we stay in the union, will there be an SNP Hamas? I mean, it's not so very long since fringe Nats were blowing up post boxes.
There is an upsurge in Nationalism every time there's a perceived crisis in the UK. Like now. Then it fades away.
I used to think a good number of SNP MPs at Westminster generally helped Scotland. But the last time it happened, the quality was so low they lost out at the next poll.
A similar situation arose in the old Glasgow Corporation - bright shiny new Nat councillors who hadn't a clue about running anything.
Now look at Holyrood. Salmond, Sturgeon, and possibly Swinney. Then nothing.
My own view is that voters will look at what happened before, consider if they want to go with nationalism "for all time" and say No!
Whatver the outcome, I return to the question "Will it be accepted?" Or will we be told it was "the wrong question" and the panto starts again?
Please, this is not something to answer with slogans. This requires mature minds and educated people.
Complain about this comment
Bluelaw: So the tobacco barons and the sugar magnates and the shipbuilders took the profits elsewhere and employed nobody? So who did build the mansions, the massive shops and offices, the huge public buildings that to this day make Glasgow the finest Georgian city in Europe?
Step over to Paisley and see the legacy of the Coates and Clark families. If giving people jobs is exploiting them, then I have been exploited all my life. And so have you.
So no smart lad o' pairts who went to night school and rose to become manager and then director of these institutions ever benefitted from empire or union?
Let's get it straight: Glasgow, and the whole of Scotland, exploited the empire and the union.
Any suggestion to the contrary is utter nonsense. And very tedious.
Complain about this comment
Bluelaw asks:
"So how come Ireland is much richer than Scotland yet we enjoy economies of scale?"
One of the largest housing bubbles in recorded history has kept them afloat. As part of the UK, Scotland hasn't been as badly affected as they have by currency fluctuations.
"Couldn't Scotland enjoy economies of scale within the EU much the same California enjoys economies of scale within the USA?"
That would require a sovereign EU. I'm pro-EU, but there's no advantage to such a move at the moment, or in the likely near future. The population proportion of California to the US is roughly the same as Scotland to the UK...
"So if Scotland received the extra billions from oil that are rightfully hers this couldn't be used to help Glasgow?"
It's Glasgow's oil!
Glasgow needs a cultural change, not more handouts.
Complain about this comment
You're scaremongering quite obviously.
The people are sovereign.
There will be no factionalisation of Scotland or her politics if by chance there is a No vote.
Salmond et al have done far more in one year than Labour did in eight. Get over yourselves.
Complain about this comment
Ireland isn't being kept afloat by a bouyant housing market. she is consolidating unheralded massive growth since 1986 which has seen her become one of the richest countries per head in the world. Sterling is far more vulnerable to currency fluctuations than the Euro. I think you're talking nonsense.
"That would require a sovereign EU. I'm pro-EU, but there's no advantage to such a move at the moment, or in the likely near future. The population proportion of California to the US is roughly the same as Scotland to the UK..."
Gobbledigook.
"It's Glasgow's oil!
Glasgow needs a cultural change, not more handouts."
So extra billions each year to invest in housing, health and the economy wouldn't help Glasgow? I think you'll find it's a lack of resources that is preventing any cultural change in Glasgow.
Complain about this comment
Bluelaw: You have spoken, Great One. So it's all fixed. No discussion. Job done. Next business,please.
Like I said in #112: Mature minds and educated people.
Complain about this comment
They employed every Scot they could get their hands on and paid them a pittance whist they made up to 2000% profit. Scotland was a rich country but this wealth was never redistributed to Scotland's poor.
The vast majority of Scots were exploited by Empire. Forced into it to begin with, then used as slaves to build and maintain it and then unceremoniously dumped when they no longer turned a profit. The only people who benefitted were the Scottish aristiocracy.
Complain about this comment
BrigadierJohn:
The Slave Trade was one of the most darkest moments of our History.
The wealth you see was brought to Glasgow by the use of terror and death.
Is that what you are proud of?
Britain killed thousands for our Empire and to be honest there is not enough money in the world that could justify what we took part in.
Anaxim:
Glasgow actually needs new opportunites for the younger generation to get themselves into more respectable jobs.
How can we do this without the money?
Complain about this comment
Bluelaw: This is becoming irrational. Poor Scots on subsistence incomes (or less)flocked the the cities to claim their "pittances." They didn't give a damn how much profit was being made. They were in the system and earning, and their futures were back in their own hands. Tens of thousands grabbed it.
Next, you have us as slaves. Pardon me? Some rather nasty Scots kept slaves. But unless someone was caught by the Romans and put into a galley, Scots were never slaves. In fact, our superior free education system made Scots the prime movers in empire-building.
Bluelaw, you have opinions and a platform here. Some of your stuff seems more communist than nationalist, but that's okay. However, when you lose the place you do yourself no justice.
Complain about this comment
Thomas: Bluelaw says the Scots were exploited. You say we were exploiters. Could you wear matching jacket and trousers please?
How far do you want to go with your bad guy analogy? Campbells at Glencoe?
Things happened. We are all shamed by them. Would you be distressed if Alex Salmond exploited the English. You told us you didn't care about them. But you care about bad deeds from 300 years ago?
Hopefully we all learn from history. But please don't distort it to support narrow political views.
Complain about this comment
"Ireland isn't being kept afloat by a bouyant housing market. she is consolidating unheralded massive growth since 1986 which has seen her become one of the richest countries per head in the world. Sterling is far more vulnerable to currency fluctuations than the Euro. I think you're talking nonsense."
Ireland's biggest trading partners are the UK and the US. The collapsing dollar and the crumbling pound have rendered their manufacturing sector uncompetitive.
"So extra billions each year to invest in housing, health and the economy wouldn't help Glasgow? I think you'll find it's a lack of resources that is preventing any cultural change in Glasgow."
Glasgow's health funding per head is already off the scale. Do you have any sort of limit in mind, or are you just going to throw money at the problem and hope it goes away?
I'm no hardcore free-marketeer, getting a better rail connection with Edinburgh and a higher broadband penetration would be good for Glasgow. But there is a limit to what the state can do.
Complain about this comment
John:
Blueaw is partly right.
During the Slave Trade thousands of Scots were made as 'indentured labourers' this was where the owners owned the persons time for roughly 4 to 7 years.
Now were Scots exploited? Yes.
But were Scots successful? Yes. Glasgow imported over 50% of the European craving for Tobacco by between the 1700's and 1800's.
However, many more Scots were made as indentured labourers then who became successful.
This was where at the time thousands of British workers relied on the Slave Trade for their success. But Scotland and the Scots who lived there had to sell their time for years in order to make anything out of their lives?
This is a bit odd. Is it not?
Complain about this comment
Anaxim:
Scotland would provide the flexibility that would be needed to encourage and extend Industires and Companies within Glasgow.
We also need to focus on destroying the 'gang culture' that exists in Glasgow. The more money we can add to the existing operations and to create new ways to ensure the gang activity is distrupted and halted the better it will become.
This all costs money. Money that will be better spent on those in Scotland rather on wars in Iraq (all that money and the troops still lack equipment) and on nuclear power (100 billion to clear up old nuclear stations)
Or are you considering that the Iraq war is a must and that there are no alternatives to nuclear energy?
Complain about this comment
Thomas: Indentured labourers? I think you are a football fan? Until Bosman, Scottish footballers were indentured labourers. Wee Jim McLean signed boys on eight-year contracts, and would only let them go except on his terms. We still have indentured apprentices. What it means is that an employer invests time and money in people and wants some security. It's not slavery, although some footballers felt it was.
Thomas: You have jumped from slaves to gangs to nuclear power and Iraq. Without drawing breath. Nobody pins you down, do they.
Complain about this comment
John:
The type of Labour I was writing about had taken place between the 1700's and 1800's
I have completed my History course last week and part of the course was about Britain and the Slave Trade.
The labour would travel to America for example and would work for their employer for 4 to 7 years.
The person would work for the employer until their travel was paid for because the employer would of arranged for person to get to the area.
Of course we live in a far more civil society but that is what had happened during the 'Empire Era'
Scots in their thousands flocking to Plantations despite tens of thousands of jobs created for Slavery created.
In this moment of time Scotland and England were not equal and we were not treated as such.
Complain about this comment
"Ireland's biggest trading partners are the UK and the US. The collapsing dollar and the crumbling pound have rendered their manufacturing sector uncompetitive."
Why have you posted this? As proof of an inevitable Irish collapse and to SCARE Sots off citing Ireland as an example of independent state. Does this mean they should or would become a member of the UK or remain independent?
Uk health spending is below the EU average. If Scotland were in full receipt of her resources she could no doubt improve the incomes of Glasgow and therefore its health. If we were in receipt of our resources then we would be able to increase the limit markedly. And again, what you're ultimately saying whether you know it or not is that Union has failed Glasgow and Scotland.
Working class Scots were slaves. It's an emotive term but one that fits. And it's disgraceful to think there are people who believe it is right to expploit people in such a way simply because they were poorer before.
Complain about this comment
Thomas: Not history lessons as well as politics? I think, in chapter two, it explains that most Scots who went to the plantations went as managers, due to their superior "parish school" education. I believe Robert Burns had intended to take up such a job. Burns as slave? Argue that one!
It's also worth noting that, while we had our bad guys, many many Scots intermarried with slaves, and were generally a lot better regarded than the absentee plantation owners and their worthless sons.
Thomas, if you join the forces today you "sign up" for a number of years. If you don't like it, you can buy yourself out. But slaves?
Bluelaw: I suspect your beliefs are Marxist. Perfectly respectable of course. Marx believed that the capitalist system contained the seeds of its own destruction, and therefore the rise of communism was inevitable. Hmm. Capitalism has shown a remarkable disinclination to self-destruct, despite the worst excesses of some of the system's adherents.
Once again, Scots were NEVER slaves, by any definition. Like Dickensian London and elsewhere in Western Europe we knew Hard Times, but there is nothing uniquely Scottish about it. If you're going to base a political philosophy on outdated and faulty ideas you might as well go out and hunt a dinosaur for dinner.
Complain about this comment
I am not a Marxist. The term slave is entirely appropriate and is proven by the fact you yourself delighted in them being subservient to a 'slave wage'.
Complain about this comment
Bluelaw: There, there... of course you're right.
Complain about this comment
Bluelaw says:
"Why have you posted this? As proof of an inevitable Irish collapse and to SCARE Sots off citing Ireland as an example of independent state. Does this mean they should or would become a member of the UK or remain independent?"
It's an example of the benefits Scotland has from having a common currency with its largest trading partner. Ireland's not going to collapse, though Scotland will probably do better than it for the next few years.
"Uk health spending is below the EU average. If Scotland were in full receipt of her resources she could no doubt improve the incomes of Glasgow and therefore its health."
Scottish health spending is higher than the UK, and as I said, Glasgow's is off the scale. If you're going to throw money at Glasgow by 'investing in the economy', don't be surprised if it gets spent on cigarettes.
TP says:
"Scotland would provide the flexibility that would be needed to encourage and extend Industires and Companies within Glasgow."
Do you even know what flexibility means? It means easy firing policies, weak trade unions, letting doomed industries die, light rather than heavy manufacturing, high inequality, no jobs for life and downward pressure on wages. The SNP have their mangled Norway-Ireland model, but in the long run, the Ireland model will probably win out. Glasgow won't thrive in this without a fundamental cultural change.
Complain about this comment
John:
Your all over the place John.
Those who completed their term with their owner was granted proper jobs looking over the slaves.
Burns never had the same 'deal' as other Scots. He became famous for selling poems trying to save up to travel to Jamacia where he was suppose to run a bookstore.
It never happened.
Oh John if you dont know what I am talking about you really shouldnt make up something.
;-)
Complain about this comment
Anaxim:
And what total rubbish.
When I said flexibility I was reffering to the Industries and Companies personally which they could have over their European Counter parts in terms of taxes.
Complain about this comment
Scotland doesn't benefit from being in Sterling. Sterling is a much weaker currency than the Euro. Sterling is not committed to low interest rates which would benefit the Scottish economy.
How could Scotland be expected to do better than Ireland when she is facing a squeeze on the block grant, a rise in oil prices despite being an exporter, higher interest rates set by the B of E to cool down the SE housing market? Total nonsense.
As I stated before Scottish health spending is below the EU average. Few would doubt that the health problems endemic in Glasgow have much to do with the poverty that has completely unnecssarily afflicted the city.
Complain about this comment
A weaker currency makes the Scottish manufacturing sector more competitive. That's not an especially good way to be competitive, though it's to be preferred to TP's oil money tax breaks.
Scotland will do better than Ireland because it has more universities, more scientists and more laboratories.
Glasgow's health and poverty problems would be cut by a stroke if they spent less on cigarettes. The SNP's plan to hide cigarettes in shops is a step in the right direction, though it's a cultural change which is needed. Not more grief 'n' grievance.
Complain about this comment
That's the point here: Sterling is artificially kept high due to the SE housing market. This distorts things for Scotland and can only be remedied by Scotland becoming independent and joining the Euro or less likely having her own currency.
Do you mean Scotland as an independent will do better than Ireland because of universities, labs etc? If you mean as part of Union Scotland would then you're clearly mistaken. Ireland is richer per capita than Scotland and has done very well.
You know as well as I do Glasgow's health has nothing to do with a cultural chippiness and everything to do with a poverty that should never exist in a country as wealthy as Scotland.
Complain about this comment
An independent Scottish currency would rocket upwards due to the oil, making life miserable for manufacturers and hobbling the financial sector with transaction costs. If there's a risk of the nationalists floating a Scottish currency, then that's an argument against independence.
I suspect Scotland will overtake Ireland in the near future. A stronger science base is one reason for this. The Union is another, affording stability, economies of scale and a large domestic market just when they're becoming vital.
Unfortunately, I have no confidence in the nationalists when it comes to supporting science. The SNP is dominated by religious interests, to the extent that Salmond wants more faith schools. More fundamentally, science offers a way of life which is at odds with the 'pride and passion' of the nationalist.
Poverty exists in most wealthy countries. Oil-producing ones in particular.
Complain about this comment
I was reading this old thread and just had to bring any lost reader's attention to post 137.
I have a rule that says if you cannot tell the difference between the real thing and a parody then 'whatever it is' is ruined beyond redemption.
This may be the day that unionism reached the point.
We are not talking about scraping the barrel, we are now through the barrel and gnawing on the floor......Scottish currency appreciation will ruin manufacturing (er, Thatcher and the union already did that, or haven't you been to Motherwell lately and, er, it will be sterling and maybe the Euro later as has been widely publicised).
Scotland will soon overtake Ireland (if only, if only; you obviously missed the last 25 years then) because of access to a stable domestic market (you obviously missed that European Union thing too, during your 25 year sleep), and the SNP is 'dominated by religious interests' (I am pleased to say that no party seems too troubled by these any more, but the ones with skeletons in their closets include, er, the Labour Party in the west of Scotland and, er, the Conservative Teddy Taylor faction in the west of Scotland. Even before going to sleep 25 years ago you should have noticed those.)
Brilliant!
Complain about this comment
Alas, Scottish manufacturing and commerce does not exist in a binary state of 'ruined' or 'not ruined'. Thatcher was hard on most of it, and an independent petro-currency would be harder still.
I've given concrete reasons for believing Scotland will do better than Ireland, namely a larger science sector and efficiency savings of the Union. It's certainly true that the EU replicates some, though not all, of the savings.
I gave an example of the SNP's religious leanings in Salmond's wish to build more faith schools in a thoroughly secular country. You could add the donations of Brian Souter and their stony silence regarding gay rights.
Complain about this comment
Brian:
Politics are never plain and simple; because, they are complex and often are fought with peril and many other problems....
~Dennis Junior~
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS