Working through the figures
Much talk of games from politicians today. In truth, however, there is little that is light or leisurely in the Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland statistics for 2006/07.
Nationalists said the figures added up to "game, set and match" for the economics of independence.
Labour declined to play "statistical ping pong" with the SNP, while asserting once more that Scotland gains from the UK.
So, why is the SNP so delighted with a statistical exercise which, in the past, they have derided as a dodgy dossier? Why is Labour so haughty?
Because the document suggests that Scotland's finances were in better shape than those of the UK as a whole for 2006/07.
For 16 years since GERS was instigated by the Conservatives, the annual exercise has put Scotland firmly in the red.
But the stats have now been subject to a rigorous review - by officials, not ministers. This review was first prompted in January 2007 - before the Holyrood election - at the instigation of the Scottish Parliament's Finance Committee.
After prolonged negotiations with the Treasury, it has been concluded that Scotland's share of spending has been consistently overstated - and Scottish revenues underestimated.
For the first time, the document calculates the current balance and separate figures, including capital investment. This is, apparently, in line with international accounting practice.
A few figures for 06/07. Without oil, Scotland's current account was in deficit to the tune of £6.7bn. Including oil by geography, that is an 83 per cent share of the North Sea, Scotland had an £800m surplus.
The fiscal balance - that is including capital spending - indicated a £10.2bn deficit, without oil. And a £2.7bn deficit with a geographical share of oil.
Officials stress that economies frequently carry a deficit when longer-term capital investment is included.
Couple of points. This is scarcely wealth beyond the dreams of avarice. Tories say the Nationalists are, once again, basing claims of a surplus upon what they call the "volatile and diminishing" supply of oil.
However, it would appear that Scotland's picture was rosier than for the UK as a whole.
Remember that the figures for Scotland only include 83 per cent of oil at best.
The figures for the UK include 100 per cent of oil. Yet, in the same year, the UK had a fiscal deficit of £30.1bn. That was 2.3 per cent of GDP, worse than the Scottish figure which was 2.1 per cent of GDP.
Further, the reforms to the system may partly have been prompted by complaints from SNP politicians and economists in the past.
But they have been instigated by civil servants - without any reference to Ministers. The officials involved stress that they neither consulted Ministers - nor showed them the outcome until after the document was sent to the printers.
I know it's dry. I know it's statistically dense. But we have heard much of GERS in the past. Expect to hear rather a lot more in the future.
I'm 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~47~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Independence NOW...
What exactly is the UNION DIVIDEND?????????????
Complain about this comment
These are the figures for 2006/07, when the oil price was around $60/bbl. It is unlikely to return to that level in the next everal years, or possibly ever again.
The years 07/08 and 08/09 will show a much larger Scottish fiscal surplus, to the tune of some billions of pounds.
And this is accepting the GERS analysis, which consistently understates the amount of money raised in Scotland and spent in England.
Complain about this comment
"Tories say the Nationalists are, once again, basing claims of a surplus upon what they call the "volatile and diminishing" supply of oil."
The question always getting asked is 'what would an independent Scotland do when the money runs out'
That oil has been propping up the UK economy for the past 30 years and we've got sod all to show for it. How come no one ever asks 'what will the UK do when the oil runs out?'
Complain about this comment
Fascinating stuff, and exciting times!
Pointedly, a certain "Scotland's National Newspaper" wrongly pre-empted this GERS report earlier this week under the headline 'Bad News For the SNP'.
This must be a blow to their partisan editors, who have evidently not got the result they anticipated or preferred!
More power to impartial journalism!
Complain about this comment
Already, we have wild interpretations of what the figures mean. Can anyone say the chances of a mortgage are any better, or that food and fuel will be cheaper, or the world banking crisis will evaporate?
If things are better than previously estimated - and we are still talking estimates here - will our political masters, of any colour, be better at running things?
I don't know the answer, but I strongly suspect it's "No" on both counts.
I am 100% sure, however, that someone here will tell me the answers with absolute authority, based on unflinching conviction.
I can hardly wait.
Complain about this comment
If Scotland were net receivers would the SNP renounce their claims for Independence? I suspect not.
if next year, or in five years time it is showing a net gain for us from the UK will they renounce their claims? I think not. Over 300 years there will be different times, and differentinterpretations of the figures that show us being net receivers or net contributors financially. The reality is that we're not in the UK as an economic union. The wider argument actually made by most unionist parties is that it would disincentivise investment in Scotland, reduce our influence worldwide etc and so cut down our economy long term whilst pointing out that it IS ludicrous to singularly focus your entire economic plans on a resource which is rapidly running out, and whose prices and demand are volatile at best. Especially when you're claiming (or lying as the SNP actually prefer to do) that you want to cut carbon emissions out of the Scottish economy.
Its ludicrous to base your argument for whether or not we should break up our country on whether we as a regional area of funding are currently net contributors or receivers. Countries should become independent when its no longer culturally in their interests to stay part of a larger union. The argument that "this year you'll have an extra fiver in your wallet, next year you might have a fiver less" is a ludicrous, patronising and misguided one. Trying to win support for Independence by effectively bribing people "you will be richer" rather than because they actually want it isn't right.
And lets be clear about what these figures apparently show, we apparently have an 800 million pounds less deficit than England as a whole, IF we were to get the maximum possible amount of oil revenue in a hypothetical Independence situation (which in like, you know, the Real World is highly unlikely). 800 million less deficit is nothing, its about the amount that the SNP have miscalculated the finances of their local income tax.
So basically what this concludes is that if we were independent, nothing would actually change, except for the fact that the SNP MIGHT be more able to fund their LIT plans and carry through on their LIES to students about being on their side by taxing them where they weren't taxed before. Yippee!
Complain about this comment
ouch brian, bet you that hurt ,going on tv and delivering this piece of info.
i was very intersted in one point of this blog "after prolonged negotiations with the treasury it has been concluded that scotlands share of spending has been consistently overstated -and scottish revenues underestimated"
mmm lies,damned lies and statistics it's amazing what you can do with sets of figures isn't it.
it is even more amazing that they got away with it for so long!!
if scotland were to go it alone would that not bankrupt GBplc?
all of a sudden the real reason the unionists don't want to loose us sponging, windgeing north britishers come to the fore
Complain about this comment
brigadierjohn, I checked but I don't see any 'wild interpretations' of these figures above. Perhaps you could enlighten us as to exactly where you have spotted this?
The line of your argument actually suggests that you are an anarchist rather than a unionist. Or should it only be poor old Scotland that should respond to higher global food prices by, er, heroically declining to govern itself?
Perhaps in the face of world events Ireland should now rejoin the union, thereby ensuring what? Equally indifferent and pointless government?
Complain about this comment
Brian,
Interesting figures indeed, and they perhaps show what I have long thought: the oil bonus is not as great as some assume, but still a bonus nonetheless.
It will be interesting to see what the figures for 2008-2009 show with oil at $135 a barrel for most of the year. Even if it shows a £2 billion surplus, it will not be a lot and will not cover the fiscal balance you quoted (£2.7 billion).
If those who support independence are going to make their case, surely the non-oil current account and fiscal balance figures are the more important for the long run? We cannot sustain our economy for the long term relying on one volatile commodity. The revenue from oil should be the icing on the cake, otherwise it will be wasted in the same way as successive British Governments have wasted it over the last 30 years.
Complain about this comment
NCA999
Actually Scotland did join the union for economic reasons, rather than sentimental reasons. This is a matter of historical fact. Scotland probabably gained from the union up until the end of the 19th century. But how on earth did we get from the heyday of Victorian Glasgow to the stoney broke urban hell it had become when I left school in the 1980s? No sign of a union dividend over that period. This is a story of long term decline over a century:
Population figures for 1900 and 2000:
Norway: 1900 - 2.2 million, 2000 - 4.5 million; increase 105%
Denmark: 1900 - 2.5 million, 2000 - 5.1 million; increase 104%
Sweden: 1900 - 5.1 million, 2000 - 9.1 million; increase 78%
Belgium: 1900 - 6.7 million, 2000 - 10.2 million; increase 52%
Netherlands: 1900 - 5.1 million, 2000 - 15.9 million; increase 212%
Scotland: 1900 – 4.4 million, 2000 - 5.1 million; increase 16%
England and Wales: 1900 - 32 million, 2000 - 52 million; increase 63%
Five years relative disadvantage might be a fair enough cyclical phenomenon in a union, but one hundred years? Come on. That is a long way past your criterion of being "culturally in your interest" to stay in the union.
The oil money is only the latest example of the one way street that has been the union since the decline and fall of the British empire. Independence would be a very good idea even if there was no oil at all (read the above figures again). Or do you expect the Republic of Ireland to ask to rejoin the union any time soon?
Complain about this comment
Brian
The most important point about this report is the part
"After prolonged negotiations with the Treasury, it has been concluded that Scotland's share of spending has been consistently overstated - and Scottish revenues underestimated"
Does this mean that we have been lied to for the past 16 years, surely not, by various Westminster governments, I am shocked.
There are still anomalies in GERS that need fixing, for example, the tax and NI of every employee of Tesco, Asda and Morrisons as an example is counted as English income as their head offices are in England. However for the Royal Bank they can split the figures, strange that.
The other bit that needs an investigative journalist to look at, is the claim that 100% of the cost of Trident is counted as Scottish expenditure, do you know if this is true Brian?
No wonder Labour declined to pay statistical ping pong over this, that is Labour speak for we are running scared and hope our friends in the press bury this story, like they did with the 100years of North Sea Oil left story which they ignored.
The choice is clear vote SNP for a better future for our kids and grandkids, or support the discredited union and get poorer and still ignored by Westminster. No wonder some of the unionist bloggers are sounding close to panic
Complain about this comment
Minceandmealie: It was Brian who made reference to the Nats claiming "game, set and match" and also that Labour said Scotland still gains from the union. Two wildly different interpretations. My reference was to that.
I made no comment, offered no "argument" whatsoever, either for or against the union, or indeed anarchy. I asked a couple on non-party political questions, confessed I didn't know the answers, and predicted that someone would tell me. And what has Ireland to do with anything?
Clearly you don't have an answer to my innocent questions (I actually knew that!) but there's no need for paranoia.
Complain about this comment
In answer to NCA99, nobody is saying the economic argument is the only reason for Scottish self determination.
Rather, it is one of many arguments, all pointing towards the same conclusion. It is an important one, but not an exclusive one.
Personally I'd place it somewhere behind growing up and taking responsibility for ourselves, or to put it another way, taking an equal place in this world of nations rather than maintaining the status quo of a subservient afterthought.
However, I don't doubt that Scotland's prosperity is better served by a government elected by the people of Scotland and representative of Scottish interests. Perhaps your preferred alternative is a more distant parliament whose focus and priorities lie elsewhere, and whose policies frequently are the polar opposite of consensus Scottish opinion.
Still it's nice to know the economic argument lies in favour of Scottish Self Determination, as well as the arguments in terms of:-
genuine political representation
cultural distinction
global representation
autonomy of policy on everything from WMD, foreign wars, fishing, etc.
You know - sort of like just about everywhere else in the world.
Don't be scared - not all change is bad!
Complain about this comment
If I remember Lab always set store in Gers when they had to do with it but now that officials and not Ministers have done the review it is all a bit dodgy,I wonder what spin papers and BBC will put on it its all SNP propaganda I suppose.Where is the story about Cairns saying Salmond is gloating about high oil prices.
Complain about this comment
For those seeking to categorically defend the Union position on these figures, can I point out the obvious flaw.
While these figures in their current form are good for the Independence argument, they are based on a Scottish economy operating with its hands tied behind its back.
If we have the courage (or should I say common sense!!) to grasp the Independence opportunity, that Scottish economy will improve considerably.
Why?
Fiscal policies will be put in place that suit Scotland's needs rather than the City of London's needs.
Oh yes, and we'll also save a bit of expenditure by not blowing billions on WMD and pointless foreign aggression.
Complain about this comment
I have never been one to dabble in the economic arguments of independence. I have no doubt they have their proper place and should be an aspect of the debate but, this being my own view, I've always felt that such debates served only to demean the larger meanings and issues on both sides of the debate. It reminded somewhat of a group of diners, when presented with the bill, all looking sheepishly at one another trying to second-guess who would make the first move either for the bill or the exit door.
Thus, just to address some of the issues raised by Brian's blog I have to say that the belief that Scotland could not finance itself as sovereign seemed both strange and generally quite insulting. It seemed self-evidently false that Scotland, post-independence, would collapse into a flopping and gulping financial basket-case. The argument that Scotland would be economically unfeasible served one side of the debate quite well in managing to twist the debate from one of proper aspirations to one of prudent fears.
I would suggest Scotland, like all other Western European countries, would find a comfortable balance, managing to tend to the people in Scotland's needs while engaging with our neighbours and the wider world. I think with this belief is slowly beginning to materialise and become accepted on both sides, thankfully, the debate can move on. Thus, we should be discussing what is the best way to organise politics in the British Isles and the way this organisation can have a proper influence on European politics. I would suggest an independent Scotland but these are the issues the debate should be about and the belief in an independent Scotland should not really be countered with accusations of Scotland being a possible poverty-stricken state.
Complain about this comment
minceandmealie: I have seen many arguments for an against independence, but population figures?
What's your point?
Complain about this comment
Or, to sum up it up without all the financial double talk:
Salmond is 100% right....yet again.
Oh dear? How much longer before people start asking serious questions of Labour in Scotland as to why an energy and fuel-rich economy like Scotland's is "in crisis"?
Could it be that it's not Scotland that's in crisis but a country whose inhabitants, more and more suspiciously, never seem to tire of telling us what whinging, "chip on the shoulder" scroungers we all are.
In fact, just the sort of abusive language used by all bullies with a guilty conscience!
Complain about this comment
Brian,
Clearly being a bit 'longer in the tooth' than a number of the younger posters on this blog, I can well remember when nationalists of complete integrity were making the case for independence before OIL had been discovered!
Nationalists such as Robert MacIntyre, Donald Stewart and Winnie Ewing were all making a case of independence pre the oil bonanza. And going back to the 'Founding Fathers' people such as John MacCormack were standing up for the independent cause.
The key matter is this: the claim for independence for Scotland does not rest on oil; but it is augmented by it!
It is therefore most interesting to read your post today and learn that the end results were actually achieved through negotiation with Treasury officials. My take on that is that these same officials gave up as little as they could to their Scottish counterparts. In other words, the real truth, whenever we are able to access it, will show an even greater robbery by the UK Treasury from generations of Scots!
Complain about this comment
Blackivar @ 17,
Forgive me for answering on behalf of MinceandMealie, but I'd have thought his point was obvious.
The last 100 years of Union has been an unmitigated disaster for Scotland. While our international peers have grown we have metaphorically, and on occasion literally, been dying on our feet.
Perhaps more accurately, and avoiding metaphor, Scots have emigrated to a greater degree than any of the other nations listed.
Now could that be because Scotland as part of the Union is such a success story that they wanted to go tell the rest of the world?
Probably not, would be my guess.
I believe that may be the point being made.
Complain about this comment
brigadierjohn, I rather enjoy how your disingenuous stance sometimes slips. I would have said you were asking rhetorical questions, but anyway....
The size of Scotland's budget surplus is not going to affect interest rates, global food prices, or any other thing outwith the purview of a Scottish government. But keeping that money and spending it wisely certainly could make a big difference to many aspects of Scottish life. It could cut council tax, reduce taxation on new businesses, build swimming pools, give every child a free nutritious lunch, subsidise pensioners' heating bills, or whatever political priorities you prefer. As you normally take a cynical stance about the effectiveness of government action, you may favour tax cuts. Or how about saving it for a rainy day in a sovereign wealth fund? That seems to be a very popular idea amongst oil exporting countries other than ours.
What has Ireland got to do with anything? Well, they speak English, they are our near neighbours and we have many things in common. They have the misfortune to have no oil, and they ran budget deficits for decades. They face all the international economic problems that you mentioned in your post.
And yet they show no sign whatsoever of wanting to rejoin the union. And I haven't heard any unionist on this thread, or elsewhere, ever demand that they do so.
It is only poor old Scotland that so many of these arguments against independence apparently seem to apply to, never Ireland.
Complain about this comment
That makes no sense as an argument.
Growth rates are incredibly high in subsaharan Africa, whicle they are in decline in Germany.
Is Germany a failing country - while, say, Eritrea a ptential economic tiger, I don't think so.
Or to use a recently independent country as an example - Estonia has seen no real population growth in population since breaking away from the Soviet Union, but clearly has prospered economically.
I am not making a case for or against independence here, but population figures are a ridiculous prop to an argument.
Remember people emigrated from Scotland in more numbers during the Victorian period (you know, when Scotland was a powerhouse) than during the 1900s, minceandmealie's argument is bizarre.
Complain about this comment
dear_wendy
You are entirely correct to say that the financial aspect is not the only thing that should be looked at when we think about independence.
It is however the main point that we have been lied to about. Remember the sainted Dewar "Scotland would be poorer than Bangladesh if independent.
Could some of the panicking unionists please one simple question, how does Ireland manage to survive without the bonanza of their own oil, and why if the union is so great they are not pleading to be let back in?
Complain about this comment
Well, well, well...
GERS have finally came through for Scotland after years of misleading information?
http://barnett-formula.com/documents/SNPDEC2006BUDGET.pdf
and the Unionists continue to defend the Union despite the new information?
Labour, for once are practically rejecting the report all together and the Nationalists are using it to boast the Independence cause?
The world certainly has turned upside.
How long shall the Unionists continue to defend the undefendable Union?
If I walked into your home and took what I found to be wealthy would you allow it or would you tell me to leave and throw me out?
Similar situation here.
Complain about this comment
In summary:
UK Economy with Scotland: Okay!
UK Economy without Scotland: KAPUT!
Can anyone now explain what the UNION DIVIDEND is to Scotland?
Complain about this comment
Blackivar
Why has Scotland's population declined so much in relative terms over the last century compared with the entire comparable set of countries? Emigration. (Scotland's birth rate was actually fractionally higher than Sweden's over the same period.)
In fact, during the baby boom era of the 50s and 60s, when Harold MacMillan was telling Britain that they had never had it so good, Scotland's population actually fell due to mass emigration. Not that good in Scotland then, Harold.
I guess you might have aunts, uncles or other relatives in Canda, Australia, America or somewhere. So why did they go there? Better opportunities. Just the same reason that Poles and other nationalities came to Scotland in the last few years.
Why was this situation far more pronounced for Scotland than in England or any comparable northern European country? Because Scotland has suffered from decades of severe relative economic decline. And it is reflected in those numbers.
These data are not an argument for the British union, to put it mildly. A visit to Paisley, Bathgate, Baillieston, Airdrie or Motherwell ("A coup" - J McConnell MSP) is not exactly an argument for the union either. We just accept that there are large swathes of urban Scotland which are poor, deprived, ugly and downright scary. There are still at least £300 billion (you read that correctly) of oil revenues to come ashore. That money could be used to make our country better. Or we could keep with the old arrangement...that seems to have been working well for the last century.
Complain about this comment
Brian,
Dear_Wendy@13 intrigues me. autonomy of policy on everything? I don't think so.
As far as I am aware the SNP sees and independent Scotland's place within the EU. This raises the question of just how much autonomy of policy will there be for it.
Interest rates set by the ECB, fishing policy determined in Brussels. Global representation, OK, but as part of a European Union. Let's not forget either, the plans for a distinct European foreign and defence policy, courtesy of the current treaty being ratified at present. The possibility of foreign wars will still be there.
I am not sure autonomy or genuine political representation squares with qualified majority voting either. In addition, take a look across the Irish Sea and think about how some in Europe have reacted to the Irish vote rejection the current treaty (keep them voting till they get it right). Hmmm, that's real genuine political representation.
The kind of autonomy of which this poster writes is an illusion, either in the current union, the EU, or the globalised world.
Complain about this comment
Dubbieside:
"How does Ireland manage to survive without the bonanza of their own oil, and why if the union is so great they are not pleading to be let back in?"
The Unionists will argue by saying that without the European Union giving Ireland hand-outs then they would never of recovered.
However, the Unionists will ignore the fact that once the IRA were fighting to leave the Union that Britain damaged up to 90% of Irelands Trade Relations and therefore practically destroyed their economy.
Complain about this comment
Thomas_Porter "The Unionists will argue by saying that without the European Union giving Ireland hand-outs then they would never of recovered."
Never mind the Unionists, most Irish will argue this. Having worked there, I assure you most people in the republic know they were saved by Europe - talk to anyone who lived in Dublin in the early eighties.
"However, the Unionists will ignore the fact that once the IRA were fighting to leave the Union that Britain damaged up to 90% of Irelands Trade Relations and therefore practically destroyed their economy."
It almost seems that you are implying this is a bad thing - remember the IRA murdered thousands both in NI and mainland UK- any attempt to dissuade support for them was to be encouraged.
Interesting you mentioned this - it suggests a less than rosy aftermath to independence - other than the good neighbours future often mentioned.
Complain about this comment
NCA999:
"Scotland were net receivers would the SNP renounce their claims for Independence? I suspect not."
Could you explain when the Scottish National Party was set up?
Could you also explain our economic situation around that time?
Nationalists belive that Scotland should self-govern to unlock our potential. We do not see Independence as a 'get rich quick scheme'
"The reality is that we're not in the UK as an economic union."
Course not. Hence why we are not benefiting.
"The wider argument actually made by most unionist parties is that it would disincentivise investment in Scotland, reduce our influence worldwide etc"
The Age of the Empire where Britiain invaded and killed thousands and then forced our culture upon the world is long gone.
"...and so cut down our economy long term whilst pointing out that it IS ludicrous to singularly focus your entire economic plans on a resource which is rapidly running out."
English papers have actually shown oil could last 100 years. They were not shown in Scotland for quite clear reasons.
"...and whose prices and demand are volatile at best. Especially when you're claiming (or lying as the SNP actually prefer to do) that you want to cut carbon emissions out of the Scottish economy."
The SNP have secured that Scotland is set to rely on re-newables for 50% of her electricity needs by 2020.
If Scotland did not sell our oil then that could send a back lash to the rest of the world.
We can not neglect the countries who may rely on our oil (England especailly) or shall you agree to take the blame when millions go cold? thousands die?the economy crashes because energy is short?
Quite petty that you imply that the Nationalists do think of this as a 'get rich quick scheme'
Nationalists want to Self-Govern and if Scotland does happen to be better off financially then is that not good for us?
or are you now suggesting that it does not matter how much money Scotland sends down south because we are better together?
The Scottish taxpayers may not be happy that they are having to have a lower standard of services for another countries benefits but of course that is just me and perhaps the other Scots do enjoy sending their money somewhere else....
Complain about this comment
Minceandmealie: Disingenuous? Honestly!
My point was not about some future time in la-la land, when the money pours from the trees. It was that, right now, Scots have more immediate things to concern them than getting their hands on the loot after 20-30 years of negotiations and court cases.
If it all happens, if, I'll be dead or past caring. And, just maybe, the oil will be gurgling in its death throes. The picture you paint is fine with me, however. If you're a young guy, I wish you luck with it.
Since you seem determined to pursue the Irish issue, any prosperity in Ireland (and I believe it's waning) is due to the EC. While Edward Heath was wrangling over joining, the Irish got themselves declared a Category One case for aid. (The UK, incidentally, as the largest net contributor when we did join, was the major provider of that aid). So, while parts of the UK desperately needed help, it all went to Ireland. Now it has dried up, or is going to the new member states.
The Irish prosperity was based on our contributions, yours and mine, and had nothing whatever to do with independence per se. And I have never heard any unionist demand, or suggest, the Irish would be better off in the union. Why would they?
Complain about this comment
As someone who has spent a sizeable portion of his life in, and has family in Ireland I can tell you exactly what happened there. Ireland, along with Spain, was at the time of joining the poorest country in Europe. What the EU effectively did therefore was underwrite a massive cut in corporation tax in Ireland, allowing them to attract business with far better rates than anywhere in Europe. The EU is not the same as it was then, and Scotland, if let in to the EU, would not be in the same financial position to set up such good relations, this is unfortunately just simply a fact.
Its relevant because in a situation of Independence, the reality isn't that its clear cut, but that nobody actually knows what would happen financially. Nationalists regularly assert that Oil wealth, which apparently we now learn basically covers the cost of their failing Local Income Tax scheme, will support us forevermore. The reality is that we don't know. Uncertainty is a really bad thing, the first thing that happened in Ireland is that all of the big business LEFT because of this reason. Ireland then had to incentivise them all back with the help of the EU, this help was to the tune of considerably more than 800 million pounds (which is basically the cost of building a half dozen schools).
Ireland is a terrible example to base future Scottish economic predictions on, there are other, better examples. Ireland however isn't one of them guys so stop trying to use it as such.
but if you really do want to play the costs game, something these numbers really DONT factor in is all of the costs which we would have as an independant country, and are currently saving as a result of being part of the Union. Close to every single national institution would have to be duplicated, this doesn't just mean that the Glasgow office of the DWP keeps doing what its doing, it means that we'd need to set up a Scottish DWP, with the same number of managers and purchasing of systems/offices etc that we currently share with the rest of the Uk. There's loads of things, the DVLA, the BBC, the MOD the list is endless. Either we "rent" the services as has been implied, notably when you rent things its at a higher cost than you would get it if you owned it as we do now, or we would set one up ourselves, duplicating the costs, rather than splitting them.
Complain about this comment
Blackivar:
"Never mind the Unionists, most Irish will argue this. Having worked there, I assure you most people in the republic know they were saved by Europe - talk to anyone who lived in Dublin in the early eighties."
Yes, I do agree. The EU has transformed the Republic of Ireland...after Britain destroyed what was suppose to be apart of the Union...
"It almost seems that you are implying this is a bad thing - remember the IRA murdered thousands both in NI and mainland UK- any attempt to dissuade support for them was to be encouraged."
Yes. You are correct. I am implying that this was a bad thing. Destroying up to 90% of Irelands Trade would have consequences that would result in thousands falling into poverty. IRA supporter or not.
Britain practically were pushing the Irish towards the IRA.
Complain about this comment
Labour - and the other unionist parties - have hung their entire argument on GERs figures for years ... now the figures turn against them (showing Scotland is in a better position than the UK as a whole) and they dont want to play!?
Complain about this comment
hi brian,hope you have recovered from the lunch time news, i have not read the full doccument i am reliant on yourself and other posters to inform me , but, #19,freedjmac and others raise good points re having to negotiate with the treasury in london and the chances we still don't know the full picture and correct figures ah the union dividend don't you just love it.
Complain about this comment
NCA999:
"The EU is not the same as it was then, and Scotland, if let in to the EU, would not be in the same financial position to set up such good relations, this is unfortunately just simply a fact."
Scottish influence:-
Water, oil and of course fishing waters.
These are very influential in this modern world.
"There's loads of things, the DVLA, the BBC, the MOD the list is endless."
BBC and MOD good for Scotland? Pfft we are better creating our own systems.
Complain about this comment
Brian, is the real story here not that sucessive Unionist governments have lied to us for 16 years?
Complain about this comment
No 37,
Correct!!
By the way, don't you play for the Hibs - the most beautiful team in the land!!??
Complain about this comment
Thomas_Porter,
Once again you display your complete lack of historical understanding. (Spending so much time on a political blog may be disrupting your studies - who knows?)
The IRA were trying to take NORTHERN IRELAND out of the Union. It had nothing to do with SOUTHERN IRELAND's prosperity. Britain (by which I asume you mean the wicked English in London) did not destroy Ireland's economy. Neither was British colonialism as black and white, or as evil, as you seen to believe. Very few things in life are, as you will one day learn.
I used to admire a 16 year old who took an interest in politics, even if I didn't agree with his views. I now worry that your education is suffering badly as a result of your apparently single-minded interest in it. Perhaps you would do well to take up a hobby, or find a girlfriend and have a break from blogging here at all hours?
(not meant unkindly)
Complain about this comment
NCA999
Is this the same BBC where we pay in 9% of the revenue and get the grand total of 3% spent in Scotland. A union benefit indeed.
Or maybe you mean the benefit we get from Trident, Crossrail, London Tubes or that truly national asset the London Olympics. Sorry did I say London Olympics, must be some mistake! make that the Great British Olympics, aye right.
Maybe it is the MOD benefit from using our soldiers as cannon fodder so Blair can get an American medal, or Brown can pretend that he is a world leader. Iraq and Afghanistan are true union benefits.
Straws, clutching at, comes to mind.
P.S. Brian Love the braces, bit OTT for the Nethergate mind you.
Complain about this comment
NCA999
I would presume that Ireland has factored in all these costs you mention, and has now got their versions up and running.
Can you please explain how they have managed that all by themselves and have not come screaming to Westminster to let them back in?
Complain about this comment
#32 NCA999
Scotland already contributes its share of reserved services such as the DWP and the DVLA - so we don't "save" from contributing towards these things, as part of the Union. Quite the opposite.
Also the idea that we have to "duplicate" these things on independence isn't sensible either. You concede that the infrastructure, staff and equipment is already in these places. Examples would be Centre 1 in East Kilbride (for tax collection purposes), JobCentres around the country and local offices of the Department for Work and Pensions. Scotland has paid for these, currently pays for these, will continue to pay for these after independence and such institutions will become part of the estate of the independent Scottish Government. As a result, we don't require the cost burden of "setting up" these institutions.
For other areas outwith Scotland, such as foreign embassies and diplomatic missions abroad, again Scotland pays (more than) its fair share of these - such expenditure is explicitly incorporated into the heart of the GERS analysis. As a consequence, Scotland has a watertight claim on a pro-rata share of the capital of these institutions. Given that the British Embassy in Paris (the mightly fine building that it is) can't be split up, then either Scotland is compensated by the rUK on independence, for its share, or some other accommodation with Scotland is reached. As a result of recouping its share of the capital, Scotland would be able to use these proceeds to set up its own separate institutions. Perhaps Scotland and the rUK could share existing facilities, where it is advantageous for Scotland to do so. In Reykjavik in Iceland, for example, the UK Embassy and the German Embassy share the same building.
That formula can be replicated with respect to defence capital (submarines, boats, military bases, ships etc), government securities and investments, the intelligence service, foreign currency and gold reserves and a share of the capital of the Bank of England.
I also think many of these expenditures are wasteful. I do not think for one second an independent Scotland would need to spend £2.7bn defending itself (Scotland's share according to GERS), when the Swiss do it for less or the Kiwis or the Singaporeans or the Irish or the Danes. We would save by not having to contribute towards the nuclear deterrent, for example.
What about Foreign Affairs? Many UK Embassies abroad are grand palaces, filled with pricy art and antiques. Very costly to run. Would Scotland need that? I doubt Would Scotland need an embassy in Bandar Seri Begawan or Tegucigalpa (the capital of Honduras btw), for example? I doubt that too. But we would be able to work towards some accommodations with the rUK, where it is in both our interests (viz the Reykjavik example above) or we can set up our own separate institutions where it is in our own interests to do so.
In these ways Scotland would save money in these areas. Choices would be set by the Scottish Government with respect to Scotland's financial position and we wouldn't be hamstrung or burdened by higher costs because the Westminster Government thinks so.
Complain about this comment
Dubbieside.
Irish infrastructural development was funded by the European Union, although they still do rent a number of services from the UK at a net cost to their economy, apologies, I assumed this would all have been obvious.
Thomas.
The advice that Malcolm guy gave you of going away and actually working out what you're talking about before spouting on something like this was really good, you should take it. You've just asserted, hilariously badly, that the EU, if they let an independent Scotland in, will pull funding and resources away from the countries that need it the most in E. Europe to fund making Scotland into a really nice place because we have fish and Oil.
Apart from the fact that the EU cares more about stopping us fishing than it does about supporting us in doing so, the European Union gains no net benefit from our oil or fish stocks. Not only that, they most definitely don't NEED us. The idea that they would divert large amounts of funds to prop up Scotlands immediate post-independence economy, which regardless of how the finances look in the short term would always be bad, just purely because they're scared of losing access to North Sea oil, from which they gain no benefit is hilarious.
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
You clearly have no idea how the EU operates.
You clearly have no idea how the UK or Scottish Governments operate.
You clearly don't understand the major examples of breakaway states and the historical precedance of property agreements distribution that followed (Ukraine, Ireland, Slovakia being big examples)
Is there anything you do understand? Since I suspect not I would suggest that you take Malcolms advice and stop giving your cause such a bad name on these discussions.
Complain about this comment
GlobalTraveller.
Very simple point of analysis for you here. Recouping in monetary compensation 1/12th the value of the British embassy in any given country would not be equivalent to the building of a new one. There would be net costs. And whilst we at the moment pay 1/12th of the electricity, staffing, other thousands of costs of these places, we would now have to pay all of it by ourselves.
This is a very simple point mate, the SNP will probably actually acknowledge it, I don't see why you're trying to pretend that we wouldn't.
Complain about this comment
MalcolmW2:
I was never taught about the IRA. I write what I learnt myself.
"The IRA were trying to take NORTHERN IRELAND out of the Union."
The IRA launched attacks on the Biritsh, British loyalists and of course Protestant figures. Northern Ireland was dominantly British loyalists and Protestant.
The situation in Northern Ireland was incredibly different to the situation in the rest of Ireland.
"Britain (by which I asume you mean the wicked English in London) did not destroy Ireland's economy."
Britain (Wales and Scotland and England) successfully destroyed Irelands economy. At the time it was acceptable.
Your 'enemy' was using their income to kill your soldiers and break your country apart.
You can not possibly 're-write' that Ireland was fine and Britain never influenced Irelands economy during those times when from a British point of view it should of been done to protect lives.
"Perhaps you would do well to take up a hobby, or find a girlfriend and have a break from blogging here at all hours?"
I am currently looking for work at the moment. I can't afford to do much else untill I find something.
I guess you will be stuck with me till I do...or once mother refills my personal fridge.
;-)
Complain about this comment
NCA999
No I am afraid that it was not obvious, so can you tell me two things,
What was funded by the European Union? and would Scotland not get these funded. Please do not tell me they would not be funded, tell me why in your opinion they would not be funded. Scotland too rich perhaps.
What services do they rent, and at what cost. You see this is not obvious, I have only your take on that, which if you will forgive me, I do not set much store by.
Presumably all these services are up and running in Iceland, Switzerland, Finland Norway etc, how did these small countries manage to set them up all by themselves without England rushing to help them set them up. How did the Caribbean countries manage, or is it obvious that they still rent them from England as well.
Complain about this comment
#44 NCA999
Not at all. Many UK Embassies such as in Paris, Tokyo and Washington DC are excruciatingly valuable pieces of real estate, that are worth a bomb. Scotland only requires one twelfth of the facilities and one twelfth of the accommodation. A couple of rented offices in a street somewhere - or a new facility where appropriate - not a palace filled with art and antiques, that is extremely costly.
Scotland doesn't need an embassy on the Champs Eleysee in Paris or right next door the Japanese Diet in Tokyo. Neither, does Scotland need to contribute to such extravagance. As I pointed out, it will not always be necessary to "build somewhere new", just use our existing share to contribute to our own foreign and diplomatic estate.
The fact- and it is a key fact - is that we already contribute (more than) our fair share towards such things, it doesn't need to be duplicated, and we certainly do not "save" as part of the Union.
That is the most simple and basic point of all.
Complain about this comment
My ! There are some supercillious punters on here tonight!
Let us all take pleasure in the fact that Scotland is not a basket case, and that ,should Tesco et al would be given the opportunity of giving tax from their staff to a Scottish Income tax office ,Scotland would be even better off!
In the money !
However , the argument for an independent nation is about the heart , not just about money!
Complain about this comment
NCA999:
You are being rather rude. Instead of countering what I wrote you took to personal insults.
Are you really that pathetic that instead of 'correcting' what I write you turn to insults over the internet?
"You've just asserted, hilariously badly, that the EU, if they let an independent Scotland in, will pull funding and resources away from the countries that need it the most in E. Europe to fund making Scotland into a really nice place because we have fish and Oil."
I never said that the European Union would divert funds from Eastern Europe to Scotland. I pointed out that Scotland has natural resources that are considered valuable and influential. Fishing in particular is interesting since several European Union countries fish in our waters could find themselves out of business if we were Independent and passed legislation that would protect our waters.
"Apart from the fact that the EU cares more about stopping us fishing than it does about supporting us in doing so, the European Union gains no net benefit from our oil or fish stocks."
Certain types of fish are actually sustainable numpty. The EU would benefit because Scotland, according to Independent Reports would be wealthy and we would be sending part of our wealth to Brussels for projects in other countries.
"Not only that, they most definitely don't NEED us."
I never said that they DID need Scotland.
"The idea that they would divert large amounts of funds to prop up Scotlands immediate post-independence economy, which regardless of how the finances look in the short term would always be bad, just purely because they're scared of losing access to North Sea oil, from which they gain no benefit is hilarious."
I never said anything relating to this. Your post was wasted.
Here is some advice of my own:
You either read then qoute what a person says. Then you won't waste your time typing nonesense that I clearly did not say in the first place and also please correct the persons 'mistakes' instead of hiding away and turning to petty insults.
Complain about this comment
NCA999
I am surprised at the "advice" you gave Thomas.
He is as entitled to his opinion as you are to yours. The fact that you do not agree with him is neither here or there.
If you do not agree, refute, but with facts not opinions.
Complain about this comment
Brian,
Since I first read your blog early this afternoon, I have searched and searched and searched for the story behind it and guess what?? it's not to be found anywhere!!
Bit odd, is it not??
Or is that just another example of the BBC's partiality/impartiality at work??
Complain about this comment
No 51
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/06/18170334/0
Complain about this comment
Scotland isn't poor, hardly a surprise. That's doesn't stop people employing the 'some parts of Glasgow' argument, though.
Complain about this comment
The simple fact is Scotland will be ok inside or outside of the Union. To say anything else isnt just wrong is stupid.
I would love to stay part of the UK. We have a lot in common with England etc and can shout louder as a whole rather than parts.
But Scotland is and has always in my lifetime been losing out. The English dont care about us up here. We are an annoyance to the Polictical English and irrelevant to the rest.
We are a back water that devolution is slightly stirring into life.
If there was an independence vote tommorrow with a very heavy heart id vote Yes. The Unionists both North and South will only have themselves to blame.
Instead of recogonizing and sorting the problems of having SE England suck everything in and most of the rest of the UK being neglected you bury your heads.
To fix a problem you first have to recognize it. Unionists appear to obstinate and it will cost the Union.
Complain about this comment
Trimmtrab
Scotland is in 2 Unions - the UK Parliament (the monarchy is not affected if Scots are not at Westminster, there is still a "UK") and the EU.
I think we have a pragmatic choice - Scotland needs to be in some union. Are we better in the Incorporating Union forced on us in 1707, or in the wider Europe that now exists?
Do we need a UK Government between us and the real macro-economic power of Europe?
We can still be in union with England, Wales, and Northern Ireland as long as we are in the EU, but have the advantage of union with the rest of Ireland, France Germany etc as long as we remain in the EU.
My fear is not that with independence we'll be outwith the EU, but that Little Englanders will pull us out!
Complain about this comment
I find it incredulous that the unionists keep banging on how Scotland can't survive without being tied to the apron strings of Westminster.
Maybe its time they questioned their own vulnerability to living in a land that is financially liquid and has all things going for it without the need to get involved in illegal wars, be host to expensive WMD, possible detention for 6 weeks without charge and do the bidding of foreign powers for individual political gain.
Some of us in Scotland live and work here, not for financial reasons but because its a land where our heritage is and that is something that can't be bought.
All I can say if your not happy with independence, good or bad, then you know where the border is as its well signposted.
Complain about this comment
@27 William1957
"Dear_Wendy@13 intrigues me. autonomy of policy on everything? I don't think so.
As far as I am aware the SNP sees and independent Scotland's place within the EU. This raises the question of just how much autonomy of policy will there be for it."
Does the UK not currently "suffer" from this EU autonomy deficit to the same degree then?
So currently we suffer from a lack of autonomy in a union that suffers from a lack of autonomy.
At least with Independence we'd remove a layer!
Your argument is a little desperate don't you think?
The greater autonomy of policy available in an Independent Scotland I refer to would allow Scotland to rid itself of WMD - True or False?
Choose to have armed forces focussed on defence rather than illegal overseas aggression - True or False
Choose to vary taxes to suit the Scottish Economic cycle - True or False
All examples of autonomy currently denied us by the Union, not the EU.
Don't come the scare stories anymore - they don't work.
Complain about this comment
Well, you nats have a thing for the 'diaspora', and I wonder if you'll be able to resist it if John McCain asks for Scottish troops to fight in Iran.
Complain about this comment
Why have we been lied to all these years by the politicians we send to Westminster to represent us within the Union?
Can we trust the politicians we send to Westminster to represent us within the Union?
Whose interest do the politicians we send to Westminster actually represent within the Union?
Can we ever trust the politicians we send to Westminster in the future?
Complain about this comment
What are the supporters of the Union going to base there scare stories on next?
That's the "financial basket case" argument blown out of the water.
Think the "£5000 bill on voting SNP" went belly up a few months back.
Soon there will just be the "but we're stronger together" argument with as usual absolutely nothing to back that statement up other than "Just coz we are!"
Could always bring the "border guards and passports required to visit aunie Nelly in Carlisle" scare story out of hibernation I suppose.
But please - those of you still trying to scare the kids with stories of financial oblivion - can you now give it a rest. Unless of course, you are talking of Labour's management of the UK economy these last few years!
Thanks now!
Complain about this comment
Anaxim:
Don't you mean Barrack Obama?
but why would Scotland be asked to fight alongside America against Iran?
because Iran is one of the most anti-Western countries in the world?
Who has already stated that they would wipe Isreal clean from the map?
and who has nuclear ambitions that may result in millions or lives lost and influence given to Iran that the West can not afford?
Complain about this comment
Iran supports Scottish independence, since they judge it would weaken the West. They're wrong, I reckon. It'll strengthen America, at least.
Complain about this comment
Anaxim:
Interesting. I never thought that the Middle East had specific interest with Scotland and England.
Is there a link that could take me to a page that I could read to hear Iranian point of views or was that your opinion?
The West will be the West. The world won't stop for Britain so I don't think we should expect much change after Independence apart from Internal changes of course.
Complain about this comment
http://tinyurl.com/3846xq
Complain about this comment
Anaxim:
Interesting. I missed that little Report.
I do see Iran attempting to establish relations with Scotland rather then England.
Purely because of Englands link to the name 'Britain' and because of Scotlands oil technology that would prove incredibly useful to the Iranians.
Complain about this comment
I think I speak for many English people when I say this: we really, really hope you get your independence as soon as possible, because quite frankly, we are sick to death of listening to you whining all the time!
We had nothing to do with you joining the UK; your own King James VI did that, amicably, hundreds of years ago.
You've had Scots at the head of the UK government for the past 11 years; why don't you get your act together and get out of the Union? Like I said, it's got nothing to do with everyday, ordinary English people; we don't care one way or another if you are in or out of the Union. And, please, don't keep harping on about oil; I'm sick of hearing about it. We will find a way to manage without you guys, I promise.
So just go for it!
Complain about this comment
Helenzzz:
To be quite fair if the Members of Parliament would like to have an honest debate without the lies and scaremongering then I am sure the undecided Scots would eventually vote for Independence.
Honestly, Unionists Parties are common criminals when it comes to things such as oil will run in ten years, Scots are to stupid for Self-Governing, Scotland can't afford to go it alone (but at the same time we will accept your surplus) etc etc
However, I do disagree that, "Like I said, it's got nothing to do with everyday, ordinary English people."
Can you please tell me which Political Party won the most seats at the last Elections in England only?
Could you then tell me which Part won the 2nd most seats in England only?
Then tell me how these Parties feel about the United Kingdom - My guess is that they support the Union.
Please vote for the English Nationals next time. We voted for the SNP, least you can do is vote for the English Nationals.
Complain about this comment
Hi Thomas, I knew you wouldn't let me down.
Unfortunately, at the present time, there isn't an English National Party, only the BNP - a bit too scary for my liking.
Just like you guys, we voted for NuLabour and have lived to regret it ever since - especially since the unelected Gordon Brown took over.
Can't you guys take your case to the EU's Human Rights Courts? Gordon Brown will never give Scotland up, because if he did, he would be out of a job, just like many of his pals in the UK government.
England will probably vote Conservative in the next general election; that still wouldn't help Scotland to get its independence. The only alternative you guys have is to go to Europe for help.
But please, don't keep blaming us ordinary folk; we don't like the current UK government any more than you do; and as I said earlier, we had nothing to do with the union of the two countries.
Good luck in your quest for independence.
Complain about this comment
Helenzzz:
You have the English Democrats, they argue for a similar Devolved situation that Wales and Scotland and Northern Ireland have.
Of course if England does have a 'Devolved' Parliament then the United Kingdom becomes ever more pointless since we are almost Governing ourselves.
The European Union or at least the UN may have to become a 3rd Party when it comes to the Edinburgh-London negociations.
I doubt we will ever agree who will get what and how much exactly.
Complain about this comment
I have had a quick read of the GERS document as posted on the internet. One issue concerns me. It is not clear from the document that the methods of allocating UK taxes to Scotland conform to the principles and practices of international double taxation which one might expect to apply were Scotland an independent country. The methods of allocating the revenues are set out on page 79.
In the context of an independent Scotland, the 'who pays' principle stated on page 10 seems too simple for taxes such as income tax, capital gains tax, corporation tax, stamp duties and inheritance tax, to state some obvious examples. Under European Law, the method used to estimate Scottish VAT may be odds with the VAT which Scotland would raise, were Scotland an independent country.
There are different bases on which one might determine Scottish revenues. If you are calculating the revenues which Scots are contributing to the UK for the purpose of deciding whether Scots are getting a fair share of UK revenues, the GERS methodology may be acceptable. If you are calculating what the revenues of an independent Scotland would be from current tax bases, you would have to allocate the tax revenues according to frequently adopted international double tax principles and practices, and it is not clear to me that that has been done in all cases.
I wish that I could take a side on the independence issue on the basis of the GERS report, but I suspect that the report tells us little if anything about that issue.
Complain about this comment
Brian,
In reply to Dear_Wendy@57.
I do not think my arguments were particularly pro-union or desperate scare stories, simply questions that need to be asked. It never fails to surprise me how often some who reply on this blog label legitimate questions in such a fashion.
In our 21st century globalised world, what does autonomy mean? We cannot set raw material prices, or food prices, nor can we insulate ourselves from the wider global economy. Yes, we can make local decisions that affect 5 million people in Scotland or 60 million in the UK but these will be determined by wider global or commercial factors. Indeed, looking at what has happened during the credit crunch of the last nine months even some of these factors are outwith the control of government.
I made the points not to defend
the Union, I would simply like to see a little realism in the discussion rather than romance and wishful thinking.
Complain about this comment
William1957:
"What does autonomy mean?"
Quite difficult to answer because several regular Bloggers here could reply correctly (I guess) but have a different answer.
Can I ask what autonomy means to you?
Complain about this comment
Did successive Tory and Labour UK governments collude or lie to Scotland about our prospects as an Independent Scotland in the last '34' years???
From what I have read I can only conclude that from 1974/75 they knew this;
"large revenues and balance of payments gains would indeed accrue to a Scottish government in the event of independence"
And
"What is quite clear is that the balance of payments gain from North Sea oil would easily swamp the existing deficit whatever its size and transform Scotland into a country with a substantial and chronic surplus."
And
"An exchange rate of 1 pound Scots to 120p sterling within two years of independence therefore seems quite probable"
And
"The strength of the currency coupled with the budgetary surplus would help to keep interest rates down and there would no need for sudden increases in taxation or massive cuts in public expenditure"
And
"Apart from the need to avoid piling up excessive surpluses, Scotland would wish to extend her North Sea oil revenue over a much longer period than the 30 or so years which seems likely at presently planned rates of extraction"
And
"Thus, all that is wrong with the SNP estimate is that is far too low"
Etc…
Professor Gavin McCrone, Secret document 1974.
Prepared for the Tory UK Government of 1974 and passed on, in secret, to the Labour Government of 1975.
In relation to an Independent Scotland our Oil and our Economy;
Does anyone remember what we have been told by Westminster Tory and Labour MP's, backed by their, Mass Media Brain Washing Machine, for the last '34' years???
Complain about this comment
The truth will out in the end. We wuz and is robbed....
Complain about this comment
And now we need to add on this morning's news that 'weebendybringiton' has again called for a referendum on Scottish independence!!
One day after this GERS report - you could not make it up.
Suspect this blog will get a lot busier as more details are published.
Complain about this comment
Post #66 Dear Helenzzzzzzzzz, here's a simple solution to your independence related illness, stop reading comments in here and stop posting them too.....I'm sure you'll feel much better.
By the way Helen, I'm sure in one of your earlier postings you claimed to vote SNP, then in another you said you'd never vote for them again, now you sound like you don't even stay in Scotland so how could you vote for them in the first place......very puzzling.
Complain about this comment
Helenzzz at #66 wrote:
"I think I speak for many English people when I say this: we really, really hope you get your independence as soon as possible, because quite frankly, we are sick to death of listening to you whining all the time!
This is a prime example of what I described in my post at #18:
"Could it be that it's not Scotland that's in crisis but a country whose inhabitants, more and more suspiciously, never seem to tire of telling us what whinging, "chip on the shoulder" scroungers we all are. In fact, just the sort of abusive language used by all bullies with a guilty conscience!"
So Helenzzz clear we have long since got you figured out!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
"Alexander renews referendum call"
Brian- here's an additional piece of advice you might want to pass on to Wendy Alexander:
Repeating the same tired old "call" makes it look for all the world as if:
1. You don't have any new ideas.
2. You're praying that if you repeat the same failed tactic enough times it might work.
3. You are getting increasingly desperate.
4. Your opponents are running rings round you.
5. And, as a by-product, it bores the public to death.
I thought she had hired a new PR advisor?
Complain about this comment
It's simple, isn't it? Every time an item of news comes out that Labour would like attention distracted from they are going to demand the INDEPENDENCE referendum NOW! - secure in the knowledge, as they are, that the Government will not run it until after the next Westminster election. I am saddened to see that the BBC gives this guff higher prominence than the shocking revelation it is designed to smokescreen.
Let me pose a question. If there is one thing that is certain it is that Labour are leaving Downing Street and the Tories are moving in. They'll be along in a tick that will be delivered, mostly, in England and when they arrive they are going to unleash hell on Scotland, as they did under Thatcher.
Why is Scottish Labour so intent on delivering us to them, which is what the 'NO TO INDEPENDENCE' vote they are courting, recommending and propagandising will most certainly do.
Complain about this comment
It's probably as well for the SNP that the majority of Scots, who don't support them -and even those who voted for them to oust Labour but don't want independence - are not reading this stuff. Some of the scary bits from Nats could set the cause of independence back another 300 years. We've had everything from the IRA to Iran, Obama to Israel, in answer to a simple question: Do we believe the estimates of people trying to balance the books?
Someone said the Report proves "we are not an economic basket case." We may not be, but we are a political basket case - and most of the basket-weavers are here.
A non-separatist made a financial point, unanswered, but the reply was: "It's not about money, it's about heart and heritage" or something like that. How can you debate with such people. (Don't bother, I know your answer).
Others quote endless statistics, which can usually mean anything you want them to mean.
And then there's tireless Thomas. Blogging his wee heart out from school closing time until he falls asleep. Bless him. He's the unionists' best weapon.
If I were a rampant unionist, rather than just a pragmatist who sees nothing better meantime (who'll accuse me of blindness, I wonder) this macabre comedy would be food and drink to me.
All politics aside however, I could weep for my country. Yes, my dear Nats, even a unionist can have pride and patriotism. But my heart doesn't beat to your greedy, selfish little drum.
But bring on the new age of bling and bampottery. A free hoodie for every 16-18-year-old who votes SNP.
Complain about this comment
@brigadier
Can I tactfully suggest to you, as one pragmatist to another, that the best way to engage with the forum is not to browbeat and berate 60-70% of the contributers.
The simple answer to your simple question is no, the estimates are loaded, and cannot be trusted.
Im no accountant, and feel free to study the figures and prove me wrong, but it is generally accepted that GERS assigns Trident to Scotland, and does not include Oil or Whisky.
Even accepting this "framework", the accounts are stuffed with inaccuracies. Just before the MAy 2007 elections, a husband and wife team of economists forced an apology from Whitehall for a wee "error".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6267881.stm
Then, there is general Economic policy in Scotland, where govt punishes success, and fails to nurture promising start-up sectors to the level they should.
Incredibly, Darling moved the whisky tax away from the treasury's revenue maximising position this May
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/03/12/bcnbudget3012.xml
Makes you wonder, eh?
But the main story from Brians broadcast last night was a sentence slipped in just before the end of the piece. That Scotlands income has been systematically underplayed, and her outgoings consistently consistently overdone for many many years.
You are governed by liars, who do not care about what is best for you. Wake up.
Complain about this comment
Dear Brian,
RE; Working through the figures and #73
"The fire bellied toad, when alarmed, suddenly throws itself on its back, so exposing its underside which blazes with a yellow and black pattern, a colour combination which is widely recognised in the animal world as a warning"
Life on Earth, David Attenborough 1979
As I watched your GERS report on News Night Scotland with great interest I noticed your provocative pulsating pink tie and bright beacon braces!!!
I wondered if they were worn to be recognised as a warning.
Could it actually be; to let your Fellow Scots know that actually what was told was very restricted?
I can only hope you didn't go as far as wearing matching pink knickers :)
I always thought you were on our side :)
To make it clearer for some among us, in future, to accompany such announcements, you could also wear a flashing red nose and Noddy hat complete with bell.
When, or if, you ever do finally manage to wrestle control of BBC Scotland from the vice like grip and predetermination of your Westminster/London based peers, you could similarly symbolise your victory by growing a red beard, wearing a Kilt and carrying your pink flashing items on a stick :)
Complain about this comment
Obviously, I should add that these new figures do include oil revenues. Clearly, this is why the SNP is so jubilant, Brian; official ink has been spilt for the first time to demonstrate Scotland fiscal superiority. But we need to wait for independent scrutiny before we can accurately decide how much change has taken place, and how accurate the new accounts are. I still maintain they are pretty rotten, and that Mr Darling will continue his old tricks.
And not to dance on an old grave, but Labour's stance that the SNP are placing all of Scotlands future eggs in one oleaganious basket is nonsense. With an .....OIL FUND..... Norway has ensured that her sticky black bonanza will last, essentially, forever.
Complain about this comment
Darsielatimer: It's like trying to engage with an amoeba - you make one point and another one is answered. If you make a good point, in your own estimation of course, half a dozen of them call you names, get all shirty, but never answer. Fortunately I'm thick-skinned.
As to your main points, you are too clever for me. I am naturally suspicious of all statistics, because there is no such thing as a "neutral" compiler in the political world. Everyone has a starting point, everyone wants the outcome to prove their own pet theory - or, more likely, their boss's pet theory! So just tell me, without jargon, how Scotland can be better off in terms of people's lives. I can then decide if I believe or disbelieve your opinion.
I truly envy you if you can make real sense out of these reports (I believe they are designed to give something to everybody) but some of the people contributing here are so blinkered. Anything they agree with is The Truth. Anything else is a lie. An English Lie, or a Unionist Lie.
Your final sentence in #82 I believe, totally, but I would add "...regardless of the party they support."
Complain about this comment
The latest and improved GERS statistics are precisely the sort of evidence that the electorate needs to have before it if it is to be asked in a referendum whether Scotland should become an independent state. Time is now needed for these particular figures to be reflected upon, together with figures for the following year when they eventually become available, so that the people can give mature consideration to the question of whether the demonstrable practicality of Scottish independence within the European Union should lead them to select that as their preferred constitutional option.
Other relevant factors should be subject to equally mature consideration in due course, such as the prospect of evolving EU foreign-affairs and defence-structure responsibilities, which will no doubt eventually reveal to us that as the 21st century unfolds a small EU member state such as independent Scotland will not be burdened with a requirement to provide its own separate diplomatic representation all over the globe or indeed its own army, navy and air force.
The unseemly rush to an independence referendum now apparently earnestly desired by Scottish Labour would mean that much of the emerging relevant information needed by the electorate could not be adequately taken into account. This might suit the Brit Nats, but it would deny the Scottish electorate the opportunity to appreciate fully just how practicable and desirable independent Scottish membership of the European Union could be.
The Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland statistics for 2006/7, which show that Scotland is fiscally viable as an independent state, are a welcome contribution to the debate on whether British unionism, which arguably had something to commend it in the eighteenth century, should now be replaced by a European unionism which recognizes Scotland's need and Scotland's right to be fully and appropriately represented in the supranational entity which is most important to us now.
Complain about this comment
#85, how can Scotland be better off in terms of people's lives, here are some of my suggestions Brig.
1) Scottish problems, Scottish solutions.
2) Scottish government, faster, leaner, simpler, direct, more accountable (it is upto the electorate (us) to ensure this, too keep them on their toes).
3) Emphasis on wealth creation, business friendly.
4) No more London/Scottish Labour negative psychology (keep people in poverty, make them dependent on handouts, crush their self-esteem and they'll vote for Labour)
5) No interfering in other countries politics.
6) No invading other countries.
7) No bombing other countries.
Complain about this comment
An interesting feature of the newest report is the efect of using new information and fairer methodologies as agreed with the Office of National Statistics and the Treasury.
Correcting previous reported calculations for preceding years - for 2004/05 for example - shows revenues from Scotland were understated by £824 million and expenditures overstated by £1,324 million (Tables A.3 and B.13 respectively).
Looks like Alex Salmond has proved his point about the bias of previous reports!
Complain about this comment
European unionist: What a fascinating, reasoned post. Urging people to wait for information and think about it is not universally popular here! I wonder how some will react to the possibility of a future United States of Europe (I take it this is what you carefully omitted to say) representing us abroad, or indeed recruiting our servicemen and women. It could happen.
Perhaps calls for a referendum now might become muted as these possibilities are digested. Or spat out! Perhaps the "Independence Now!" brigade might decide to ca' canny for a while?
From nationalist to supranationalist in a single bound. Wow! What a delicious thought to hang before a perplexed wee man in his see-you-Jimmy wig.
"Ah thocht we wur gonnae dae it a' oorsels wance we goat rid o' thae English?"
I'm quite comfortable with a united Europe, where our new wealth will be welcomed as an excellent handout to the poorer nations. The UK, also, will be glad to see us paying our way.
And this will appeal to the egalitarian socialist instincts of the SNP...
Complain about this comment
Brian,
In reply to Thomas_Porter@72.
I think I have been using a narrow understanding of autonomy. In terms of human decision-making, it means making decisions without reference to any authority or dogma.
However, after Thomas_Porter asked his question I looked up my dictionary, and found there were a couple of other definitions that may be closer to the way some of the posters on this blog understand it. These are autonomy as self-government, or autonomy as self-determination.
In the case of understanding autonomy as self-government, it is obvious that Scotland could in the future exercise autonomy, and become a self-governing state.
However, I think autonomy as self-determination is something different as I am not sure whether it is possible for any state to exercise true self-determination. In addition, I think self-determination is not possible in economic terms: as with most other countries, a self-governing Scotland would not be immune from future credit crunches, and escalating food and raw material costs.
In a world where capital transfers can take place in an instant, or where investment follows cheaper labour costs, true autonomy is an illusion. Autonomy in this sense may apply to individuals, but I am not sure you could apply it so states. This is what I meant in my previous submissions.
Complain about this comment
In My Kip: You're struggling after Point 3, and Points 1-3 confuse "better" with "different."
I have a little sympathy with Point 4. That is Labour all right. But all Governments try to keep power with "jam tomorrow" promises that are never kept. And will the SNP reduce the number of government and local authority jobs, the majority of Scots jobs in fact? That is how they control us - "we own your job, your income. Who will you vote for?"
I'm not really saying you are wrong. I just don't believe it will be all that different. Whoever is in power. However much money they have.
Complain about this comment
I was just wondering how much revenue is generated from Scotland's other commodities, mainly whiskey
Complain about this comment
#91, we can agree to disagree with points 1 to 3 Brig, as for point 4, a Scottish Government is in Edinburgh not Westminster, MSP's live in Scotland not London, there will be no Westminster 'country' club for them to disappear too of a week. The Scottish Government and those within it will be under our gaze on a daily basis, answerable SOLELY to the Scottish electorate. Proportional representation has stopped the concentration of power around any one party, now they have to work together, to cooperate, which is no bad thing.
Complain about this comment
Wendy is at it again I see! She is clearly insane crossing Brown again; but then again she is taking Labour and the union down from the inside: so here's hoping she carries on with the good work.
Complain about this comment
Perhaps as a member of the Scottish diaspora and living on the continent I could be very briefly (if possible) indulged and told the view from the 'Scottish street'. It seems to me Independence is really gaining momentum but I fear old fears remain and the Unionists may win out. Could anybody give me any evidence of the state of play - even anecdotally would be much appreciated.
Complain about this comment
#94 sorry to disappoint you pattymkirkwood, but any damage Wendy is likely to do will look like chicken feed when compared to the perilous state of the Labour Party finances right now.
Complain about this comment
#79, I heard 'Bring It On' Wendy on the radio too, talk about sounding condescending, she makes it into an art form. Never mind she's not forever.
Complain about this comment
bluelaw - please allow me:
1. The SNP won the election. Labour politicians are still unable to accept this and continue to make arrogant demands as if they were in charge. The public is not amused.
2. The SNP government has scored one stunning political win after another - albeit helped with some incredible own goals and foot in mouth moments from Labour's Scottish leadership.
3. Things that have been neglected for generations under Labour are starting to get down. Genuine improvements have been made to the quality of life of Scots. This was initially confusing for the public, since for so long they had been led to believe everything was hopeless and nothing could be done to move forward.
4. After several months of the above, even the SNP's harshest critics have had to admit that they are doing what the public wants them to do: improving the lives of ordinary people.
5. Labour politicians are becoming increasingly desperate to scupper the SNPs growing bandwagon. They're terrified that more and more people are getting a taste of what can be achieved when people who put Scotland's interests first are in charge.
6. Labout can see that vast numbers of former Labour voters are starting to like the sound of a Scottish government - accountable to the Scottish people - a parliament that ordinary people can have a greater influence over.
7. The Labour lot realise something drastic will have to be done before Cameron gets voted in by the English - or it's goodbye Union and goodbye Labour in Scotland - for good.
So, in summary: Labour numpties well and truly found out and no matter what scare stories they and their Unionist puppets in the media say, the public just aren't swallowing it anymore.
Hope this helps.
Complain about this comment
#95 Well Bluelaw there are two sides to this particular street, one for independence, one against, both somewhat intransigent, scrub the somewhat and replace with completely.
My own personal view if you are interested is, with devolution came power, with power came seilf-confidence, with self-confidence has come the desire for more power, with more power will come more self-confidence etc etc etc eventually we'll reach a watershed, that watershed I believe will confirm independence as the preferred option for the majority of Scots. It may take a decade to come about.
Complain about this comment
Actually, I'd rather take the Guardian figure compiled by good to leading economists who concluded a £4.4 billion surplus. A wee bit more than the GERS system estimates.
Complain about this comment
These postings seem to have swung from a financial report, via oil and money, to being anti-Labour again. But I don't see anyone making a case for Labour here. Nobody's arguing with anti-Labour sentiments, so what's the point?
It's quite bizarre to see a party out of power taking such a pounding. But these things are probably cyclical. Once, the Tories were the whipping boys (they had 51% of the vote in Scotland in the early 50s), now it's Labour who have disappointed, to say the least.
Next...
Well, the Nats haven't had long enough and are a minority. But give it time. They would be the first government in world history if they didn't have their own cockups and scandals in due course.
Complain about this comment
Wendy Alexander once again call for a referendum.
Alex Salmond appreciates the support once again but will obay the manfesto that the Scottish Nats were voted for by the public.
By 2010 will we see Labour block the referendum call?
Shall we witness a "You had your chance..." moment from Labour?
Scottish Labour could be trying to save their seats by appearing to be more Nationalist and reaching out to what they want.
Complain about this comment
Thanks for your views. I'll take it that there is real momentum here. What about 2010? Is it likely to be a yes vote? What would you predict?
Complain about this comment
bluelaw -
Salmond is no mug. He has consistently proven this by running rings round Labour's Scottish "leader" Wendy Alexander. He has said that the referendum on Scottish independence will take place in 2010 and it will be after the next general election.
The way things are going for Labour nationally, the next general election could be a lot earlier than 2010. Everybody in Scotland knows the English will vote Tory.
Everybody in Scotland also remembers how the these same Tories used the Scots as guinea pigs for their utterly evil poll tax experiment. The Scots got the poll tax a year before anyone else in the UK.
Many Scots can remember describing the poll tax to disbelieving English friends with a warning that there would be riots on the streets of London within a year. The English friends scoffed. Within a year there were riots on the streets of London.
Since, speaking as one who well remembers this poll tax insult, I do not like being shafted by any so-called government that treats Scots like a bunch of lab rats.
If Scots are stupid enough to vote Labour in the next general election one would have to admit such utter stupidity would deserve everything it gets.
But this time we have an alternative: vote for an independent Scotland in Salmond's 2010 referendum.
I know what I'll be doing.
Complain about this comment
bluelaw -
And, in case you missed it, the above explains exactly why Wendy Alexander is making so much noise trying to force Salmond to hold the independence referendum long before 2010.
She claims she's doing this because "uncertainty" over independence is damaging Scotland's economy. It's reported she's making these calls without the support of Gordon Brown. (Not true. He actually told her to do it).
Alexander had stated publicly many times she was against a referendum but, despite her complaints that doing an total about-turn on the issue would make her look like complete hypocrite and a fool, Gordon insisted she do so.
Brown had worked out that if she couldn't derail the SNP before the next election it was curtains for the Union.
So sadly the real reason for her "noble" fight to end uncertainty is as self-serving as it is transparent: She's terrified that by 2010 Scots will have a simple choice: be shafted by the newly-elected Tory national government (as we all were with the poll tax) or vote for an independent Scotland.
Complain about this comment
Is independence fiscally viable? This vexed question has troubled the people for many a long year, of course, as contrary assertions have been batted back and forth in a dispute which has been seemingly endless.
"Many a long dispute (...) may be thus abridg’d, It is so: It is not so. It is so; It is not so." (Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, 1743)
Now at last we can be confident that it is so, the publication of the Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland statistics for 2006/7 having provided reliable independent evidence to support the contention that Scotland is as fiscally viable as advocates of independence have been claiming. Independent evidence is a blessing, which should conduct an over-long and so-far fruitless debate to a point of termination which, if we are fortunate, may be fruitful.
Complain about this comment
Given the choice, will the SNP want lower oil prices, which result in Scotland being subsidised by the UK Treasury, or will they want higher oil prices, which result in Scotland being a net contributor to the UK Treasury? Unfortunately, I think they will go for the latter; to the detriment of everyone's finances. High oil prices lead to inflation, as is evident now. As a result, many people are feeling the pinch on their finances. Just look at how more expensive food and petrol are. It is sad that the SNP is likely to want higher oil prices so that they can claim that the Union provides no economic benefit to Scotland and that independence is the future. They don’t care if normal people struggle to put food on the table as long as they have their much loved independence.
Complain about this comment
thanks. v interesting.
Complain about this comment
Nice to know that this small countries oil has such a marked influence on world food prices!
Whether oil is high or low in price doesn't affect the viability of Scotland it just strengthens the case for independence which has been denied us in an undemocratic way for decades (called party politics).
Complain about this comment
Tvkev45:
The Scottish National Party does not want high oil prices. High enough to keep Scotland successful as an Independent Country but not high to the extent that our Industries and businesses are damaged which could then hit the success of the individuals.
The Scottish National Party has been one of the most vocal Parties that has attempted to encourage the Labour Party to introduce a 'Fuel Regulator' that could ease the burden of high fuel costs on the country.
The Scottish National Party also has encouraged Labour to stop the planned rise 2p duty on fuel at the pumps in October.
The Scottish National Party also has been vocal on encouraging the United Kingdom Government to create an 'Oil Fund' for Scotland that could be used in the future to invest in re-newables and other businesses once the oil is gone.
To you the Nationalists may not care but I think you are being blind on purpose for the sake of it because they represent something you do not want.
Complain about this comment
One gathers from the GERS statistics for 2006/7 that, contrary to the contentions of UK government sources and unionist commentators north and south of the border over the decades, Scotland is in fact not being subsidized by England after all but, by virtue of an £800 million surplus, taking into account a "geographical share" of North Sea oil revenues, is actually subsidizing England. How remarkable that such a diminutive country (if the present peculiar BBC weather maps are anything to go by) can manage to carry for such a long time such a dead-weight on its back while being whipped along all the time as it is cajoled into believing that it is itself a worthless burden being carried by that which it is in fact carrying.
It is shameful - is it not? - that none of this information came to light under unionist administrations either before or since the present devolution settlement came into effect and that for it to be uncovered it has been necessary to wait for an SNP government to come to power so that its civil servants could be instructed to produce a reliable set of statistics on Scotland's fiscal position, one that includes a figure for the country's position if it were to receive its share, about 83 per cent according to Aberdeen University experts, of North Sea oil revenues. It is enough to make one ashamed to be British when one realizes just how unjustly and discreditably British government has shown itself to be in its treatment of such an indisputably valuable partner in the British union, one whose right to determine its own constitutional future, although richly merited, has been clearly quite deliberately undermined and jeopardized over the years through chronic cynical manipulation of information subject to the control of unionist political parties in office.
The fact of the matter, then, and it is worth stating it and re-stating it, is that Scotland's budget surplus stands at £837 million (0.7% of GDP) in 2006/07, compared with a UK deficit of £4.3 billion, giving a flow of resources from Scotland to the rest of the UK of some £1.2 billion. It is hardly surprising that England is so reluctant to release its grip on such a valuable milch-cow. Indeed, according to the Scottish National Party, city accountancy firm Grant Thornton estimates that Scotland's surplus would now stand at some £4.4 billion as North Sea oil revenues soar.
A country which is poor and poorly dealt with as a province of an oppressive and abusive neighbouring country but which would be a prosperous nation with a budget surplus if it released itself from such bondage has no reason to be in any doubt as to which constitutional direction it should take when offered an opportunity to decide upon the matter in 2010.
Complain about this comment
1. It's quite clear that the "union dividend" includes:
a) financial stability and the protection of public services and
b) £10.2billion a year top-up to the budget.
The SNP totally rely on oil income to substantiate their claim that Scotland's economy is strong enough to go it alone. But they will not admit that the oil fields are past their peak and income can only decrease. The multinational oil companies are moving out for a reason!
Without oil at current high prices, the Scottish budget would be a massive 30% worse off. 30%!
The costs of independence are becoming clearer despite SNP efforts to muddy the waters: higher taxes, borrowing at EU limits for the long-term, increased debt and instability of public budgets.
Complain about this comment
111. That 'budget surplus' only exists because the SNP excluded billions in capital spending; new schools, hospitals, roads, rail, extra police, extra teachers etc.!
This is Salmond saying, "If we count all the taxes but ignore the spending, we can then claim we have a 'surplus'."
Ridiculous.
Complain about this comment
The only reason Scotland has no major industries left is because succcessive Westminster governments have closed them down, either directly, or by creating conditions which suite the south east, but which have been totally unsupportive of Scotland.
Under Scottish independence, the Scottish government WILL have the powers to create and country which is supportive of its industries, and the creation of new industries, along with inward investment.
This is what any self-respecting country does. However, the problem with Scotland is that in the last 300 years we have never had the power to do this.
Time for a change, don't you think.
Complain about this comment
Of course an independent Scotland would be economically viable but it would also play an insignificant role on the world stage. It’s time to ditch the medieval concept of the small nation state and stop looking backwards.
Complain about this comment
Reluctant-Expat:
Yes. Scotland is dependent on the success of the Oil Reserves for Independence to work.
Which Oil Producing country does not rely on the success of her Oil Reserves though?
Britain is already in debt by over 500 billion pounds (possibly more). You can not scaremonger and say Scotland will have to raise taxes etc etc Which it may have to do. (who knows)
There is no investment to prepare for the times when there is no oil. I am looking for to Independence Day because when that day comes it also comes with a Government who relies on the success of Scotland for the country to work.
We will not see a Government neglect the country and then boast the South East anymore. Industries won't be closed or forced to decline since our Government will rely on them.
Complain about this comment
reluctant -expat . wrong. it was not the snp government or alex salmond that produced this report it was civil servants if this had been any of the past 16 years you would have been right.
Complain about this comment
Actually, Scotland doesn't need oil to be a successful EU economy. She just needs independence. The point is with oil revenues these last thirty years Scotland would have been in a much much better position at independence. Even so it's not too late.
The oil hasnt peaked. This is a lie. There is now evidence that up to 100 years worth of oil is left. Even if there were only ten years left Scotland must become independent. It's the only logical and responsible thing for Scotland to become.
Complain about this comment
cynicalHighlander:
I never said that Scotland’s oil could influence food prices. Globally, world oil prices are having an affect on food prices (e.g. transport costs and fertilizers). This is putting a strain on people’s finances and is leading to high inflation (which is not good for Britain’s or Scotland’s economy). The upside of high oil prices, in the SNP’s view, is increased revenues from North Sea oil. They believe this strengthens their case for independence as Scotland is then ‘self-sufficient’. I am afraid that the price of oil does affect the viability of an independent Scotland because if it were low, North Sea Oil revenues would be lower and Scotland would be in the red.
Thomas_Porter:
If the SNP don’t want high oil prices, will they then be happy for Scotland’s current account to be in the red, and therefore admit Scotland is not self-sufficient? Oil is extremely volatile and it would be economically unsound to base an independent Scotland’s economy on it. As for Labour’s planned 2p duty increase on fuel, the SNP aren’t the only party opposed to this ridiculous idea. As for their other policies, I haven’t purposefully ignored them because I have never heard of them. Having just looked up on their website this ‘fuel regulator’ policy, I’d have to say it is a good policy that I would endorse. However, the SNP don’t think that this is as important as ‘Scotland’s budget surplus’, due to high oil prices might I add, because it isn’t their top story.
http://www.snp.org/
They are giving out conflicting messages.
Complain about this comment
Why is Scottish Labour so intent on delivering us to them, which is what the 'NO TO INDEPENDENCE' vote they are courting, recommending and propagandising will most certainly do.
Yeah. I don't know what that's all about. Maybe Labour figures if they goad the Nats into a vote prior to a Tory victory then there's still some hope that independence can be kicked into touch for another generation. Just as Maggie Thatcher called Scotland's bluff all those years ago. Then they (Labour) hope to be back in power in (say) 15 or 20 years time when the next generation of Thomas_Porters start taking their 'Braveheart' videos as historical documents.
I think Labour are worried that if the Nats call for a referendum after a Tory victory then they (Labour) won't be able to say very much in favour of independence as the SNP floods the screen with pictures of poll-tax rioters and sour-faced miners parading with big pictures of Arthur Scargill. After all this is the poison that Labour themselves has spent so much time pouring into the Scottish electorates cornflakes to put them off voting Tory. All the time confident that Scotland would always vote Labour.
On reflection I think this is absolutely Wendy's strategy. Force a referendum before the likelihood of a Tory government becomes too proximate in the electors minds. Hopefully win it and then kick the idea into touch for another generation.
My strategy as a Labour/Tory/Lib Dem Unionist MSP would be entirely different however. I'd just keep my gob shut until Alex Salmond asks for a show of hands for a referendum and then I'd just vote 'NO'. Problem solved. We're unionists. It was in our manifesto.
Just like the Labour government does over an EU referendum (even though that was a bare-faced volte-face on their manifesto). Because although Labour might get thrown out you can be absolutely certain the Tories aren't going to be giving a vote on whether we (in the UK) remain part of the EU either.
Wendy Alexander is just plankton with a red rosette. She needn't get drawn into any talk of independence. Just let Alex rabbit away to himself and then strike when the day comes. By arguing with him about independence (or pretty much anything for that matter) she simply reveals herself as a clown and gives him more air-time to spread his propaganda.
So there it is. We all write as if an independence vote was inevitable but actually, if the Labour/Liberal/Tory MSPs stick to their manifesto then there will be no vote.
That would be kind of funny.
Complain about this comment
Tvkev45:
It all depends how low you would like to see oil prices. Oil prices can drop 20-40 dollars and Scotland would still remain wealthy.
If you expect oil to be worth 10 dollars per barrel or something then that will never happen.
However, demand is growing faster then production of oil. Oil will never be cheap again but the SNP can not control that, only ease the burden if possible.
I would say the economy is based on oil but I would also trust the Government to evolve our economy and invest in reliable Industries and Businesses to give alternative work once the oil does decline steadily and runs out. (In the next 100 years?)
Like I said before. A Scottish Government would rely on the success of the Scots for the their own success. If they do not look good then they would not be voted for again. (We would not vote for them twice when unemployment is high)
The Fuel Regulator is an old story and used to be a top story. The only reason that surplus story is top story is because of the GERS report released recently and is big news since the Unionists have lied for years on this issue.
I think you owe the Nats Activists an apology for saying that the SNP don't care when I have shown you that they do, perhaps more then the other Parties ahve shown to.
Complain about this comment
I'm not sure if this development significantly strengthens the independence cause. £800 million, whilst very welcome, is £160 per head of population - not exactly a bonanza, and certainly not enough to provide an oil fund which will top up our finances in perpetuity. But more importantly, now that the SNP are accepting the GERS figures, they have a duty to the electorate to explain how Scotland will deal with the post oil deficits in our current account (£6,700 million). All I've seen so far is vauge generalisations.
Complain about this comment
Bingowings87:
If we had a Unionist Party in Government then we would be told that Scotland would not have a surplus at all.
but even this report is missing information and has information that it shouldn't which makes it slightly unreliable.
An improvment since Labour but still full of holes.
Complain about this comment
Like I said before. A Scottish Government would rely on the success of the Scots for the their own success. If they do not look good then they would not be voted for again. (We would not vote for them twice when unemployment is high)
Would not vote for who if unemployment was high? The SNP?
You'd better believe it. If ever an independent Scottish government gets its hands on the oil revenue you can forget about an 'oil fund'. The latent Labour mentality will be given full rein as the Socialists promise to take that money while it's hot and spend, spend, spend. Man you will have employment like you've never have thought possible. Folk will be moving up from England in droves to do the well-paid unnecessary, irritating bureaucratic non-jobs that a Labour administration will be inventing left, right and centre to massage the figures. Well, somebody will have to do it. They've already massaged unemployment figures in Scotland to such an extent that apparently only 5% of adults who are able to do a job are 'unemployed'. Now, ask yourself, does that square with what you see around you?
Meanwhile your oil money will be going down the plug-hole, your civil service pension liabilities will be going into the stratosphere, Alex Salmond will be weeping into his whisky and the English, or the few who give a hoot either way, will be laughing like a drain.
For all your sakes the SNP needs to have a draft constitution that requires the oil money to be invested overseas in an 'Oil Fund'. Otherwise the money will be squandered (just as Labour squander in the wider UK) in the name of 'investment'. Or a million extra civil-servants wages to the more picky amongst us.
Complain about this comment
I am both married and employed which means that I can only afford a quick romp through this blog over a sandwich lunch.
I realised ages ago that GlobalTraveller and Bluelaw were misty-eyed expatriates mad keen on an independent Scotland, provided that they didn't have to live in it. And now Thomas Porter has revealed that he is both unemployed and unattached and therefore has many long hours in which to demonstrate his limited grasp of politics, history, economics and geology!
Thomas...nice people on this blog have advised you to get out a bit more. Personally I think you should extend this to finding a job. It does your cause no good at all to shout the rest of the world down over the future vibrancy of the Scottish economy when you are drawing unemployment benefit. Sit back and think about the irony before putting finger to keyboard.
Back to work...bills to pay and all that! Pip Pip!
Complain about this comment
The price of oil was much lower previously and Scotland was never in the red. And the plain fact is the price of oil is never going to go down so Scotland should and has every right to benefit from this just as any other country in the world in a similar position would.
I am happy to admit to being an ex-pat. I don't have a misty-eyed view of independence. I think it's the only practical way to tackle the many problems that afflict Scotland. Living abroad and seeing how normal being independent is and how much more successful so many countries are in comparison to Scotland and England I feel even more inclined to speak out on such an issue. I don't demand any direct influence on the vote in 2010 but I make no apology for expressing my love for Scotland and its people by strongly advocating that they become independent.
Complain about this comment
126 Bluelaw
Glad to have smoked you out! It's interesting to note that your love and patriotism doesn't run as far as living in and contributing to that nation. Surely the future of Scotland lies in attracting home its diaspora which, in addition to freeing up many senior civil service posts in Whitehall, would allow Scotland to prosper from the talents of its brightest and best. I would have thought that any committed nationalist would put country above pocket!
Complain about this comment
The fact of the matter, then, and it is worth stating it and re-stating it, is that Scotland's budget surplus stands at ?837 million (0.7% of GDP) in 2006/07, compared with a UK deficit of ?4.3 billion, giving a flow of resources from Scotland to the rest of the UK of some ?1.2 billion.
Ooooh, I long for the day when the UK government only squanders 7.5bn a year that it doesn't have.
To a UK public spending budget of the order of over 500bn then 1.2bn is only a rounding error in the larger UK. Indeed the 7.5bn attributable to 83% of oil revenues is a rounding error when compared to 500bn. I'd be far more concerned about the 70bn plus of deficit that the Labour government will be running up this year than 7.5bn.
Since 1997 it has squandered well over 300bn that it doesn't have.
It's not what happens to the relatively small figure of oil revenues that makes my gums bleed. It's the sheer industrial rate of squandering of money we don't have and may never earn that frightens me. As a voter moving south next week I console myself that at some point a more adult government which doesn't seek to squander its way through the good times and the bad may come to power.
But if I was staying in Scotland I'd be filling my trousers at the thought that the Scottish electorate might have a Mel Gibson moment followed, about six months later, by a Tommy Sheridan moment. Remember that lot? And Scottish Labour is little better. These are a bunch of hard-left Marxists who think Arthur Scargill had the right idea. They lament the passing of the dock labour scheme and the annual ceremony of holding the country to ransom for more cash.
I wouldn't want to be footing the bill as Labour, the Lib Dems et al got into a race to promise to squander as much money as they could. Vote for us. We'll 'invest' in more schools, more hospitals, more 'training', better 'help' to get the long term unemployed back to 'work'. Better council houses. Better this, better that.
Then they'll race to spend top-dollar on as many glass and steel sheds as they can. They'll recruit armies of barely educated numpties on insane salaries tied to the best-paid equivalent in the more expensive England to over-man them and brag about how much money they've spent. Just Like Jack McConnell. Remember? 'I make no apologies for squandering an addition umpty squillion quid on the NHS'
The oil windfall will be squandered on a truly Nigerian scale. You might get some roads out of it and the most expensive bridge in history but I wouldn't hold my breath.
Oil Fund? Not a chance. Not a hope. No way. It will all be squandered. Remember this prediction thirty years from now when you're mumbling into your whisky and shaking your head wondering how did it all go so wrong.
Complain about this comment
Glad to have smoked you out! It's interesting to note that your love and patriotism doesn't run as far as living in and contributing to that nation.
The Pogues had it right....
'Where e'er we go, we celebrate The land that makes us refugees ....'
Looking back with misty-eyed nationalism on a place you couldn't wait to get away from. There's a reason you left. And while you might want to imagine it was some deep-seated revolt against English colonial oppressors I suggest it was more likely naked opportunism and a better standard of living elsewhere.
Like generations of Irish and Scottish before you.
Nothing wrong with that you understand. I just cringe with embarrassment when I hear second or third generation Oirish in America telling me how their dad had to flee Ireland because of the English. Nothing to do with being one of twelve kids trying to eke out a living on two acres of blanket bog then? And what of the lost generations since independence? Did the English force them to leave too?
They left because there was nothing to keep them there. But it's a much better story if you tell your kids how you came with nothing, deposessed by the hated English than if you say 'Actually, it was rubbish at home, my older brother got the farm and it was either stay and starve or leave and get a job.'
It's the same from the Scottish of course. If Scotland is rubbish, it's farms unable to support families of 8 or 10 and there's no jobs it has to be England's fault. Not Scotland's.
And it is a good story. No question. Man leaves dead-end country for brave new frontier and makes success of his life. Fantastic. Triumph of the human spirit.
The problem we have now is that the ones with no jobs don't leave to another country and make something of their lives. They sit there in their council tower blocks claiming Incapacity Benefit and beating up Pakistanis and Poles for 'taking our jobs'.
Don't look at me. Look at him.
Oh aye. FREEDOM!!!!
Complain about this comment
Smoked me out? I've been more than open about being part of the Scottish Diaspora.
FYI I left as a child but I don't regard myself or anyone else in my family who have left Scotland as having abandoned Scotland or having given up the right to comment on her affairs. If Scotland was independent I doubt many many Scots would have left Scotland. Anyway, the upshot of this is that I love Scotland and her people dearly and won't be quietened on what I regard as crimes committed against her nor will I shy away from presenting what I regard as a positive future for Scotland as an independent. I believe I may move back there if Scotland becomes independent but if she doesn't it'll break my heart.
Complain about this comment
130 Bluelaw
Sounds like a pretty good smoking out to me.
Where do you live now? I would love to clog your bandwidth about the hideous treatment of Native Americans, aboriginals, contributions to global warming etc etc and get into a good old froth about subjects of which I have only a passing knowledge.
What worries me most is the realisation that you are probably staying up half the night to write your impassioned pieces. You may find that with a little extra sleep the feelings go away.
On last thought...if you left the UK as a child, you might reasonably suppose that that your ability to objectively compare the "then" with the "now" could be a little flawed.
Complain about this comment
Anglophone #125
I'm not an expat, I'm afraid.
Complain about this comment
HughEdinburgh:
"The only reason Scotland has no major industries left is because succcessive Westminster governments have closed them down, either directly, or by creating conditions which suite the south east, but which have been totally unsupportive of Scotland."
No major industries? What you mean is no nationalist he-man industries, like coal mining, fishing, crofting and shipbuilding. Scotland has a strong finance industry, a decent service sector and a good dollop of high-tech manufacturing.
You know, industries that are actually worth a damn.
Complain about this comment
All this talk by the nationalists about independence...
There is absolutely no sign of any increase in support for independence.
Repeated polls put support at ~25% before the last Holyrood elections. Support in the most recent poll by the same company has it at either 25% or 19%, depending on the question.
And this is AFTER a year of the SNP's repeated anti-UK/anti-English rhetoric and propaganda.
The GERS shows that Scotland still enjoys the fruits of the Union, to the tune of many billions every year.
There is no 'surplus' as this only appears when the SNP counts all the taxes but only some of the spending!
Complain about this comment
132 GlobalTraveller
Sorry...I did you a disservice there, but at least Bluelaw is trailing black smoke and heading for the horizon and Thomas Porter is hopefully reading through the the Appointments pages of the Glasgow Herald.
I love this stuff about the Westminster plot to close down Scotland's traditional manufacturing industries. You guessed it, those evil English politicians covered their tracks by closing down most of traditional manufacturing in England and Wales as well! The lengths those guys will go to in order to disguise their true agenda
PS: Hold your referendum for heavens sake and make your minds up.
Complain about this comment
Anglophone:
#125.
You have no right to comment on my life. You know nothing about me or what I do in my spare time or where my money comes from. All this Blog does know is that I am 16 and recently finished my exams.
You said you were married?
Tell me, why a married person uses the internet to spread insults to strangers?
Complain about this comment
Thomas_Porter:
I thought this GERS report was supposed to be produced by independent civil servants. Are you saying that in the past Labour has lied to us being manipulating this report to show that Scotland is in deficit? If that is the case, what is to stop the SNP from manipulating it in to support their political objectives?
bluelaw:
Have you got the gift or foresight? You must do if you can make comments such as ‘the price of oil will NEVER go down’. It has gone down before and it possible it will go down again.
Complain about this comment
#113 Reluctant Expat
Yes, just following international accounting convention. The UK does this too. The accounts of an independent Scotland would be constructed the same way.
#115 darwinsmonkey
Correct on the first part, but what about the second? For starters, the UK doesn't play a "significant" role in the world - we leave that to the big boys - the USA, for example (hell, we couldn't even launch our own nukes without their say so), so I'm not sure how this translates into Scotland having a "significant role" on the world stage. Scotland is invisible on the world stage. St Vincent and the Grenadines have a bigger say in world affairs than we have. Look at those plucky Irish, derailing the Lisbon Treaty or those super Slovenians holding the Presidency of the EU earlier this year.
Interesting too are the comments of Pascal Lamy (DG of the WTO) yesterday on Politics Scotland, regarding how much better placed smaller countries are, to deal with globalisation than their larger and more vainglorious neighbours.
Complain about this comment
Anaxim:
Fishing is more important to rural Scots.
Shipbuilding is important because of the thousands employed in the Industry at Glasgow.
But yes they do not make as much money as the high tech manufacturing and other Industries so I guess they are not important?
Who care that thousands of Scots rely on these Industries. It does not take in much money...
Reluctant-Expat:
"There is absolutely no sign of any increase in support for independence."
Then there should be no problem for the Unionists supporting the right for the public to decide there future.
Unless there afraid that they may loose...
"And this is AFTER a year of the SNP's repeated anti-UK/anti-English rhetoric and propaganda."
It is quite hard for the SNP to be Anti-English when several figures in the SNP were born in England.
"There is no 'surplus' as this only appears when the SNP counts all the taxes but only some of the spending!"
Half correct. I already pointed out that GERS includes areas that would not happen in an Independent Scotland and also included that there are parts that should be included in the report.
GERS is never to be trusted and I think we all know that from the past when we were told Scotland was a waste of space and benefit claiming junkies.
Complain about this comment
Tvkev45:
"I thought this GERS report was supposed to be produced by independent civil servants. Are you saying that in the past Labour has lied to us being manipulating this report to show that Scotland is in deficit?"
Correct. If you actually read the GERS report then you would notice several issues that would not occur in an Independent Scotland.
"If that is the case, what is to stop the SNP from manipulating it in to support their political objectives?"
The GERS report released recently is better but yes there are some areas that should not be included but it is and that things are missing from the report.
The point of this report was oil was introduced for once and that has shown Scotland to be far better off then Labour let on.
Have you apologised for your misleading information against the SNP?
I beleive to have shown you the light and corrected you assumptions.
Complain about this comment
136 Thomas Porter
Thomas...I'm sorry, I had no idea you were so young and it was very rude of me. If I said that sort of thing to my wife she would belt me!
That being said, you are such a voluminous contributor to these blogs and you peddle such such a mishmash of historical distortions, cod-statistics and pure naivety that you do, as they say in boxing circles "lead with your chin!"
Anyway, I hope that I'm living up to your expectations as a really nasty English specimen. Just the sort to make you errrr... want to become independent.
Didn't mean to hurt your feelings. Have you chosen your Highers yet?
Complain about this comment
I'm off. The penny has dropped and I realise that the main contributors to this blog are hyper-ventilating tartan fanciers in the New World...or schoolboys.
It's not exactly the "big debate" is it.
Why is that you can never find a politician when you need one?
Complain about this comment
Anglophone:
It was my Highers that I completed actually.
History and statistics can always be different. It depends where you learn it, how you came to learn it etc etc
If I asked Gordon Brown the importance of the North Sea Oil I would receive a different answer compared to if I asked Alex Salmond.
But as long as neither are widely off the mark then they both can be right at the same time.
Complain about this comment
Anglophone:
"...and I realise that the main contributors to this blog are hyper-ventilating tartan fanciers in the New World."
The only problem I find with the English.
Instead of working with a Nationalist to find a solution to fix the 'Broken Union' and solve the problems that exist such as our financial arrangments and the West Lothian Question etc etc We are insulted and discarded.
Complain about this comment
But it's a much better story if you tell your kids how you came with nothing, deposessed by the hated English....
As if by magic....
FYI I left as a child .... the upshot of this is that I love Scotland and her people dearly and won't be quietened on what I regard as crimes committed against her nor will I shy away
BINGO!
Another child's mind poisoned by their father.
Aye, son, we left because Scotland is rubbish. But it's only rubbish because of the English. Did you know in 1208 they said something unkind to 'our' king. And in 1345 they killed so-and-so. And in 1477 they did this...
And now you get all teary eyed about a place that you hardly know informed by some jaundiced history told by an old man looking to justify why he wasn't able to make a decent living in the auld country. Seen it any number of times with the Irish Diaspora too.
They should lock up those Mel Gibson videos. It only makes people maudlin.
Complain about this comment
U9461192:
There is nothing wrong teaching history to our children.
Edward the First did invade Scotland.
Edward did occupy Scotland.
Edward did capture our King and locked him away in the Tower of London.
The English army did rape the woman, murder those that stood out of line and did exploit the Scots through taxes etc etc
Of course if you want to ignore this and change history and paint a rosier picture that England and Scotland always got along and spent our time dancing around a tree holding hands, singing songs then I guess you can if you want.
Complain about this comment
Thomas_Porter:
What have I got to apologise for? I never described the SNP as uncaring. You are misconstruing what I am saying. What I meant was when it comes to the SNP’s priorities, independence comes before all the others (even when the public think there are more important matters).
Complain about this comment
The English army did rape the woman, murder those that stood out of line and did exploit the Scots through taxes etc etc
Shocking behaviour. Poor old Scots eh?
Do they teach you anything about what Robert the Bruce and his brother Ned got up to in Ireland when they got a bit carried away with their Scottish Liebenstraum?
Killed practically everybody between the top of Ireland and Dublin. That's what. Man, woman and child. Irish and English, Gael and Saxon. After that the Irish were happy to ally themselves with the English to get rid of the bloodthirsty psychopaths. Can't imagine why the English would want to keep them Scots under control. Can you? The fact is it was the Scots who were out of control killing all and sundry.
The result of Ned Bruces' pan-Gaelic vision, which involved the slaughter of everybody he encountered was that while Scotland was left alone for the foreseeable future Ireland was more than happy or at least content to have the English wandering around.
At least they don't slaughter you like the Scots. Well, not till 1690 anyway. Another slaughterfest between England and Scotland played out on the fields of Ireland. You guys.
I bet they don't teach you that in your Scottish history.
As usual you're all wrapping yourself in the flag about the terrible treatment you received from the English but not a moment's thought for the slaughter you handed out to the innocent of Ireland.
Complain about this comment
Just read the GERS report and noticed that most of the expenditure has been capitalised, which means it will be written off over several years. This is extremely misleading, or should I say, creative accounting - taken to extremes.
In other words, it is not worth the paper it is written on.
Complain about this comment
U9461192:
I don't think you are allowed to tell the truth in here; it upsets too many people. They prefer to blame the English for everything. I'm Irish by the way, so know exactly what you're talking about.
Nice one U9461192!!!
Complain about this comment
Thomas Porter:
I really do agree with others, I think you should get up from your computer, throw some water over yourself to wake you up; and the go get a job. Why should my taxes pay to keep insighting racial hatred.
Does your mother know what you're up to?
Complain about this comment
Thomas Porter
It must surely by now be past your bedtime? Now pop up to bed like a good boy and stop trying to start a civil war!
He's not the Messiah etc etc etc
Complain about this comment
65 Thomas Porter
"Purely because of Englands link to the name 'Britain' and because of Scotlands oil technology that would prove incredibly useful to the Iranians."
Thomas, before you go to bed, I thought that I had better clear this one up for you. North Sea technology is based around deep water and rough seas. This technological lead has been usurped by the Americans, Brazilians and Norwegians who are applying it in even deeper rougher waters.
Irans oil and gas reserves are clustered around the shallow, warm Persian Gulf and a large number are onshore. I doubt the National Iranian Oil Co will be courting Wee Alec any time soon.
Did your Mother ever tell you to think before you speak?
Complain about this comment
Tvkev45:
Well you did attack the SNP for claiming to be happy to see high oil prices despite thousnads of families not able to cope with it...
Even when the SNP have been trying to ease the burden...
U9461192:
Of course Scots have their bad times throughout history. I never said we didn't. Scots also invaded England and done the same as happened in Scotland.
but I ask why should we not teach the younger generation about Edward, Robert the Bruce etc etc
It is all in the past there should be no shame what happened 700 years ago and therefore no problem teaching about it.
Jim_Thompson:
"Why should my taxes pay to keep insighting racial hatred."
Can you show where I have been racist at all?
I am not anti-english as some scaremongerers attempt to show the SNP as such.
In fact, an Englishman and I recently agreed that a Federal System may well work better then the current relations with England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
I'd personally be happy to settle for what they had in mind rather then what we have now.
Complain about this comment
Anglophone:
Calm down.
I am only stating that there is nothing wrong with teaching our history to our children.
U9461192 seems to have a problem that Bluelaw may of been taught by their folks about Robert the Bruce etc etc
Complain about this comment
Thomas Porter:
"Can you show where I have been racist at all?"
No, re-read your own comments and then critically evaluate them; I'm not doing your homework for you.
Then, go to bed; it'way past your bedtime.
Complain about this comment
Thomas Porter:
Forgot to mention -
Don't try and tell me what's best for Northern Ireland; we are quite happy being part of the United Kingdom.
Complain about this comment
Jim_Thompson:
You may be from Northern Ireland but you do not speak for Northern Ireland. Some may want to be Re-United with Ireland. You can't ignore then now, can you?
but maybe you should re-read what I wrote I never said anything about being best for Northern Ireland.
I simply implied it may be best for Scotland to transform our ties into some type of Federal State.
and it is the Conservatives who are also considering a Federal System. So, it could happen with or without Northern Irelands support.
but ignore me. I am only sixteen and total blind to the world of politics.
Complain about this comment
Thomas Porter:
I think you should mind your own business about Northern Ireland. The majority of us want to remain in the Union; that is called democracy.
It seems to me you don't understand what the word democracy means. You think having tantrums will make other people give in and think the way you do. Well, that won't be happening with me.
Grow up!
Complain about this comment
Jim_Thompson:
Great. You admitted that there are people who seek Re-Unifiction with Ireland.
Then you do not speak for Northern Ireland since not everyone there supports the relationship with Britain.
Im not the one throwing the tantrums. I think I struck a cord and now you have begun insulting me with your petty words aimed at my age.
I will make you a deal.
Keep out of Scotlands business and politics and everything included and I shall keep my big nose out of Northern Irelands affairs.
but quite immature of you. I have not once been nasty and insulted you personally but my age becomes the star attraction and no longer can I share my opinion with others?
and then I have to sit and accept the insults hurled at me.
Does it make you feel big when you throw offense to strangers?
or since you are attacking someone personally I guess that makes you right?
The one who shouts loudest is the one who is right?
Complain about this comment
Last personal comment: I left Scotland as a kid, grew up in SE England and now live in central Europe. Why this precludes me from commenting I do not know.
Give Scotland fiscal independence now if she is such a hanger-on!
Complain about this comment
Jim Thompson's recent posts.
Are you 'brigadierjohn' in disguise??
Whatever you may or may not think about Thomas Porter can you just cut your totally patronising style??
This blog is already overloaded with the bj's sarcastic dripping posts, his 'I am the intelligentsia' attitude and now we are being subjected to your own 'daddy knows better!
YOU are the wean here!!
Complain about this comment
So much bitterness, hatred, chips on both shoulders, paranoia even, it's amazing how people in here (pro-independence, unionist and agent provocateurs) interpret history for their own arguments and let events that happened hundreds of years ago colour their view of the present day.
Frankly as someone who is pro-independence I couldn't care less who's Grandad did what to who's Grandad or Granny for that matter seven hundred years ago, whether they were English, Scottish, Irish or Welsh, history is in the past, leave the bitterness there and learn not to make the same mistakes. So in the interest of truth and reconcilliation I forgive the English, the Irish and the Welsh any trespass upon us Scots, what the hell I even forgive the Vikings and the Romans. Hopefully some of the Irish, English and Welsh might think likewise and forgive us Scots!
The only people I do blame are the useless bunch of politicians we send down to the Westminster country club after each election to supposedly represent us, a job they have singuarly failed at for many a year.
Independence is about moving forward not dwelling on the past, devolution has re-ignited our self-confidence, more powers will give us more self-confidence, eventually that will very likely lead to a majority of Scots wishing independence, whether that independence is full or part of a federal restructuring of the UK I do not know, but I do know that the status quo (even including devolution) is no longer an option.
Naturally there are some pro-unionists (and some of them like to comment in here) who dislike the idea that Scotland might go it alone and naturally they will attempt to undermine such an idea by presenting an independent Scotland in as unrealistic and negative terms as possible, it's a well worn tactic that has worked in the past when the natives have been restless, and then there are the agent provocateurs (you know who you are ladies and gentlemen) who have no interest in Scotland, independence or the union but who like to use the same tactic as a good way of starting a fight for their amusement and boost their somewhat flagging self-esteem. their posts are easy to spot and quite unworthy of further comment, as are they.
Complain about this comment
Oh and I forgot to mention, hurling personal insults at a 16 year old boy because you disagree with what he says regardless of whether he is right or wrong, really ladies and gentlemen what does that say about you!
Complain about this comment
#164 InMyKip:
You carry on believing he is 16 years old if you so wish. I've got a feeling he is much, much older, and very much a racist.
When are people like you going to realise, no one cares if Scotland stays in or out of the Union. So stop your racist attacks on other UK citizens and start picking on your own politicians which you send to Westminster to supposedly represent you - including Gordon Brown.
In other words, stop blaming others for your own mistakes.
Complain about this comment
#165 well Jim at the end of the day it is your choice whether you believe he is 16 or not or a racist, as for me Jim I fail to see how you can possibly accuse me of making a racist attack of any sort, your claim is quite untrue and uncalled for, maybe you should read my comments in #163 it may provide you with some answers to the remainder of your criticisms of me.
Complain about this comment
Off-topic but I will be 17 in December.
Yes, I am slightly older then 16 you see.
It should be no surpise since my knowledge is no match for someone 10, 15 or 20 years older then I am. (some Bloggers here have witnessed the pyramids being built, jokes) I do try and make my point none the less but can never go into as much detail as the more experience bloggers.
Racist I am not. I've learnt from experience that you can not hold something against someone because of what they were born.
The only part of my comments that could appear 'racist' was when U9461192 brought up History and I then joined in describing the Robert the Bruce Era. (picking on the English it could of been seen as)
Truthfully I feel you are calling me racist because you have nothing else better to say.
Complain about this comment
The only part of my comments that could appear 'racist' was when U9461192 brought up History and I then joined in describing the Robert the Bruce Era. (picking on the English it could of been seen as)
Could have been seen as? What other interpretation was there?
I posit earlier on in this thread that much of the misty-eyed diaspora with their fondness for a country they hardly know is bad history and anti-English xenophobia. And what happens to prove my point? Two buses come at once.
Bluelaw, to inform us that he left Scotland as a child but still feels real pain about it's failure to secure independence from the great Satan. And then you too pop up with the populist nationalist tear-jerker about the nasty English coming up here and kicking y'all up and down the park.
And we both know this is the kind of stuff that goes unchallenged in Scotland and gets a lot of 'X' s come polling day. The 'Braveheart' vote.
If England has to wear sack-cloth and ashes for its excessive enthusiasm for a united Britain then I see no reason not to remind 'the poor downtrodden Scots' of their part in the extermination of the city of Drogheda and all points north. As part of Scotland's vision of a 'Greater Scotland'.
Good old England eh? Champions of Irish freedom in the face of the fabulous rootin', tootin', exterminatin' Bruce brothers.
I'm amazed the Irish even talk to you lot. Pioneers of Irish extermination that you are.
Paradoxically Scotland gets its name from the Scotti tribe. From Ireland. Some thanks the Irish got eh?
So what does history teach us? Half-breed Norman/Gael ruler is successful in his efforts to rule Scotland. Beating off a claim from a half breed Norman/Saxon king.
Laughable eh? Our Norman masters are more brutal than your Norman masters.
Still, 700 years later we can all have a good laugh about it, declare independence and ask our Norman masters in the EU to rule us instead. Do we never learn?
Clearly not.
Yes. I'm all for UK independence. From the EU.
And if Scotland gets independence I'd be much more impressed if it went the coherent route of total independence. Like Norway.
Because otherwise it just looks like a chippy vote against their English neighbours.
FREEDOM!!!!
Complain about this comment
U9461192:
"Could have been seen as? What other interpretation was there?"
I see. You are offended by your own History, I can not bring it up. It happened 700 years ago, why can I not bring it up? It's my History also and I am darn well proud of it.
Why should Scottish History not be taught to our younger generation?
Are you afraid that Scottish History encourages Nationalism?
I see. Since I am a Nationalist and speak about my own History then I must be racist because during that History it includes England for part of it.
Get over yourselves. What happened 700 years ago is no reason to call someone racist. I don't appreciate being called something I am not.
You support the UK-Independence Party?
Then share your views. How do you suppose Britain evolves from the Union?
You are a Unionist but you have to admitt that our current relations can not go as it is because each side beleives there being treated unfair.
Or shall you have another rant about the Scots and how we don't care about anything else apart from when our next doe payment comes through? That you usually seem to do.
Complain about this comment
I have to say, after reading many of Thomas Porter's comments, not only on this page, but all the others which are currently viewable, I believe he is really Alex Salmond in disguise.
Thomas/Alex, stop trying to make the Scots look whiter than white. You are not. Actually read post #148 to understand what I mean.
And, its time to get over yourselves, you are not the whiter-than-white race you claim to be.
Complain about this comment
Jim_Thompson #149
Nope, I refer the honourable gentlemen to my reply at #138. The analysis follows international accounting convention, and is set up on the same basis as the UK National Accounts.
#163 InMyKip
Excellent post, the type I like to see.
Complain about this comment
#170, Jim please read my post #163, and learn not to generalise or jump to conclusions
Complain about this comment
There are a group of people in here who post racist remarks relating to other countries of the UK; and they deserve all they get back from us.
They verbally beat up anyone who doesn't normally agree with them. Well, that's not going to happen with me, so forget it.
This is the BBC website, and anyone from the UK or beyond can state what they believe. However, they shouldn't be allowed to bad-mouth/turn others against ordinary people who do not agree with them.
Start fights with your own MPs, and leave the rest of us out of this; they are the ones who have let you down, not us.
Complain about this comment
Jim,
Calm doon min......
Put across your arguments in a constructive manner and stop bullying young boys.
Do you believe that people who want independance for Scotland all hate England? Is there any part of you that thinks some people just think we could run Scotland a lot better than Westminster and have no problem with the English.
Complain about this comment
#173, your are correct Jim, there are people pro-independence AND unionists who make postings which are or come close to being racist, if you see a posting you believe to be racist then complain about it to the BBC and it will be removed if found to be racist by the moderator. Replying in kind with abuse only plays into their hands and worst does yourself a dis-service.
Complain about this comment
Jim:
"They verbally beat up anyone who doesn't normally agree with them."
Didn't you make some remarks about my age?
I understand where you are coming from now. However, I am not going to apologise for what I wrote. It is History, History I am quite proud of and if I feel like sharing it then I will write it.
It all happened 700 years ago...best not to hold on to tight to the past.
Complain about this comment
I see. You are offended by your own History, I can not bring it up.
English anybody?
It happened 700 years ago, why can I not bring it up? It's my History also and I am darn well proud of it.
Why should Scottish History not be taught to our younger generation?
It's all in the interpretation isn't it though. All your little Scot is going to get at school is all you obviously got ie
'Poor old Scotland sitting there, minding it's own business when up shows the English and start kicking people about.
Until, way-hay, good old Robert The Bruce gets a bit of backbone and defeats the English.'
Hard not to be inspired by that version of events. I can fair feel my heart bursting with pride just writing it.
What you don't hear about is the murderous actions of Robert The Bruce and his brother's slaughter of half of Ireland. Because suddenly you look no better than the English. And there goes my heart. Deflated.
Nope. Better airbrush that from our 'proud' history.
So, not for the first time in your case, I have to lament the sorrowful state of English comprehension in our secondary schools.
And English language for that matter. Now I know I start sentences with prepositions and that's 'bad' but it really is like reading a Janet and John book when every single sentence has a new paragraph. Like your contributions for example.
I know the 'thinking' in 'progressive' English is that spelling, grammar and punctuation aren't important. But these teachers aren't the ones reading your CV or your sales report. They're paid by 'results'. Which means that if they ignore enough mistakes then you'll pass.
The real world isn't like that. They're wrong. Presentation is important. So do try and up the sentence:paragraph ratio to (say) two to start with.
It will make it so much more normal for everybody to read. Except the kids of course.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I repeat my posting #163, hopefully interested people might read it and find it gives a more reasoned view of Scottish independence than the last few comments.
Complain about this comment
U9461192:
I have never used History to justify why I support Independence.
In fact, I am not a big fan of the Bruces's Family or what they done to manage to become the Kings of Scotland.
I am proud that Robert the Bruce fought for Scottish Independence but how they came to that position I am ashamed of. (kept switching sides when it suited them)
but why are you picking on Scotland and Ireland?
Why don't you tell the story how Wales became apart of England?
Complain about this comment
The two World Wars, and the lessons learned therefrom, should rightly remain landmark 'Warnings from History' to guard against the repetition any such hostilities or atrocities in the future of mankind.
However, while I have no real first hand knowledge of how the average modern German feels when he or she witnesses repeated re-runs of a 'classic' war film reliving the horrors and re-glorifying the victory of the British, I can hazard a guess.
The fact that the 'British' have no comprehension and no sensitivity of this factor is only underscored by the repulsive reaction and attitude of these same people to the film 'Braveheart'.
Philosophically, 'Braveheart' was either a scintillating work of complete fiction, in which case it should be regarded as a harmless drama - Or, it was a dramatisation of actual historical events, which should hardly give grounds for major contention in the modern world.
Nevertheless, the backlash from the English-speaking 'establishment' was unparallelled and unbridled - and still the indignation continues!
I don't think any one ever claimed 'Braveheart' as a flawless historical documentary.
Just a cracking good film that portrayed the life of a remarkable historic figure to dramatic effect.
So why the outrage?
Surely not a case of 'little Englanders' being able to dish it liberally over the horrors of a recent conflict where they were the 'good guys', but not being able to stomach the reality of their own past?
Hmm. ...
I feel we have at least one 'Braveheart' afficianado amongst our regular "unionist" bloggers. Maybe they can fill us in???
Complain about this comment
180 Thomas Porter
Thomas - it must be time for bed soon...that or some more medication. You have the makings of a trainee politician which is why I suspect that you are honing your dissembling skills on this blog. You are spraying around charge and counter-charge and still under the impression that responding to a question, with a question is intellectual. You blog too much to plead the "short trousers" defence so you must take what you get on the chin...great training to be a politico
Why not put this sorry debate out of its misery.
Complain about this comment
Some Historical inaccuracies relating to 'Braveheart', there were many more:
Historian Elizabeth Ewan describes Braveheart as a film which "almost totally sacrifices historical accuracy for epic adventure".
One of the most notable inaccuracies is the idea that Isabella of France, wife of Edward II, had an affair with William Wallace, and that Edward III was the result of this liaison. Their supposed affair occurs in the film after the Battle of Falkirk, which occurred in 1298, when Isabella was about three years old.
To compound the film's time-line problem, Edward III was born in 1312, some seven years after Wallace's death, and fourteen years after Falkirk.
As well, historian Sharon Kressa notes that the film contains numerous historical errors, beginning with the wearing of belted plaid by Wallace and his men. She points out that in the period in question, no Scots "wore kilts of any kind".
Screenwriter Randall Wallace is very vocal about defending his script from historians like Kressa. Admitting that Braveheart is based more on Blind Harry's poem than any historical source, he has said: "Is Blind Harry true? I don't know”.
The film was fiction, not fact!
Complain about this comment
Anglophone:
I see you find the time to post something negative.
Quite interesting you never seem to post anything else...
Complain about this comment
Jim_Thompson:
"The film was fiction, not fact!"
No one will argue there.
The Battle of Stirling Bridge did not happen on a bridge either. It was on open land.
Complain about this comment
It looks like the old union brigade is out in force when those under the age of voting should be quiet until spoken too because we know better. Oil will continue to escalate in price as demand is far in excess of supply.
Knowing that some of Scotland's youth have got level heads and are not intimidated by the Unionists helps to show how we can and are able to run our own affairs in a more democratic and honest way than is happening in Westminster.
Complain about this comment
Yeah, and look what a great job the top [Scottish] ministers are doing at Westminster - aaaahhh!
Tony Blair, now Gordon Brown, Formerly John Reid, Des Browne, Alistair Darling, ........
Yes, I think the Scots have done us all proud:
We are in a war that doesn't belong to us, just so Mr Scot [TB and now GB] can keep pally with America. Our young people are being killed unnecessarily;
We are not getting the promised vote on the EU, because Tony Blair only gave the job over to Gordon Brown as long as he promised to go ahead with signing the Treaty, so that he [TB] will become the first ever permanent president of the EU.
PFI is the biggest waste of N. Ireland, England and Wales rescources - ever.
For the past 11 years Gordon Brown has borrowed more money than at any other time apart from WW2. As a result, the UK now has more debt than any other developed country in the world.
Complain about this comment
"History is the most dangerous product which the chemistry of the mind has concocted. Its properties are well known. It produces dreams and drunkenness. It fills people with false memories, exaggerates their reactions, exacerbates old grievances, torments them in their repose, and encourages either a delirium of grandeur or a delusion of persecution. It makes whole nations bitter, arrogant, insufferable and vainglorious." Paul Valéry, Regards sur le Monde Actuel
It strikes me no one is innocent when they choose to quote history as facts.
Complain about this comment
#187 frankly Jim Thompson I don't think you'll find much sympathy for the Labour hierarchy in here, while they may have at some time in their past been born in Scotland they soon forgot where they came from when they took their seats at Westminster.
By the way Jim I haven't seen an apology from you for incorrectly accusing me of being a racist, try reading my post#163 before you make accusations such as those in your post #165
Complain about this comment
Jim_Thompson
I can't agree more but they are and have acted as superiors in an unjust union of nations not as Scotsmen for their homeland.
Westminster has become a hotbed of "knowalls and spindoctors" where a gravy train culture exists.
Never mind a by-election is in the offing at Lanark then we shall see how things pan out.
Complain about this comment
Jim_Thompson
I think most of us agree that those guys you mentioned, although they might (apart from Blair) represent Labour-held Scottish constituencies, do not represent the views or the interests of Scotland.
Meantime, the Scottish government is developing a more acceptable alternative to PFI.
On the film, I originally meant to post my 'Braveheart' comment on the 'blog blockage' thread.
However, every good story, as they say, has a beginning, a middle, and an end.
In the beginning, Scotland was brutally occupied by forces under a ruthless English king.
In the middle, one man, William Wallace stood valliantly and uncompromisingly against all the odds, and led the resistance against those of occupation and tyranny.
Finally, following Wallace's execution on a charge of "treason", an inspired, key and decisive victory saw off the invaders, allowing Scotland to resume its status as a free and independent country.
Which of the above historical points is it that the 'experts' have got a problem with??
I would contend that those who enjoyed the film - and there was much to enjoy!! - need not trouble themselves with the minor details of dramatic and poetic licence which seem to have so exercised the critics.
The inspirational underlying story remains, regardless of contentions over 'fictional detail' and what you have is a highly effective dramatisation based around the deeds of a celebrated historical hero.
Complain about this comment
I referf you to post #148.
"Do they teach you anything about what Robert the Bruce and his brother Ned got up to in Ireland when they got a bit carried away with their Scottish Liebenstraum?
Killed practically everybody between the top of Ireland and Dublin. That's what. Man, woman and child. Irish and English, Gael and Saxon. After that the Irish were happy to ally themselves with the English to get rid of the bloodthirsty psychopaths. Can't imagine why the English would want to keep them Scots under control. Can you? The fact is it was the Scots who were out of control killing all and sundry.
The result of Ned Bruces' pan-Gaelic vision, which involved the slaughter of everybody he encountered was that while Scotland was left alone for the foreseeable future Ireland was more than happy or at least content to have the English wandering around.
At least they don't slaughter you like the Scots. Well, not till 1690 anyway. Another slaughterfest between England and Scotland played out on the fields of Ireland. You guys.
I bet they don't teach you that in your Scottish history.
As usual you're all wrapping yourself in the flag about the terrible treatment you received from the English but not a moment's thought for the slaughter you handed out to the innocent of Ireland."
Yes, the Scots really are whiter-than-white - I don't think.
Complain about this comment
Jim_Thompson:
Robert and Edward Bruce had support in Ireland.
The Battle of Dundalk where the Campaign ended in Ireland for the Bruces had Irish support on both sides of the battle.
You could say it was civil war in Ireland being made worse because Scotland and England both supported one side.
Complain about this comment
It doesn't surprise me you've tried to 'amend' what really happened in Ireland. Understandable really, I suppose the truth does hurt, but I bet not nearly as much as it hurt my Irish Ancestors.
Complain about this comment
Jim_Thompson:
Of course, you choose to ignore some situations within history that some Unionists accuse the Nationalists of.
Here is what started the Campaign in Ireland. The Irish Kings/Cheifs accepted the offer after.
"Whereas we and you and our people and your people, free since ancient times, share the same national ancestry and are urged to come together more eagerly and joyfully in friendship by a common language and by common custom, we have sent you our beloved kinsman, the bearers of this letter, to negotiate with you in our name about permanently strengthening and maintaining inviolate the special friendship between us and you, so that with God's will our nation (nostra nacio) may be able to recover her ancient liberty."
Complain about this comment
Jim_Thompson
Those were undoubtedly brutal and bloody times, and we should not be without empathy for those caught up in any conflict, in any country, at any time.
I must say I am a good deal less familiar with the events you describe than most of us will be with, for example, the aftermath of Culloden, where the inhumane actions of the British forces' commander understandably earned him the name 'Butcher Cumberland'.
These military atrocities and the associated systematic destruction of a culture were nothing less than genocide against a people by its 'own' governmant, and took place as recently as the late 18th Century.
Little wonder it is still very difficult for most ordinary people to view or consider such events dispassionately.
I have to disagree, though that the repeated historical incursions into Scotland by English armies were in order to keep a 'bloodthirsty' people under control.
The overriding aim was to take Scotland by force - a self-serving mission of usurpation that ultimately and justly failed.
That said, and while history remains open to interpretaion, the conflicts sins of the past must be left there.
Equally, it should be recognised that a historical drama can both informative and entertaining.
Because such drama may sit uneasily with modern 'establishment doctrines', that scarcely justifies its dismissal as a work of fiction.
Complain about this comment
Mel Gibson et al have made a lot of money by misleading people in the film Braveheart. Some of the film is true; but much of it isn't.
My point it is, our ancestors have all done things in the past which we should all be ashamed of. None of us in the UK have got a clean slate where battles/wars are concerned, therefore none of us should pretend to be something we are not, including the Scots.
Complain about this comment
Jim_Thompson:
You should not be ashamed of your history. It's all in the past but we must continue to learn the mistakes of the past so not to repeat them in the future.
Braveheart was based on the past where one freedom fighter led a rebellion against the English rule of Scotland. Thats all.
Complain about this comment
Okay, Jim.
None of us should associate ourselves too much with bloody deeds of the past.
If we were to attach blame for historic brutalities, the UK would have to carry the bulk of such shame, and we wouldn't want that, would we?
We can also agree to disagree on whether 'Braveheart' was a worthy tribute to the stature of William Wallace.
Let's not forget, in particular, that Scotland and Ireland are sister Celtic nations with possibly more in common even than we realise.
The flow of population between our countries has been fundamental in shaping both.
Although there is debate about the origins of St.Patrick, I subscribe to the theory that he came from what is now the west of Scotland, and that St.Columba's mission was a reciprocal one from Ireland to Scotland.
The language of the Gaels shares a common root , and much of the northern population of Ireland is of Scots descent.
Indeed the strands of our common tapestry are countless.
However, I am of the belief that it is the rule of a 'foreign power' that most forces us to be something we're not.
In order to forge a 'clean slate' and a successful future, destinies of our respective nations should lie in our own hands.
Complain about this comment
Dougie-Dubh:
I agree with many of your comments. However, we are happy to be part of the United Kingdom, provided we have a strong voice in our own country's affairs, which I believe we now have.
Complain about this comment
All this talk about whether there is a £837m surplus (don't count £4bn worth of capital spending) or a deficit (do count £4bn of capital spending). Personally, I have always believed you include ALL spending when you publish accounts, just as you include all income. Maybe I'm just being old-fashioned.
On that note, we have a situation where, without the North Sea share, Scotland's public finances had a £10.2bn deficit last year. Scotland’s full share of oil revenue amounted to £7.5bn, leaving a shortfall of £2.7bn.
This shortfall was covered by the UK, as it has since Scotland was last in surplus in 1989.
For 2007-08, Grant Thornton recently forecast that Scotland's share of oil income will amount to approximately £12bn, pushing Scotland back into the black. With the public spending budget expected to be around £50bn, this will mean that a whopping 23-25% of public spending will be financed by oil revenue. A frightening percentage when you realise that the government has little control over the commodity’s extreme fluctuations in price.
We currently enjoy a safety net where Scotland’s economy is protected regardless of the price of oil. If oil prices were to crash, as they did in 1980-83, 1985-86 (when prices dropped by nearly two-thirds over a few months) and 1990-91 (when prices halved over a similar period), our economy will not go with it but will instead remain stable and our public finances and services secure.
However, the SNP are advocating next year’s surplus is sufficient justification to abandon this safety net and go it alone, obviously with no guarantee whatsoever that this clearly vital revenue stream will not drop dramatically.
The SNP seeks to gamble Scotland's economy on a highly volatile and wildly fluctuating revenue stream, from a diminishing supply (actual production was down 5% last year alone) and over which they have almost no control.
Remember that today’s oil price is a 100% increase on a year ago and an astonishing 470% increase on five years ago.
Should this bubble burst…
Complain about this comment
Jim_Thompson:
Can I ask why Northern Ireland continues to be apart of the United Kingdom? What benefit does the United Kingdom give that make the Union attractive?
If the Republic of Ireland entered talks to re-unify Ireland would you back the proposals or would you campaign to stay apart of the United Kingdom?
If the RoI and Northern Ireland began talks would you want the right to a referendum?
How do you feel about Scottish Nationalism and our referendum that is to come in 2010?
Complain about this comment
Reluctant-Expat:
Overall world oil output has shown an increase demand over recent years. However, output has not grown at the same pace as demand which partly explains the cost of oil but with India and China not fully developed do you really think that the oil markets will crash?
The price will keep on rising...
Oil will last at least 30 years, with some London papers claiming up to 100 years are left (not shown in Scotland because??) The reality is our Oil Reserves are becoming more valuable by the day (untill it runs out)
And how can you claim that the United Kingdom is some type of safety net?
Completly ignoring the hundreds of billions of debt Labour has ran up and of course the tens of billions we run up at each passing year....
There is no safety net, no matter what we do and if our economy fails who do you think the Conservatives will run to help first?
Was it not Mrs Thatcher who said something that the only reason the Scots live well is from the genorousity (can't spell it) of the English?
Yes, the future looks bright for Britain.
Complain about this comment
200 posts in, and barely a word about how an independent Scotland will deal with the "post oil" shortfall in the accounts.
Complain about this comment
bingowings87
Shhhsh, not allowed to talk about that; that's called logical thinking.
Complain about this comment
Thomas Porter:
"How do you feel about Scottish Nationalism and our referendum that is to come in 2010?"
Stop basing your economy on oil which will run out; and start thinking of future generations, not just yourselves.
Start using logic in your thinking; not racial hatred.
Complain about this comment
Jim_Thompson:
Oil is our economy. Which we must use to prepare for the future.
Britain has accomplished nothing for Scotland. Quite a few more Scots are realising that since oil is becoming more of an issue.
No alternatives for our skilled workers to turn to once the oil is gone.
Scotland is also suffering from the oil prices despite making 10x more then we consume...
Should we not be benfiting from this moment of time?
Quite pathetic that you turn around and say that this is all racially motivated.
It shows the desperation the Union has became over the recent years...
The Empire is gone. Get over it.
Complain about this comment
I think I've proved my point.
Complain about this comment
Thomas Porter:
Terrorism hasn't gone. Do you remember terrorists tried to blow up Glasgow Airport? That wasn't a mistake; it shows that Scotland is just as vunerable to terrorism as anywhere else in the UK. Do you think the terrorists do not realise it was Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Des Browne, John Reid - all Scots, who took us in to Iraq?
Now that you have devolution, I agree you should manage your own day to day affairs, but when it comes to things like defence, the UK are stronger together. However, I can see your mind has been damaged so much, I doubt you will ever understand what I'm talking about.
You carry on focusing on all the oil money, for a few years anyway, and don't bother thinking about more important issues.
Complain about this comment
Jim_Thompson:
You are a rookie to this type of debate.
The United Kingdom is a target for Terrorism for our part in Iraq and Asganistan. Terrorists have used the propaganda of British soldiers killing civilians to bring up hatred towards the West and our country.
The Labour and Conservatives Party voted for the war. Labour would remain in power with or without the 58 Scottish MP's that they have. (by small majority)
Since the Scottish Government is against the war and our Scottish MP's are outnumbered by the English/Welsh MP's then who exactly brought Scotland into Iraq? (I've not mentioned the Irish MP's since they have different parties)
If the Scottish Government were in-charge we would of never of went into Iraq and our soldiers would not be risking their lives for a pointless war. (Iran has the nuclear weapons. Saddam would of been our ally in the region since we used to be 'old' friends in the past)
"....but when it comes to things like defence, the UK are stronger together."
Agian, you are mistaken. The United Kingdom is NOT a super power. NATO is the military super power and Scotland could apply for the same alliance and contribute worldwide in LEGAL wars and peacekeeping missions.
Missions that we choose and not forced into by others.
"You carry on focusing on all the oil money, for a few years anyway, and don't bother thinking about more important issues."
Oil is the most valuable resource Scotland has. Scotland now needs to take charge and prepare for the future and use our own funds to invest for our future.
I live in Aberdeen, the Oil Capital of Europe. I know darn well the levels of investment we have from the North East and the alternatives we have and I am ashamed of the lack of it.
Our Oil Reserves are dwindling. The Scottish Gov has to have full economic control to provide for her people who she relies on for success. Something Westminister does not have to rely on because as long as the SE of England is wealthy the rest of us does not matter.
Complain about this comment
Its convenient for those foaming at the mouth about "illegal wars" to lump Iraq and Afghanistan together. Both are very different situations.
The UK in Afghanistan are there as part of ISAF, a NATO led group of 40 nations operating under a UN Security Council mandate.
So Thomas, since you see a future Scotland participating in similar NATO missions, will you now congratulate the UK for their role in 'Asganistan'?
(btw, is it not the SNP's policy to take Scotland out of NATO?)
Complain about this comment
Tony Blair and his crew went against the wishes of most MPs and took the UK in to Iraq. That's a fact - try reading the BBCs archives on this.
I never said the UK is a Superpower or that you couldn't become part of NATO; what I meant was, we are stronger in numbers.
Not sure where you get the idea that Scotland is Europe's oil capital; Norway produces almost double what Scotland produces.
Scotland wouldn't have "full economic control to provide for her people who she relies on for success". Alex Salmond doesn't understand what Nationalism means. Read his manifesto - he can't wait to hand over power to the EU. What you should have said was, the EU will have full economic control over Scotland to provide for her as it so wishes (or not).
Complain about this comment
Bingowings87:
You should re-read my comment. I brought up Iraq and Afganistan but never spoke about the two wars as if they were similar situations. I wrote Iraq and how it was an illegal war.
I do support our soldiers, no matter where they are. They don't choose where they are sent or what they do. I admire them greatly for their actions.
The SNP would like to work with NATO but understand it would be up to the public to decide our NATO and EU situations. As far as I know NATO is very popular with the public and other political parties.
Jim_Thompson:
"Tony Blair and his crew went against the wishes of most MPs and took the UK in to Iraq."
It may be fact but war could not of been declared without a majority of MP's voting for the war. Labour and the Conservatives entered this war together (some rebels but nothing incredibly major)
My point? The Scottish Gov would never of sent Scottish soldiers into Iraq. Scottish were sent because of Labour and the Tories and our MP's were outnumbered to stop it or forced to follow the parties line.
"I never said the UK is a Superpower or that you couldn't become part of NATO; what I meant was, we are stronger in numbers."
Then you will admire the Scottish soldiers when our Scottish Government sends them to work alongside other NATO and UN forces.
"Not sure where you get the idea that Scotland is Europe's oil capital; Norway produces almost double what Scotland produces."
You have shown that you lack knowledge of Scotland. It is true Norway does produce more oil but Aberdeen has the unofficial title.
Now you turn to scaremongering...
You now demonstrate where you are loosing the arguement.
Alex Salmond is Pro-European so are the SNP, but so are Labour and the Tories (to an extent) and even the Lib Dems.
Scotland and Britain will be handing over powers to Brussels anyway whether we really want to or not.
However, least Scotland can choose what powers we can give up and what powers we would like to keep for our own interests rather then what Britain wants.
Also Scotland can represent Scotland properly within the EU and of course gain more representatives within the EU by being Independent.
Scotland apart of the United Kingdom or as an Independent Country will be apart of the European Union.
It is wise to be apart of the Union directly rather then link with Britain.
Complain about this comment
Thomas Porter
"You have shown that you lack knowledge of Scotland. It is true Norway does produce more oil but Aberdeen has the unofficial title."
Yes but Norway has the OFFICIAL title.
"Then you will admire the Scottish soldiers when our Scottish Government sends them to work alongside other NATO and UN forces."
May be you would like to answer post # 211 (bingowings87) question - "(btw, is it not the SNP's policy to take Scotland out of NATO?)"
I think you're getting a wee bit confused about your leaders policies.
Complain about this comment
"It is wise to be a part of the Union directly rather then link with Britain."
Coz Alex told you so?
The UK will be handing over to the EU because Gordon Brown is going against our wishes and signing the treaty. Why do you think he won't allow us a referendum? Answer, because he knows we would never agree to it. He is, in fact, no better than Robert Mugabe.
Complain about this comment
Jim_Thompson:
"Yes but Norway has the OFFICIAL title."
Okay. Try to understand. There is no OFFICIAL title but Aberdeen has claimed itself to be the Oil Capital of Europe.
Understand? No official name but Aberdeen stole the name for itself.
I already stated that 'Oil Capital of Europe' was an UNOFFICIAL title anyway.
Please take what I said the first time round since I do know more about Aberdeen then you. I live there I have years of personal experience and of course know far more local knowledge then you.
You don't even live in Scotland...
Agian, I have answered bingowings87's question. You should read the whole comment next time.
I said...
"The SNP would like to work with NATO but understand it would be up to the public to decide our NATO and EU situations. As far as I know NATO is very popular with the public and other political parties."
During one of First Minister's Salmonds interviews that have stated the SNP policy but also stated that they have to take into account the publics view. A small hint of a referendum to and one about the EU etc etc at the same time. NATO is quite popular with the public to and they partly expect to be apart of NATO.
Complain about this comment
Jim_Thompson:
"Coz Alex told you so?"
Yes because you are starting to sound mature...
You happen to be a classic example of other countries within the United Kingdom being clueless about Scotland and what could happen once we become Independent.
One main reason for being apart of the European Union as an Independent country would be to take full advantage of the amount of respresentatives we can have. An increase of about 14 or 16 more.
I could go on but your not worth the effort to be honest.
I give you 1 out of 10 for your attempts at debating.
Complain about this comment
No Thomas, you didn't answer my question. So, I'll ask it again.....
Do you congratulate the UK on their role in Afghanistan?
(and before you answer, you said you supported the soldiers. That is not what I asked. I asked if you supported the UK govt).
And, I'm delighted to hear the SNP would want to work with NATO (although more than a bit concerned that its because "it seems to be popular with the voters".....whatever happened to "its the right thing to do" - are the SNP afraid of unpopular policies?). So, how does that square with the committment to remove Trident? I'm sure NATO would be most interested.
Complain about this comment
bingowings87:
"Do you congratulate the UK on their role in Afghanistan?"
Nope.
The SNP don't want to be apart of NATO, work with NATO yes but not a fully fledged member.
but since it is popular with the public and the MSP's are suppose to represent the public then there is no such thing as "It's the right thing to do." but more like "it's what the people want." If the people want to become apart of NATO then Salmond and the SNP would have to honour that choice.
but I think the SNP will hold a referendum at the same time as the European Union and hope the public says no to joining NATO.
I wouldn't suggest joining personally.
"So, how does that square with the committment to remove Trident? I'm sure NATO would be most interested."
Perhaps, but what is your point? If NATO would like control of the nuclear arsenal then they can negociate with the British Gov for that privilage.
I doubt they would get it since America owns quite a large part of Trident anyway.
Complain about this comment
Thomas Porter:
I give you null point on debating; and
dix point on being a racist.
I'm giving myself the UNOFFICIAL title of best debater in here. So there, I'm stealing it, you can't be it. There will be no voting on this, I am it. Aaaahhh!!!
Complain about this comment
Thomas Porter, you are beginning to show your 16 years of age again.
If you cannot grace these pages with mature debate, may I suggest you join the other young nats on the Herald site.
America does not own any part of Trident, that is a ridiculous comment. What do you base that on?
You have also missed out on a few key points about the European Parliament:
1. It has reached its maximum ceiling of 751 seats. From now on, when any new countries join, such as an independent Scotland, then similarly-sized countries will have seats deducted to keep within that ceiling.
Now, bearing in mind that there are several countries of 5m+ lining up to join already, it is absolutely certain that Scotland's representation will be probably be around 10 seats.
2. The Parliament still has little power in the EU. The most powerful forum is the European Council, which is in turn dominated by the 'Big Four' of Germany, France, Italy and the UK.
At the moment, the UK is the second largest economy in the Union, is the financial centre and has the EU's strongest military. All this makes the UK one of the most powerful members of the EU.
Complain about this comment
Jim_Thompson:
As I said you have proven yourself to be incredibly mature...
I think everyone is quite bored of the "I can't get my own way so you must be racist" attitude you have.
It does not work.
Reluctant-Expat:
"America does not own any part of Trident, that is a ridiculous comment. What do you base that on?"
It is quite ridiculous of you to disagree with a comment that you simply have not bothered to do your research on.
Britain 'rents' the actual missles. I am sure they bought some several years back but the great majority are not British owned and belongs to America.
America has to of course make sure these missles are in working order etc etc
The European Union actually allows the smaller Nations far more Representatives for being small. It is a way that larger Nations do not become overly dominant.
Norway for example has about 15-20 Representatives. Scotland has 7 and 5 of those are Unionists.
Scotland was told that we would loose a seat while Britain received an extra one and Scottish MP's have been asking for the extra seat Britain got so Scotland could remain with 7 seats.
I'm not sure if we got the seat or not so we may well be loosing one seat so we have 6 in future.
Your second point is not worth commenting on. The United Kingdom may be one of the most powerful within the European Union (when France has fell out with Germany) but you should travel to the rural parts of Scotland and ask them how well Britain represents them in the EU.
These people are forgotten and have been hit hardest by EU regulations and the SNP know that (they get their main support from the rural parts of the country, or traditionally did anyway)
The Scots Gov has to watch and have no power whatsoever to negociate with the EU.
You can't see the rest of the country from London. That's the trouble with the Union.
Complain about this comment
Thomas Porter:
"As I said you have proven yourself to be incredibly mature..."
Thank you, I wish I could say the same about you. You, as we all know, make things up as you go along. Don't believe me? Read on .....
One of your biggest stories to date is:
"Norway for example has about 15-20 Representatives. Scotland has 7 and 5 of those are Unionists."
Norway isn't even in the European Union. Aaaahhh!!!
Complain about this comment
Jim_Thompson:
My mistake. It must be the Denmark.
You, however have proved to be clueless about Scotland and also clueless about what Scotland has to gain from Independence.
You also show something that I am guilty of and that is the understanding the differences between people from other parts of the United Kingdom.
And because of this you can not effectivly defend the Union.
I have made one mistake and I can correct my mistake. You have nothing else to turn to but accuse me of racism and scaremongering stories.
You are an example of what the Scots are fed up with and also the reason Scottish Labour lost the last elections.
Complain about this comment
Thomas Porter:
So have a referendum ~ as soon as ~ and put us all out of our misery. What are you waiting for? I don't actually care what Scotland gets from independence. When you're gone, you're gone - end of.
You didn't make a mistake; you make up long boring stories in the hope we will just go along with it.
Complain about this comment
Jim_Thompson:
Thank you Jim. Our referendum is planned for 2010 and the wait is for the Nationalists to prove they can govern well.
Just because you do not find Scottish Politics interesting does not make it untruthful.
Complain about this comment
Thomas Porter:
Two years is far too long to wait.
You should bring forward your referendum to as soon as it is legally possible.
Complain about this comment
Jim_Thompson:
Two years is quite a long time.
but the Nationalists have to combat the 'scare' stories that were used each time Nationalism was on the rise and prove that the sky won't fall once they are in power.
On a mental level it will take many years for these stories to be forgotten.
Complain about this comment
224. The latest RBS Oil and Gax Index shows that oil production has fallen by 60% since the 1999 peak.
That's from 2.9m barrels per day in 1999, to 1.2m barrels per day at the start of this year and production is continuing to fall at about 8-10% each and very year.
Remembering that Salmond's own accounts show that Scotland's non-oil economy is £10.2bn in the red..
Do you seriously agree with his claims that Scotland would become one of the world's wealthiest countries if it became independent?
Complain about this comment
Reluctant-Expat:
You have highlighted the importance that Scotland acheives her status as an Independent country as soon as possible.
I'd like you to consider several points.
The Government has once lied to Scotland about the importance of the North Sea. Would they attempt to cover up the truth to combat the speedily growing sense of Nationalism within Scotland?
Also, why are there papers in England suggesting oil could be pouring from the North East for another 100 years?However, in Scotland there are no papers making the claims? (Despite being owned by the same companies)
There are questions that of course need answered and claims about our wealth can not be trusted.
Gordon Brown: I will do whatever it takes to defend the Union.
How far does Labour plan to go? How far will they do?
One major benefit of an Independent Scotland would be the Scottish Government would be held more accountable for ensuring that our people are working and investments are continued to be made in the country.
As long as the South East of England remains wealthy then the London Government neglects other parts of the United Kingdom.
Complain about this comment
230. You have not answered the question.
With the non-oil economy running a ~£10bn deficit (as it has for the past five years), even with current high tax revenues, how can you justify Salmond's primary claim that Scotland will be "one of the wealthiest countries in the world" when 25% of the economy relies on a rapidly diminishing resource?
And with oil production now barely a third of what it was just 9 years ago and still falling, oil clearly will NOT "be pouring from the North East for another 100 years", will it.
As for this bizarre statement: "..and claims about our wealth can not be trusted."
Are you actually suggesting (and expecting us to believe!) that the multinational oil companies, the international oil markets, the RBS and other banks, successive governments, the EU, the WTO and the media have joined forces in a secret international campaign against Scottish nationalism??
All these organisations are involved in the collection, analysis, publication and monitoring of oil production statistics.
Are you accusing them of deliberately producing false accounts?
Complain about this comment
Reluctant-Expat:
Your scaremongering slightly now.
"Scotland will be "one of the wealthiest countries in the world" when 25% of the economy relies on a rapidly diminishing resource?"
Diminishing is such a strong word when the miminum estimates we have is for oil to last 30 years. Scotland still produces 10x more oil then we currently consume and prices are rising due to world demand.
We should be having a good life right now.
You are basing this all on production levels where companies are still operating in. But ignoring areas where can be reached but not being drilled right now.
"Are you accusing them of deliberately producing false accounts?"
In some cases yes.
Why would the UK Gov want to produce results that show the North East to have alot of oil available?
The Nats will be all over them.
Why would an International Company want to let the Gov know that there is alot of oil left?
They will get taxed more.
I have more faith in Mr Salmond then you though. You are not an economist while Mr Salmond was a major economist who worked specifically with RBS on oil and gas issues.
Who am I and the rest of the public going to listen to?
The UK Gov who has lied once before?
International Companies that will be taxed more if they are going to make more profits and who benefit from the high oil prices?
But can I ask...if the oil is running out and production falling at alarming rates then why is there hundreds of millions and in some cases billions being invested in the North Sea Oil Industry?
Complain about this comment
232. More astonishing answers.
I suspect that you have not really thought these through and are just regurgitating baseless nationalist claims and myths.
It's not enough to repeat ad nauseum claims that 'reserves will last 30 or 100 years' without specifying actual production levels. Clearly it will not be at 1999 levels and there is nothing to suggest it will even be at the far smaller 2007 levels.
So "diminishing" is an adequate way of describing something that is disappearing at 10% a year, is only a third as much as it was just nine years ago and is expected to be only a tenth of its peak within years.
How can you seriously claim that the Govt deliberately publishes false accounts? To do so is risking huge fines from the EU, a collapse in trust in all other Govt economic reports, leading in turn to a collapse in currency, a drop in UK debt-grading, leading to higher interest payments on the national debt, an economic crisis----just to 'withhold the true figures from the SNP'? Be serious.
And you are of course also implicating the multinationals, the oil markets, the banks, the EU etc in this as they all publish their own work, none of which contradicts UK accounts.
You ARE quite ridiculously suggesting there is indeed an international conspiracy of governments, markets and corporations---all against the SNP!
Why?? What do they have to gain??
Don't you think this is, in truth, a little silly (not to say immature) and it is perhaps a little more likely that YOU are wrong?
And while you believe that all these disparate organisations are working together to lie to the Scottish people----you quite happily believe that Salmond is telling you the truth!
Complain about this comment
Reluctant-Expat:
I can't commnet on the type of production that we will see in future. It has lowered in recent years but because of rising prices we are actually making more money then 1999.
But there are oil reserves that are reasonably medicore that companies have not began drilling yet further north.
I'm not backing the SNP figures or the UK Government figures but the Conservatives and Labour have already lied about the extent of our oil wealth.
How can we trust their reports? Should we trust them again? Shall we see another McCrone Report in 10 years explaining that if Scotland went Independent then we could of had it all?
Fool me once then shame on you.
Fool me twice then shame on me.
I've not actually spoke of the EU or the International Governments. You brought that up which shows the weakeness of your argument.
Why are you bringing in the EU and International Governments and claiming that I am suggesting there is some type of conspiracy?
Pathetic. Why are you making up stories?
Is the scaremongering your using not good enough?
You stopped claiming that the UK is some type of safety net to Scotland at least. With over 500 billion in debts and rising because of their nuclear ambition there is quite clearly no safety net.
And yes I do trust Salmond. Once an economist for RBS who delt with oil and gas issues. You can not buy that knowledge that Salmond should have.
You have scaremongered, refused to accept the English papers reports, ignoring rising oil prices that ignores the production levels since we make more then 1999, made stories up and claimed that I suggested the EU and other Gov's were conspiring against the Scottish people...
Complain about this comment
234. If you are accusing successive UK Governments of deliberately submitting false reports, then you must also be accusing the multinationals, the oil markets, the EU etc. as they also produce oil statistics which match UK Govt published figures.
If the figures coming from the government are lies, then the product of these other organisations are also lies.
Do you see?
This is what I mean by you not thinking through what you have been told by other young nationalists.
Furthermore, the SNP produced its own accounts recently and they ALSO match the figures of the UK Govt, the EU, the multinationals, the oil markets --- Are they also liars??
Now will you admit, as a 16 year old with possibly the internet as his only source, that there is a faint possibility that you may not be in possession of all the facts?
This is not "scaremongering" but a suggestion that you actually check the often ridiculous claims from the nationalist element before believing them.
Salmond's figures most certainly do not add up.
He is suggesting a very high-risk gamble with the nation's future on a highly volatile sector, that is 25% of the national economy, that is already producing 60% less than 1999 and over which he has no control.
I repeat that the UK 'safety net' is the protection of our economy, public services and finances regardless of the income from this volatile sector.
I repeat that all tax revenue, including our full share of oil revenue, has not provided enough for Scottish public spending for nearly 20 consecutive years.
On a graph: While 'revenue' has been a rollercoaster ride with at least three major drops in the past 25 years --- 'expenditure' has been steady and climbing.
This is not scaremongering. This is a much needed dose of reality!
Complain about this comment
234. There is also a significant difference between a government 'withholding a report' and 'deliberately publishing a false report'.
The former is often done by governments and companies alike. McCrone was withheld.
The latter is highly dangerous and only usually occurs in the minds of conspiracists.
Bear that in mind too.
Complain about this comment
Reluctant-Expat:
You are more then willing to admitt the decline of the North Sea Oil but you fail to suggest what happens to our future.
The oil will run out whether or not Scotland is apart of the United Kingdom and then what?
Shall we witness our best minds go elsewhere for work? Down south? Dubai? America? Canada?
Shall we witness Aberdeen fall? 25% of the Industries/Comapanies are linked to the Oil Industry. Investment is needed and alternative sources of work are also needed to sustain this part of the country. At this rate shall we watch thousands of people join the que at the benefits office waiting for the doe money?
Do you want to leave our fate in the hands of the English Nationalists and Conservatives?
Several will rather see England as an Independent country then actually help Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.
Your idea as the United Kingdom as a safety net is completely foolish. The UK has far to much debt for it to actually be safe. If something goes wrong do you think Scotland will be first on the London Governments mind to fix?
Overall production has fallen but prices are rising with approx 700 billion pounds of oil left in the ground. (every field even those untouched)
I want Scotland to take that herself and begin supporting her own and providing alternative work for her people.
You have easily criticised the SNP but you have not told us the solutions for this seriose problem. There is no solution that the Union has provided for Scotland and again you have proven how false the Union has became.
The McCrone Report was withheld. At the same time our lovely Government told Scotland we were to poor and incapable of running herself. Is that not lying? Did the Tories and Labour lie to Scotland?
Again, what stops them from lying about it this time?
If they can lie once they can lie twice.
Complain about this comment
Thomas Porter:
"Do you want to leave our fate in the hands of the English Nationalists and Conservatives?"
What is the matter with you that you have to have a dig at 'the English' with every debate. I told you before, you are a racist; you've proved me right yet again.
Leave the English (and the rest of the UK)out of this and start bad mouthing your own politicians who you sent to Westminster to represent you - including Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling, Des Browne, Douglas Alexander, ...........
Complain about this comment
Jim_Thompson:
What is wrong with mentioning the English Nationalists and Conservatives?
If what I wrote was indeed offensive then why did the moderator allow my post?
I also was specific to my claim. The English Nationalists and the Conservaties. I have not directed my comments to 'the English' in general. Therefore it deffinetly was NOT racist.
The English Nationalists will not solve Scotlands problems and the Conservatives will worry about their own electorate that happens to be mainly in the south of England and middle England.
It will be another 'Thatcher Era' for Scotland.
Complain about this comment
Reluctant-Expat:
By the way. Production is not important when it comes to figures. What is important is how much wealth is generated with what is made.
With recent prices and that is what the SNP relies on Scotland can do very well.
Complain about this comment
Thomas Porter:
"If what I wrote was indeed offensive then why did the moderator allow my post?"
Maybe he's biased too.
Complain about this comment
Jim_Thompson:
You should really come up with somthing better Jim. It does not help your case when you start accusing others of something that they are not.
Complain about this comment
Reluctant-Expat@235,
Missed this post yesterday; its a good one and a welcome dose of realism at the end of the debate
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS