Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’m not Scottish so I don’t really care. If the majority want it they should get it. I guess the same goes for England? Do we get a vote for independence from the rest of the UK? " If there is an appetite for it. Yes you should have the right to choose | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In an increasingly volatile and dangerous world I think the Union makes sense and brings us all advantages. e.g. if Scotland leaves, where does the defence burden fall? Will Scotland go 'neutral' as Ireland did, with no contribution to NATO?" who is going to attack scotland other than the english? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In an increasingly volatile and dangerous world I think the Union makes sense and brings us all advantages. e.g. if Scotland leaves, where does the defence burden fall? Will Scotland go 'neutral' as Ireland did, with no contribution to NATO? who is going to attack scotland other than the english?" I get your point. What would be the possible reward? On that basis who would attack the UK eh? But I was thinking more along the lines of common defence policies. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In an increasingly volatile and dangerous world I think the Union makes sense and brings us all advantages. e.g. if Scotland leaves, where does the defence burden fall? Will Scotland go 'neutral' as Ireland did, with no contribution to NATO? who is going to attack scotland other than the english? I get your point. What would be the possible reward? On that basis who would attack the UK eh? But I was thinking more along the lines of common defence policies." the way that the english part of the union violently impose the country on the rest of the world, then take your pick from a long list. as for common defence policies, that's trickier as the english government's prefered conflation of words between war and defence. but there is plenty of joint activity between uk and ireland naval forces for example. the irish regularly take part in EU joint training exercises. so i fail to see any problem there whatsoever. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In an increasingly volatile and dangerous world I think the Union makes sense and brings us all advantages. e.g. if Scotland leaves, where does the defence burden fall? Will Scotland go 'neutral' as Ireland did, with no contribution to NATO? who is going to attack scotland other than the english? I get your point. What would be the possible reward? On that basis who would attack the UK eh? But I was thinking more along the lines of common defence policies. the way that the english part of the union violently impose the country on the rest of the world, then take your pick from a long list. as for common defence policies, that's trickier as the english government's prefered conflation of words between war and defence. but there is plenty of joint activity between uk and ireland naval forces for example. the irish regularly take part in EU joint training exercises. so i fail to see any problem there whatsoever." Got you. It's all down to the English baddy bogey men. Irish defence spending is around 0.2% of GDP. Basically they are getting free defence under the UK/NATO umbrella. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In an increasingly volatile and dangerous world I think the Union makes sense and brings us all advantages. e.g. if Scotland leaves, where does the defence burden fall? Will Scotland go 'neutral' as Ireland did, with no contribution to NATO? who is going to attack scotland other than the english? I get your point. What would be the possible reward? On that basis who would attack the UK eh? But I was thinking more along the lines of common defence policies. the way that the english part of the union violently impose the country on the rest of the world, then take your pick from a long list. as for common defence policies, that's trickier as the english government's prefered conflation of words between war and defence. but there is plenty of joint activity between uk and ireland naval forces for example. the irish regularly take part in EU joint training exercises. so i fail to see any problem there whatsoever. Got you. It's all down to the English baddy bogey men. Irish defence spending is around 0.2% of GDP. Basically they are getting free defence under the UK/NATO umbrella. " that's wild fantasy on your part to be fair | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I used to work with a couple of Sotts who very vehemently opposed to independence, although i never really discussed why. There was always the issue of who gets North Sea Oil, but as Milliband has banned drilling for oil, I guess that’s no longer an issue? I don’t think constant votes every few years helps anyone. If one side are allowed to keep going until they get a win then the other side should have the same rights. If you’re gonna do that, there should either be a fresh vote every week and never implement the result. I can’t see why it should be voted upon more than once per generation. " in that case it's fair enough to be addressing the issues surrounding independence if there's to be a referendum in 9 years time. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I used to work with a couple of Sotts who very vehemently opposed to independence, although i never really discussed why. There was always the issue of who gets North Sea Oil, but as Milliband has banned drilling for oil, I guess that’s no longer an issue? I don’t think constant votes every few years helps anyone. If one side are allowed to keep going until they get a win then the other side should have the same rights. If you’re gonna do that, there should either be a fresh vote every week and never implement the result. I can’t see why it should be voted upon more than once per generation. in that case it's fair enough to be addressing the issues surrounding independence if there's to be a referendum in 9 years time." I wish government policy was based on my opinions but I don’t think any of them actually care about anyone opinions, least of all mine. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In an increasingly volatile and dangerous world I think the Union makes sense and brings us all advantages. e.g. if Scotland leaves, where does the defence burden fall? Will Scotland go 'neutral' as Ireland did, with no contribution to NATO? who is going to attack scotland other than the english?" Where will you put your submarines? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I used to work with a couple of Sotts who very vehemently opposed to independence, although i never really discussed why. There was always the issue of who gets North Sea Oil, but as Milliband has banned drilling for oil, I guess that’s no longer an issue? I don’t think constant votes every few years helps anyone. If one side are allowed to keep going until they get a win then the other side should have the same rights. If you’re gonna do that, there should either be a fresh vote every week and never implement the result. I can’t see why it should be voted upon more than once per generation. in that case it's fair enough to be addressing the issues surrounding independence if there's to be a referendum in 9 years time. I wish government policy was based on my opinions but I don’t think any of them actually care about anyone opinions, least of all mine. " perhaps you should donate money to a think tank of your choice, which you can then offset against your tax as a charitable donation and reduce your tax liability. this will allow you to get a seat next to the relevant people at lunches, dinners and various other functions so you can shape policy to suit your business needs by lobbying them. then you can hoover up all those lovely contracts when you win those tenders. simple  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In an increasingly volatile and dangerous world I think the Union makes sense and brings us all advantages. e.g. if Scotland leaves, where does the defence burden fall? Will Scotland go 'neutral' as Ireland did, with no contribution to NATO? who is going to attack scotland other than the english? Where will you put your submarines?" that's unclear as to who are you asserting ownership to of the aformentioned submarines? could you elucidate your post more clearly please? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In an increasingly volatile and dangerous world I think the Union makes sense and brings us all advantages. e.g. if Scotland leaves, where does the defence burden fall? Will Scotland go 'neutral' as Ireland did, with no contribution to NATO? who is going to attack scotland other than the english? Where will you put your submarines? that's unclear as to who are you asserting ownership to of the aformentioned submarines? could you elucidate your post more clearly please?" Anywhere but Scotland in that scenario I imagine. You imagine subs are safely hidden in Scotland? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Where will you put your submarines? that's unclear as to who are you asserting ownership to of the aformentioned submarines? could you elucidate your post more clearly please? Anywhere but Scotland in that scenario I imagine. You imagine subs are safely hidden in Scotland?" you two seem to be confused as to what you're asking. can you be more pellucid please? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think what everyone hopes for is independence without falling out. so that trade & co operation about defense etc can continue. Looking at Brexit & Ukraine/Russia, it seems difficult to maintain independence & remain friendly, " you have a point, but when you look at estonia, latvia, lithuania then it highlights what exactly what independence can achieve. i challange anybody to claim that the three nations are better off inside the sphere of russian control or influence. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In an increasingly volatile and dangerous world I think the Union makes sense and brings us all advantages. e.g. if Scotland leaves, where does the defence burden fall? Will Scotland go 'neutral' as Ireland did, with no contribution to NATO? who is going to attack scotland other than the english? Where will you put your submarines?" The reasons the subs are based where they are is no longer applicable, so Portsmouth would be fine. They were based there because sea navigation to the quay is treacherous without detailed maps. And it’s a long way for aircraft to travel before being shot down by air defences. Now a carrier out of St Petersburg or Murmansk could launch drones that would be in range before the subs could be launched. In reality unless it was a surprise attack, the subs would be at sea anyway. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In an increasingly volatile and dangerous world I think the Union makes sense and brings us all advantages. e.g. if Scotland leaves, where does the defence burden fall? Will Scotland go 'neutral' as Ireland did, with no contribution to NATO? who is going to attack scotland other than the english? Where will you put your submarines? The reasons the subs are based where they are is no longer applicable, so Portsmouth would be fine. They were based there because sea navigation to the quay is treacherous without detailed maps. And it’s a long way for aircraft to travel before being shot down by air defences. Now a carrier out of St Petersburg or Murmansk could launch drones that would be in range before the subs could be launched. In reality unless it was a surprise attack, the subs would be at sea anyway. " I suppose if the Russians had a working carrier that would be true. But the only one they've got was built in the 70's and spends most of its time in the repair dock. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In an increasingly volatile and dangerous world I think the Union makes sense and brings us all advantages. e.g. if Scotland leaves, where does the defence burden fall? Will Scotland go 'neutral' as Ireland did, with no contribution to NATO? who is going to attack scotland other than the english? Where will you put your submarines? The reasons the subs are based where they are is no longer applicable, so Portsmouth would be fine. They were based there because sea navigation to the quay is treacherous without detailed maps. And it’s a long way for aircraft to travel before being shot down by air defences. Now a carrier out of St Petersburg or Murmansk could launch drones that would be in range before the subs could be launched. In reality unless it was a surprise attack, the subs would be at sea anyway. " fact. you could pick falmouth, gosport, portland, liverpool .... a multitude of places really. but what's important is that the severence from union will have to require that many hundreds of billions would have to be paid out by whoever takes control of the military assets. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If the Scottish people want independence then fine, go for it. But it has to be exactly that. INDEPENDENCE. No half measures, no one foot in each camp. Make the choice and stand on its own feet." I agree with this and I think the complexities of being totally independent could be lost in the arguments similar to Brexit. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In an increasingly volatile and dangerous world I think the Union makes sense and brings us all advantages. e.g. if Scotland leaves, where does the defence burden fall? Will Scotland go 'neutral' as Ireland did, with no contribution to NATO? who is going to attack scotland other than the english? Where will you put your submarines? The reasons the subs are based where they are is no longer applicable, so Portsmouth would be fine. They were based there because sea navigation to the quay is treacherous without detailed maps. And it’s a long way for aircraft to travel before being shot down by air defences. Now a carrier out of St Petersburg or Murmansk could launch drones that would be in range before the subs could be launched. In reality unless it was a surprise attack, the subs would be at sea anyway. " I think the inhabitants might be a bit concerned about up to 36 nuclear warheads moving to Portsmouth but the Scots might be relieved, and the sea is a bit shallow so they would have to be surfaced and vulnerable but hey I'm not an admiral just a guess. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In an increasingly volatile and dangerous world I think the Union makes sense and brings us all advantages. e.g. if Scotland leaves, where does the defence burden fall? Will Scotland go 'neutral' as Ireland did, with no contribution to NATO? who is going to attack scotland other than the english? Where will you put your submarines? The reasons the subs are based where they are is no longer applicable, so Portsmouth would be fine. They were based there because sea navigation to the quay is treacherous without detailed maps. And it’s a long way for aircraft to travel before being shot down by air defences. Now a carrier out of St Petersburg or Murmansk could launch drones that would be in range before the subs could be launched. In reality unless it was a surprise attack, the subs would be at sea anyway. I think the inhabitants might be a bit concerned about up to 36 nuclear warheads moving to Portsmouth but the Scots might be relieved, and the sea is a bit shallow so they would have to be surfaced and vulnerable but hey I'm not an admiral just a guess." plenty of scope to house them in norn iron | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In an increasingly volatile and dangerous world I think the Union makes sense and brings us all advantages. e.g. if Scotland leaves, where does the defence burden fall? Will Scotland go 'neutral' as Ireland did, with no contribution to NATO? who is going to attack scotland other than the english? Where will you put your submarines? The reasons the subs are based where they are is no longer applicable, so Portsmouth would be fine. They were based there because sea navigation to the quay is treacherous without detailed maps. And it’s a long way for aircraft to travel before being shot down by air defences. Now a carrier out of St Petersburg or Murmansk could launch drones that would be in range before the subs could be launched. In reality unless it was a surprise attack, the subs would be at sea anyway. I think the inhabitants might be a bit concerned about up to 36 nuclear warheads moving to Portsmouth but the Scots might be relieved, and the sea is a bit shallow so they would have to be surfaced and vulnerable but hey I'm not an admiral just a guess. plenty of scope to house them in norn iron "Well the government report suggested moving them to France or even the US as nothing else was suitable Norn Iron waters are too shallow, they couldn't even get a sub up Belfast lough at high tide lol | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In an increasingly volatile and dangerous world I think the Union makes sense and brings us all advantages. e.g. if Scotland leaves, where does the defence burden fall? Will Scotland go 'neutral' as Ireland did, with no contribution to NATO? who is going to attack scotland other than the english? Where will you put your submarines? The reasons the subs are based where they are is no longer applicable, so Portsmouth would be fine. They were based there because sea navigation to the quay is treacherous without detailed maps. And it’s a long way for aircraft to travel before being shot down by air defences. Now a carrier out of St Petersburg or Murmansk could launch drones that would be in range before the subs could be launched. In reality unless it was a surprise attack, the subs would be at sea anyway. I suppose if the Russians had a working carrier that would be true. But the only one they've got was built in the 70's and spends most of its time in the repair dock. " A surface to surface missile that could be launched from a surface ship or a sub would be just as effective. The drone was just an example. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In an increasingly volatile and dangerous world I think the Union makes sense and brings us all advantages. e.g. if Scotland leaves, where does the defence burden fall? Will Scotland go 'neutral' as Ireland did, with no contribution to NATO? who is going to attack scotland other than the english? Where will you put your submarines? The reasons the subs are based where they are is no longer applicable, so Portsmouth would be fine. They were based there because sea navigation to the quay is treacherous without detailed maps. And it’s a long way for aircraft to travel before being shot down by air defences. Now a carrier out of St Petersburg or Murmansk could launch drones that would be in range before the subs could be launched. In reality unless it was a surprise attack, the subs would be at sea anyway. I suppose if the Russians had a working carrier that would be true. But the only one they've got was built in the 70's and spends most of its time in the repair dock. A surface to surface missile that could be launched from a surface ship or a sub would be just as effective. The drone was just an example. " To be fair that is probably the future of naval warfare. Aircraft carriers are too vulnerable to modern missiles. They will eventually go the same way as battleships and we've just built two of the bloody things. Money better spent elsewhere methinks. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In an increasingly volatile and dangerous world I think the Union makes sense and brings us all advantages. e.g. if Scotland leaves, where does the defence burden fall? Will Scotland go 'neutral' as Ireland did, with no contribution to NATO? who is going to attack scotland other than the english? Where will you put your submarines? The reasons the subs are based where they are is no longer applicable, so Portsmouth would be fine. They were based there because sea navigation to the quay is treacherous without detailed maps. And it’s a long way for aircraft to travel before being shot down by air defences. Now a carrier out of St Petersburg or Murmansk could launch drones that would be in range before the subs could be launched. In reality unless it was a surprise attack, the subs would be at sea anyway. I suppose if the Russians had a working carrier that would be true. But the only one they've got was built in the 70's and spends most of its time in the repair dock. A surface to surface missile that could be launched from a surface ship or a sub would be just as effective. The drone was just an example. To be fair that is probably the future of naval warfare. Aircraft carriers are too vulnerable to modern missiles. They will eventually go the same way as battleships and we've just built two of the bloody things. Money better spent elsewhere methinks. " Which takes us back to Scotland, and one of the reasons why the subs use the sea lochs that are 50-80m deep. It's hard to hit a target that far under the water with a missile if you even know it's there. Anyway, an interesting diversion, but I doubt the Scots would have an overwhelming majority in favour of devolution maybe just an aspiration but ultimately it's their choice. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In an increasingly volatile and dangerous world I think the Union makes sense and brings us all advantages. e.g. if Scotland leaves, where does the defence burden fall? Will Scotland go 'neutral' as Ireland did, with no contribution to NATO? who is going to attack scotland other than the english? Where will you put your submarines? The reasons the subs are based where they are is no longer applicable, so Portsmouth would be fine. They were based there because sea navigation to the quay is treacherous without detailed maps. And it’s a long way for aircraft to travel before being shot down by air defences. Now a carrier out of St Petersburg or Murmansk could launch drones that would be in range before the subs could be launched. In reality unless it was a surprise attack, the subs would be at sea anyway. I think the inhabitants might be a bit concerned about up to 36 nuclear warheads moving to Portsmouth but the Scots might be relieved, and the sea is a bit shallow so they would have to be surfaced and vulnerable but hey I'm not an admiral just a guess. plenty of scope to house them in norn iron
Well the government report suggested moving them to France or even the US as nothing else was suitable
Norn Iron waters are too shallow, they couldn't even get a sub up Belfast lough at high tide lol"well in that case, tough shit. you'll have some useless submarines that go along with the useless destroyers, carriers and trident missiles that the navy have built recently. perhaps they could store them with the useless ajax afv's.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In an increasingly volatile and dangerous world I think the Union makes sense and brings us all advantages. e.g. if Scotland leaves, where does the defence burden fall? Will Scotland go 'neutral' as Ireland did, with no contribution to NATO? who is going to attack scotland other than the english? Where will you put your submarines? The reasons the subs are based where they are is no longer applicable, so Portsmouth would be fine. They were based there because sea navigation to the quay is treacherous without detailed maps. And it’s a long way for aircraft to travel before being shot down by air defences. Now a carrier out of St Petersburg or Murmansk could launch drones that would be in range before the subs could be launched. In reality unless it was a surprise attack, the subs would be at sea anyway. I think the inhabitants might be a bit concerned about up to 36 nuclear warheads moving to Portsmouth but the Scots might be relieved, and the sea is a bit shallow so they would have to be surfaced and vulnerable but hey I'm not an admiral just a guess." Yeah take the subs to Portsmouth. Im sure folk living there will be more than happy to accomodate them. Happy days! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If the Scottish people want independence then fine, go for it. But it has to be exactly that. INDEPENDENCE. No half measures, no one foot in each camp. Make the choice and stand on its own feet." What irony. When will England do that? England has been subsidised by looted Scottish oil revenues for 5 decades. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"NO - too small population to be economically viable and too much in common - Great Britain needs to stay! " This isn't true. Barbados is an economy the size of Cardiff and does fine | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" To be fair that is probably the future of naval warfare. Aircraft carriers are too vulnerable to modern missiles. They will eventually go the same way as battleships and we've just built two of the bloody things. Money better spent elsewhere methinks. " I’m not so sure. Battleships fired shells further than frigates because the guns could be bigger. Naval vessels no longer fire shells, they fire missiles which can be launched from smaller more manoeuvrable ships which are cheaper to build. The carrier performs a completely different role. Until recently delivering manned aircraft to locations that were too far from a land base to be viable. Now of course they are carrying drone as well, the larger of which can’t be launched from anther type of vessel. But I think that will change as the tech improves and there will be hybrid type ships, smaller than a carrier but able to launch long range drones. I think we’re a few years away from that yet. Gone off topic I know, so to bring it back…. Are those who are in favour of breaking up the union, for or against EU membership? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Why yes and why no?" Yes. Then we take in back through military conquest.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think it would be a mistake, but if that's the choice of the majority, so be it. However, as with all such votes, they should be time specific, not just "for a generation"" What sort of time frame do you think would be reasonable for another referendum on independence for Scotland if they had one say next year and the vote was to leave the UK? Breaking any of the 4 countries out of the union would me a monumental task and cost billions. What’s the point if you’re gonna have another vote in say 10 years? Or do the votes stop once those wanting independence win? That hardly seems fair. If those who want independence think they can keep demanding referendums until they win, surely the other side have the same rights? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"NO - too small population to be economically viable and too much in common - Great Britain needs to stay! " That's not your decision to make. Britain is broken. Absolutely buggered. Time for the end of this enforced and unequal union. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think it would be a mistake, but if that's the choice of the majority, so be it. However, as with all such votes, they should be time specific, not just "for a generation"" Choice of majority only works when it suits lol Remember Brexit ? Scotland overwhelmingly voted against. Guess what. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No. However, IF scotland goes indipendant, then I will demand London, and the southeast go the same way, then let the rest goe broke without us. Wait for a bit, then invade scotland, and the rest of england, wales and unify it all as england!" You realise Scotland is a country right? How can you claim a capital city of a country be independent of the country it is the capital of... strange logic indeed🙄 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think it would be a mistake, but if that's the choice of the majority, so be it. However, as with all such votes, they should be time specific, not just "for a generation" What sort of time frame do you think would be reasonable for another referendum on independence for Scotland if they had one say next year and the vote was to leave the UK? Breaking any of the 4 countries out of the union would me a monumental task and cost billions. What’s the point if you’re gonna have another vote in say 10 years? Or do the votes stop once those wanting independence win? That hardly seems fair. If those who want independence think they can keep demanding referendums until they win, surely the other side have the same rights? " This is an interesting point ; for example, due the GFA, if there is a Border Poll, & the result is No, the poll can be returned to after 7 years (I don't know why after 7 years; I guess in case of a cynical UK government trying to use a No vote to bury a future vote) For a future vote, they need to define what "once in a generation" means in actual years | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think it would be a mistake, but if that's the choice of the majority, so be it. However, as with all such votes, they should be time specific, not just "for a generation" What sort of time frame do you think would be reasonable for another referendum on independence for Scotland if they had one say next year and the vote was to leave the UK? Breaking any of the 4 countries out of the union would me a monumental task and cost billions. What’s the point if you’re gonna have another vote in say 10 years? Or do the votes stop once those wanting independence win? That hardly seems fair. If those who want independence think they can keep demanding referendums until they win, surely the other side have the same rights? This is an interesting point ; for example, due the GFA, if there is a Border Poll, & the result is No, the poll can be returned to after 7 years (I don't know why after 7 years; I guess in case of a cynical UK government trying to use a No vote to bury a future vote) For a future vote, they need to define what "once in a generation" means in actual years" every 7 years was set as a precedent by previous referendums. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think it would be a mistake, but if that's the choice of the majority, so be it. However, as with all such votes, they should be time specific, not just "for a generation" What sort of time frame do you think would be reasonable for another referendum on independence for Scotland if they had one say next year and the vote was to leave the UK? Breaking any of the 4 countries out of the union would me a monumental task and cost billions. What’s the point if you’re gonna have another vote in say 10 years? Or do the votes stop once those wanting independence win? That hardly seems fair. If those who want independence think they can keep demanding referendums until they win, surely the other side have the same rights? This is an interesting point ; for example, due the GFA, if there is a Border Poll, & the result is No, the poll can be returned to after 7 years (I don't know why after 7 years; I guess in case of a cynical UK government trying to use a No vote to bury a future vote) For a future vote, they need to define what "once in a generation" means in actual years every 7 years was set as a precedent by previous referendums." Can you send the link for that? I'm genuinely interested, as I couldn't find any reference to where the 7 years comes from | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think it would be a mistake, but if that's the choice of the majority, so be it. However, as with all such votes, they should be time specific, not just "for a generation" What sort of time frame do you think would be reasonable for another referendum on independence for Scotland if they had one say next year and the vote was to leave the UK? Breaking any of the 4 countries out of the union would me a monumental task and cost billions. What’s the point if you’re gonna have another vote in say 10 years? Or do the votes stop once those wanting independence win? That hardly seems fair. If those who want independence think they can keep demanding referendums until they win, surely the other side have the same rights? This is an interesting point ; for example, due the GFA, if there is a Border Poll, & the result is No, the poll can be returned to after 7 years (I don't know why after 7 years; I guess in case of a cynical UK government trying to use a No vote to bury a future vote) For a future vote, they need to define what "once in a generation" means in actual years every 7 years was set as a precedent by previous referendums. Can you send the link for that? I'm genuinely interested, as I couldn't find any reference to where the 7 years comes from" one example is the temperence referendums in wales. wales used to be dry on a sunday. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"NO - too small population to be economically viable and too much in common - Great Britain needs to stay! This isn't true. Barbados is an economy the size of Cardiff and does fine " Can't compare the two seriously, oh and many locals would like to differ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think it would be a mistake, but if that's the choice of the majority, so be it. However, as with all such votes, they should be time specific, not just "for a generation" What sort of time frame do you think would be reasonable for another referendum on independence for Scotland if they had one say next year and the vote was to leave the UK? Breaking any of the 4 countries out of the union would me a monumental task and cost billions. What’s the point if you’re gonna have another vote in say 10 years? Or do the votes stop once those wanting independence win? That hardly seems fair. If those who want independence think they can keep demanding referendums until they win, surely the other side have the same rights? " With the GFA, if a referendum results in uniting Ireland that is it. No further campaigning to join the UK again. No provision for that | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"NO - too small population to be economically viable and too much in common - Great Britain needs to stay! This isn't true. Barbados is an economy the size of Cardiff and does fine Can't compare the two seriously, oh and many locals would like to differ " Locals to where? I go to Barbados several times a year, not long back from Kadooment. Barbados and Cardiff have roughly the same size population so if Barbados can punch above its weight and make a mark on this world I'm sure Wales or Scotland can cope without the snearing hand outs from those little Inherlanders | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"NO - too small population to be economically viable and too much in common - Great Britain needs to stay! This isn't true. Barbados is an economy the size of Cardiff and does fine Can't compare the two seriously, oh and many locals would like to differ Locals to where? I go to Barbados several times a year, not long back from Kadooment. Barbados and Cardiff have roughly the same size population so if Barbados can punch above its weight and make a mark on this world I'm sure Wales or Scotland can cope without the snearing hand outs from those little Inherlanders " Barbados hasn’t really “made a mark” on this world it’s just a nice place to go for a vacation. Most of its population live in basic breeze block shacks. But agreed there is no reason why a small island nation like Barbados cannot “go it alone” if that’s what its citizens choose to do. Just as a much larger country like the UK can choose to “go it alone”. I’m all in favour of countries choosing their own path free of foreign domination and control. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"NO - too small population to be economically viable and too much in common - Great Britain needs to stay! This isn't true. Barbados is an economy the size of Cardiff and does fine Can't compare the two seriously, oh and many locals would like to differ Locals to where? I go to Barbados several times a year, not long back from Kadooment. Barbados and Cardiff have roughly the same size population so if Barbados can punch above its weight and make a mark on this world I'm sure Wales or Scotland can cope without the snearing hand outs from those little Inherlanders Barbados hasn’t really “made a mark” on this world it’s just a nice place to go for a vacation. Most of its population live in basic breeze block shacks. But agreed there is no reason why a small island nation like Barbados cannot “go it alone” if that’s what its citizens choose to do. Just as a much larger country like the UK can choose to “go it alone”. I’m all in favour of countries choosing their own path free of foreign domination and control." Breeze block shacks?? If they have money for breeze blocks in Barbarian they ain't shacks. So yes to Scottish and Welsh independence, get rid of those English foreigners? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"NO - too small population to be economically viable and too much in common - Great Britain needs to stay! This isn't true. Barbados is an economy the size of Cardiff and does fine Can't compare the two seriously, oh and many locals would like to differ Locals to where? I go to Barbados several times a year, not long back from Kadooment. Barbados and Cardiff have roughly the same size population so if Barbados can punch above its weight and make a mark on this world I'm sure Wales or Scotland can cope without the snearing hand outs from those little Inherlanders Barbados hasn’t really “made a mark” on this world it’s just a nice place to go for a vacation. Most of its population live in basic breeze block shacks. But agreed there is no reason why a small island nation like Barbados cannot “go it alone” if that’s what its citizens choose to do. Just as a much larger country like the UK can choose to “go it alone”. I’m all in favour of countries choosing their own path free of foreign domination and control. Breeze block shacks?? If they have money for breeze blocks in Barbarian they ain't shacks. So yes to Scottish and Welsh independence, get rid of those English foreigners?" The average salary in Barbados is about $30,000 and that is massively skewed by expatriates. Anyone who has been to Barbados can see that there are effectively two worlds living side by side. Expatriates and tourists, and the local population. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"NO - too small population to be economically viable and too much in common - Great Britain needs to stay! This isn't true. Barbados is an economy the size of Cardiff and does fine Can't compare the two seriously, oh and many locals would like to differ Locals to where? I go to Barbados several times a year, not long back from Kadooment. Barbados and Cardiff have roughly the same size population so if Barbados can punch above its weight and make a mark on this world I'm sure Wales or Scotland can cope without the snearing hand outs from those little Inherlanders Barbados hasn’t really “made a mark” on this world it’s just a nice place to go for a vacation. Most of its population live in basic breeze block shacks. But agreed there is no reason why a small island nation like Barbados cannot “go it alone” if that’s what its citizens choose to do. Just as a much larger country like the UK can choose to “go it alone”. I’m all in favour of countries choosing their own path free of foreign domination and control. Breeze block shacks?? If they have money for breeze blocks in Barbarian they ain't shacks. So yes to Scottish and Welsh independence, get rid of those English foreigners? The average salary in Barbados is about $30,000 and that is massively skewed by expatriates. Anyone who has been to Barbados can see that there are effectively two worlds living side by side. Expatriates and tourists, and the local population. " Foreigners can't really work in Barbados, unless you provide a service the locals don't or you can afford to support yourself. Correct, they live side by side, but the homes you call "shacks" would be made of wood. If they live in breeze block homes they aren't shacks! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"NO - too small population to be economically viable and too much in common - Great Britain needs to stay! This isn't true. Barbados is an economy the size of Cardiff and does fine Can't compare the two seriously, oh and many locals would like to differ Locals to where? I go to Barbados several times a year, not long back from Kadooment. Barbados and Cardiff have roughly the same size population so if Barbados can punch above its weight and make a mark on this world I'm sure Wales or Scotland can cope without the snearing hand outs from those little Inherlanders Barbados hasn’t really “made a mark” on this world it’s just a nice place to go for a vacation. Most of its population live in basic breeze block shacks. But agreed there is no reason why a small island nation like Barbados cannot “go it alone” if that’s what its citizens choose to do. Just as a much larger country like the UK can choose to “go it alone”. I’m all in favour of countries choosing their own path free of foreign domination and control. Breeze block shacks?? If they have money for breeze blocks in Barbarian they ain't shacks. So yes to Scottish and Welsh independence, get rid of those English foreigners? The average salary in Barbados is about $30,000 and that is massively skewed by expatriates. Anyone who has been to Barbados can see that there are effectively two worlds living side by side. Expatriates and tourists, and the local population. Foreigners can't really work in Barbados, unless you provide a service the locals don't or you can afford to support yourself. Correct, they live side by side, but the homes you call "shacks" would be made of wood. If they live in breeze block homes they aren't shacks!" You can actually “work” in Barbados as a foreigner as they operate a fairly simple Visa I think for a few thousand annually provided as you say that you can prove that you have a foreign job and can work remotely and support yourself. So technically you are correct that you would not “work” within Barbados though you would be “working in Barbados”. The salary and GDP figures would include people who for example live in Barbados and draw an income from abroad, whether pension income or other private income. Local Barbados incomes are likely much lower than $30k if you exclude foreigners. After all what are they doing? Basic tourism support. There is nothing else. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"NO - too small population to be economically viable and too much in common - Great Britain needs to stay! This isn't true. Barbados is an economy the size of Cardiff and does fine Can't compare the two seriously, oh and many locals would like to differ Locals to where? I go to Barbados several times a year, not long back from Kadooment. Barbados and Cardiff have roughly the same size population so if Barbados can punch above its weight and make a mark on this world I'm sure Wales or Scotland can cope without the snearing hand outs from those little Inherlanders Barbados hasn’t really “made a mark” on this world it’s just a nice place to go for a vacation. Most of its population live in basic breeze block shacks. But agreed there is no reason why a small island nation like Barbados cannot “go it alone” if that’s what its citizens choose to do. Just as a much larger country like the UK can choose to “go it alone”. I’m all in favour of countries choosing their own path free of foreign domination and control. Breeze block shacks?? If they have money for breeze blocks in Barbarian they ain't shacks. So yes to Scottish and Welsh independence, get rid of those English foreigners? The average salary in Barbados is about $30,000 and that is massively skewed by expatriates. Anyone who has been to Barbados can see that there are effectively two worlds living side by side. Expatriates and tourists, and the local population. Foreigners can't really work in Barbados, unless you provide a service the locals don't or you can afford to support yourself. Correct, they live side by side, but the homes you call "shacks" would be made of wood. If they live in breeze block homes they aren't shacks! You can actually “work” in Barbados as a foreigner as they operate a fairly simple Visa I think for a few thousand annually provided as you say that you can prove that you have a foreign job and can work remotely and support yourself. So technically you are correct that you would not “work” within Barbados though you would be “working in Barbados”. The salary and GDP figures would include people who for example live in Barbados and draw an income from abroad, whether pension income or other private income. Local Barbados incomes are likely much lower than $30k if you exclude foreigners. After all what are they doing? Basic tourism support. There is nothing else. " I know!! I work that Visa!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I would welcome independence. We voted narrowly for independence, one of the cornerstones of the no vote was that we would lose our place in the EU. We have lost that anyway, even though we overwhelmingly voted to stay. Economically we are in a promising situation with excess energy and water, 2 assets that are becoming more scarce elsewhere. Culturally we have different values, we are more inclined to spend on our society in general, our devolved budget is representative of that - free prescriptions et al. " Similar to Wales!! Let our people go!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No. However, IF scotland goes indipendant, then I will demand London, and the southeast go the same way, then let the rest goe broke without us. Wait for a bit, then invade scotland, and the rest of england, wales and unify it all as england! You realise Scotland is a country right? How can you claim a capital city of a country be independent of the country it is the capital of... strange logic indeed🙄" Well, London is a county, not just a city, and contains more people than Scotland and generates far more wealth too. We have our own transport and voted to remain in Europe. The actual city of London, the square mile, is technically already independent of Britain and has many of its own laws and customs and even police force. So if Scotland, or wales or even Cornwall want independence then London should be allowed as well. I am Of course, only half joking. I don’t want to see the union broken up. I’m nearly highlighting the absersity of it all. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I would welcome independence. We voted narrowly for independence, one of the cornerstones of the no vote was that we would lose our place in the EU. We have lost that anyway, even though we overwhelmingly voted to stay. Economically we are in a promising situation with excess energy and water, 2 assets that are becoming more scarce elsewhere. Culturally we have different values, we are more inclined to spend on our society in general, our devolved budget is representative of that - free prescriptions et al. " I think that bit about loosing your place in the EU if the vote was yes and then actually loosing your place in the EU anyway is very true and I can imagine a fair few people being upset by it. It could be a winning argument when ever another vote is held but may need a bit of a resurgence from the independence parties | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No. However, IF scotland goes indipendant, then I will demand London, and the southeast go the same way, then let the rest goe broke without us. Wait for a bit, then invade scotland, and the rest of england, wales and unify it all as england! You realise Scotland is a country right? How can you claim a capital city of a country be independent of the country it is the capital of... strange logic indeed🙄 Well, London is a county, not just a city, and contains more people than Scotland and generates far more wealth too. We have our own transport and voted to remain in Europe. The actual city of London, the square mile, is technically already independent of Britain and has many of its own laws and customs and even police force. So if Scotland, or wales or even Cornwall want independence then London should be allowed as well. I am Of course, only half joking. I don’t want to see the union broken up. I’m nearly highlighting the absersity of it all. " Still not a Country! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Scotland’s fiscal deficit is £26.5 billion a year. With a population of about 5.4 million, that means every single person would need to pay an extra £4,872 per year just to maintain current services, and from the sounds of it, many aren’t happy with what they have now. People of Scotland, think beyond the nationalists, they will bankrupt you with their ideologies. " Scotland doesn't have a 'deficit' it doesn't hold the purse strings for UK borrowing. Scottish and Welsh Govts need to balance their books. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The questions about any possible deficit I think came up in the past. I just googled that question and the first result took me to the Scottish government website and went to the below paragraph: As part of the UK, estimates set out in Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland 2021-22[118] show that expenditure for Scotland exceeds total revenues, with expenditure standing at £97.5 bn in 2021-22 and total revenues (including North Sea revenues) standing at £73.8 bn. In 2021-22, therefore, Scottish revenue was sufficient to cover all devolved day-to-day services, all social security, including state pensions, and public sector pensions. An independent Scotland would take on responsibility for other areas of expenditure that are currently reserved, such as defence, investment, and repaying the national debt. Were Scottish spend in these areas to be broadly similar to existing UK spend, Scotland would have a fiscal deficit, as the UK does" This is all carefully worded, but the bottom line would be Scotland would have large fiscal deficit and with fewer people in the country the impact of the deficit would be higher to individuals. North sea oil is also another red herring. It is a volatile offering ranging from a few hundred million to a few billion. The idea that North sea oil revenue and ownership would default to Scotland is not certain, boundaries would need to be agreed and investments made would be a bargaining tool for shared revenue. If revenue did go to Scotland and we take the best year for returns which was 2023 when Ukraine war destabilised the markets, Scotland would have still had a deficit of just over £19 billion, which is 9% of GDP. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The questions about any possible deficit I think came up in the past. I just googled that question and the first result took me to the Scottish government website and went to the below paragraph: As part of the UK, estimates set out in Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland 2021-22[118] show that expenditure for Scotland exceeds total revenues, with expenditure standing at £97.5 bn in 2021-22 and total revenues (including North Sea revenues) standing at £73.8 bn. In 2021-22, therefore, Scottish revenue was sufficient to cover all devolved day-to-day services, all social security, including state pensions, and public sector pensions. An independent Scotland would take on responsibility for other areas of expenditure that are currently reserved, such as defence, investment, and repaying the national debt. Were Scottish spend in these areas to be broadly similar to existing UK spend, Scotland would have a fiscal deficit, as the UK does This is all carefully worded, but the bottom line would be Scotland would have large fiscal deficit and with fewer people in the country the impact of the deficit would be higher to individuals. North sea oil is also another red herring. It is a volatile offering ranging from a few hundred million to a few billion. The idea that North sea oil revenue and ownership would default to Scotland is not certain, boundaries would need to be agreed and investments made would be a bargaining tool for shared revenue. If revenue did go to Scotland and we take the best year for returns which was 2023 when Ukraine war destabilised the markets, Scotland would have still had a deficit of just over £19 billion, which is 9% of GDP. " They could increase their population though. They'd be in charge of their own border policy. Could have visas for EU or even the rest of the world!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The questions about any possible deficit I think came up in the past. I just googled that question and the first result took me to the Scottish government website and went to the below paragraph: As part of the UK, estimates set out in Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland 2021-22[118] show that expenditure for Scotland exceeds total revenues, with expenditure standing at £97.5 bn in 2021-22 and total revenues (including North Sea revenues) standing at £73.8 bn. In 2021-22, therefore, Scottish revenue was sufficient to cover all devolved day-to-day services, all social security, including state pensions, and public sector pensions. An independent Scotland would take on responsibility for other areas of expenditure that are currently reserved, such as defence, investment, and repaying the national debt. Were Scottish spend in these areas to be broadly similar to existing UK spend, Scotland would have a fiscal deficit, as the UK does This is all carefully worded, but the bottom line would be Scotland would have large fiscal deficit and with fewer people in the country the impact of the deficit would be higher to individuals. North sea oil is also another red herring. It is a volatile offering ranging from a few hundred million to a few billion. The idea that North sea oil revenue and ownership would default to Scotland is not certain, boundaries would need to be agreed and investments made would be a bargaining tool for shared revenue. If revenue did go to Scotland and we take the best year for returns which was 2023 when Ukraine war destabilised the markets, Scotland would have still had a deficit of just over £19 billion, which is 9% of GDP. They could increase their population though. They'd be in charge of their own border policy. Could have visas for EU or even the rest of the world!!" True, they could set their own immigration policy, but population growth is a slow fix on returns. It would take years for new arrivals to generate enough tax revenue to clear the deficit, and during that time the costs of services, infrastructure and integration would need to be paid for by an economy that was already in a substantial fiscal deficit. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The questions about any possible deficit I think came up in the past. I just googled that question and the first result took me to the Scottish government website and went to the below paragraph: As part of the UK, estimates set out in Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland 2021-22[118] show that expenditure for Scotland exceeds total revenues, with expenditure standing at £97.5 bn in 2021-22 and total revenues (including North Sea revenues) standing at £73.8 bn. In 2021-22, therefore, Scottish revenue was sufficient to cover all devolved day-to-day services, all social security, including state pensions, and public sector pensions. An independent Scotland would take on responsibility for other areas of expenditure that are currently reserved, such as defence, investment, and repaying the national debt. Were Scottish spend in these areas to be broadly similar to existing UK spend, Scotland would have a fiscal deficit, as the UK does This is all carefully worded, but the bottom line would be Scotland would have large fiscal deficit and with fewer people in the country the impact of the deficit would be higher to individuals. North sea oil is also another red herring. It is a volatile offering ranging from a few hundred million to a few billion. The idea that North sea oil revenue and ownership would default to Scotland is not certain, boundaries would need to be agreed and investments made would be a bargaining tool for shared revenue. If revenue did go to Scotland and we take the best year for returns which was 2023 when Ukraine war destabilised the markets, Scotland would have still had a deficit of just over £19 billion, which is 9% of GDP. They could increase their population though. They'd be in charge of their own border policy. Could have visas for EU or even the rest of the world!! True, they could set their own immigration policy, but population growth is a slow fix on returns. It would take years for new arrivals to generate enough tax revenue to clear the deficit, and during that time the costs of services, infrastructure and integration would need to be paid for by an economy that was already in a substantial fiscal deficit. " So what your saying is they'd have the control to handle their issues closer to their people but have the same problems as being a part of the UK. I can definitely see why nationalists want from the English people who keep trying to tell us we can't cope with out that racist nation | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The questions about any possible deficit I think came up in the past. I just googled that question and the first result took me to the Scottish government website and went to the below paragraph: As part of the UK, estimates set out in Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland 2021-22[118] show that expenditure for Scotland exceeds total revenues, with expenditure standing at £97.5 bn in 2021-22 and total revenues (including North Sea revenues) standing at £73.8 bn. In 2021-22, therefore, Scottish revenue was sufficient to cover all devolved day-to-day services, all social security, including state pensions, and public sector pensions. An independent Scotland would take on responsibility for other areas of expenditure that are currently reserved, such as defence, investment, and repaying the national debt. Were Scottish spend in these areas to be broadly similar to existing UK spend, Scotland would have a fiscal deficit, as the UK does This is all carefully worded, but the bottom line would be Scotland would have large fiscal deficit and with fewer people in the country the impact of the deficit would be higher to individuals. North sea oil is also another red herring. It is a volatile offering ranging from a few hundred million to a few billion. The idea that North sea oil revenue and ownership would default to Scotland is not certain, boundaries would need to be agreed and investments made would be a bargaining tool for shared revenue. If revenue did go to Scotland and we take the best year for returns which was 2023 when Ukraine war destabilised the markets, Scotland would have still had a deficit of just over £19 billion, which is 9% of GDP. They could increase their population though. They'd be in charge of their own border policy. Could have visas for EU or even the rest of the world!! True, they could set their own immigration policy, but population growth is a slow fix on returns. It would take years for new arrivals to generate enough tax revenue to clear the deficit, and during that time the costs of services, infrastructure and integration would need to be paid for by an economy that was already in a substantial fiscal deficit. So what your saying is they'd have the control to handle their issues closer to their people but have the same problems as being a part of the UK. I can definitely see why nationalists want from the English people who keep trying to tell us we can't cope with out that racist nation " That is not what I'm saying. I'm saying the messaging that Scotland will be better off, or easily self sufficient because of North sea oil is not correct. If the people of Scotland want independence that will be down to the majority but they should not be led by information that would end up later to be incorrect. I'm sure we all have experiences of that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The questions about any possible deficit I think came up in the past. I just googled that question and the first result took me to the Scottish government website and went to the below paragraph: As part of the UK, estimates set out in Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland 2021-22[118] show that expenditure for Scotland exceeds total revenues, with expenditure standing at £97.5 bn in 2021-22 and total revenues (including North Sea revenues) standing at £73.8 bn. In 2021-22, therefore, Scottish revenue was sufficient to cover all devolved day-to-day services, all social security, including state pensions, and public sector pensions. An independent Scotland would take on responsibility for other areas of expenditure that are currently reserved, such as defence, investment, and repaying the national debt. Were Scottish spend in these areas to be broadly similar to existing UK spend, Scotland would have a fiscal deficit, as the UK does This is all carefully worded, but the bottom line would be Scotland would have large fiscal deficit and with fewer people in the country the impact of the deficit would be higher to individuals. North sea oil is also another red herring. It is a volatile offering ranging from a few hundred million to a few billion. The idea that North sea oil revenue and ownership would default to Scotland is not certain, boundaries would need to be agreed and investments made would be a bargaining tool for shared revenue. If revenue did go to Scotland and we take the best year for returns which was 2023 when Ukraine war destabilised the markets, Scotland would have still had a deficit of just over £19 billion, which is 9% of GDP. They could increase their population though. They'd be in charge of their own border policy. Could have visas for EU or even the rest of the world!! True, they could set their own immigration policy, but population growth is a slow fix on returns. It would take years for new arrivals to generate enough tax revenue to clear the deficit, and during that time the costs of services, infrastructure and integration would need to be paid for by an economy that was already in a substantial fiscal deficit. So what your saying is they'd have the control to handle their issues closer to their people but have the same problems as being a part of the UK. I can definitely see why nationalists want from the English people who keep trying to tell us we can't cope with out that racist nation That is not what I'm saying. I'm saying the messaging that Scotland will be better off, or easily self sufficient because of North sea oil is not correct. If the people of Scotland want independence that will be down to the majority but they should not be led by information that would end up later to be incorrect. I'm sure we all have experiences of that." Farage led you down that garden!!! But if the importance of independence takes priority then screw the racists in England | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The questions about any possible deficit I think came up in the past. I just googled that question and the first result took me to the Scottish government website and went to the below paragraph: As part of the UK, estimates set out in Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland 2021-22[118] show that expenditure for Scotland exceeds total revenues, with expenditure standing at £97.5 bn in 2021-22 and total revenues (including North Sea revenues) standing at £73.8 bn. In 2021-22, therefore, Scottish revenue was sufficient to cover all devolved day-to-day services, all social security, including state pensions, and public sector pensions. An independent Scotland would take on responsibility for other areas of expenditure that are currently reserved, such as defence, investment, and repaying the national debt. Were Scottish spend in these areas to be broadly similar to existing UK spend, Scotland would have a fiscal deficit, as the UK does This is all carefully worded, but the bottom line would be Scotland would have large fiscal deficit and with fewer people in the country the impact of the deficit would be higher to individuals. North sea oil is also another red herring. It is a volatile offering ranging from a few hundred million to a few billion. The idea that North sea oil revenue and ownership would default to Scotland is not certain, boundaries would need to be agreed and investments made would be a bargaining tool for shared revenue. If revenue did go to Scotland and we take the best year for returns which was 2023 when Ukraine war destabilised the markets, Scotland would have still had a deficit of just over £19 billion, which is 9% of GDP. They could increase their population though. They'd be in charge of their own border policy. Could have visas for EU or even the rest of the world!! True, they could set their own immigration policy, but population growth is a slow fix on returns. It would take years for new arrivals to generate enough tax revenue to clear the deficit, and during that time the costs of services, infrastructure and integration would need to be paid for by an economy that was already in a substantial fiscal deficit. So what your saying is they'd have the control to handle their issues closer to their people but have the same problems as being a part of the UK. I can definitely see why nationalists want from the English people who keep trying to tell us we can't cope with out that racist nation That is not what I'm saying. I'm saying the messaging that Scotland will be better off, or easily self sufficient because of North sea oil is not correct. If the people of Scotland want independence that will be down to the majority but they should not be led by information that would end up later to be incorrect. I'm sure we all have experiences of that. Farage led you down that garden!!! But if the importance of independence takes priority then screw the racists in England " Farage led me nowhere. Have you setup your own Farage thread yet, or are you remaining steadfast in your attempt to turn every subject into Reform and Farage topics? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The questions about any possible deficit I think came up in the past. I just googled that question and the first result took me to the Scottish government website and went to the below paragraph: As part of the UK, estimates set out in Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland 2021-22[118] show that expenditure for Scotland exceeds total revenues, with expenditure standing at £97.5 bn in 2021-22 and total revenues (including North Sea revenues) standing at £73.8 bn. In 2021-22, therefore, Scottish revenue was sufficient to cover all devolved day-to-day services, all social security, including state pensions, and public sector pensions. An independent Scotland would take on responsibility for other areas of expenditure that are currently reserved, such as defence, investment, and repaying the national debt. Were Scottish spend in these areas to be broadly similar to existing UK spend, Scotland would have a fiscal deficit, as the UK does This is all carefully worded, but the bottom line would be Scotland would have large fiscal deficit and with fewer people in the country the impact of the deficit would be higher to individuals. North sea oil is also another red herring. It is a volatile offering ranging from a few hundred million to a few billion. The idea that North sea oil revenue and ownership would default to Scotland is not certain, boundaries would need to be agreed and investments made would be a bargaining tool for shared revenue. If revenue did go to Scotland and we take the best year for returns which was 2023 when Ukraine war destabilised the markets, Scotland would have still had a deficit of just over £19 billion, which is 9% of GDP. They could increase their population though. They'd be in charge of their own border policy. Could have visas for EU or even the rest of the world!! True, they could set their own immigration policy, but population growth is a slow fix on returns. It would take years for new arrivals to generate enough tax revenue to clear the deficit, and during that time the costs of services, infrastructure and integration would need to be paid for by an economy that was already in a substantial fiscal deficit. So what your saying is they'd have the control to handle their issues closer to their people but have the same problems as being a part of the UK. I can definitely see why nationalists want from the English people who keep trying to tell us we can't cope with out that racist nation That is not what I'm saying. I'm saying the messaging that Scotland will be better off, or easily self sufficient because of North sea oil is not correct. If the people of Scotland want independence that will be down to the majority but they should not be led by information that would end up later to be incorrect. I'm sure we all have experiences of that. Farage led you down that garden!!! But if the importance of independence takes priority then screw the racists in England Farage led me nowhere. Have you setup your own Farage thread yet, or are you remaining steadfast in your attempt to turn every subject into Reform and Farage topics? " Absolutely not!! You are not conditioned to think like Farage!! Yet repeat his lines word for word | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The questions about any possible deficit I think came up in the past. I just googled that question and the first result took me to the Scottish government website and went to the below paragraph: As part of the UK, estimates set out in Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland 2021-22[118] show that expenditure for Scotland exceeds total revenues, with expenditure standing at £97.5 bn in 2021-22 and total revenues (including North Sea revenues) standing at £73.8 bn. In 2021-22, therefore, Scottish revenue was sufficient to cover all devolved day-to-day services, all social security, including state pensions, and public sector pensions. An independent Scotland would take on responsibility for other areas of expenditure that are currently reserved, such as defence, investment, and repaying the national debt. Were Scottish spend in these areas to be broadly similar to existing UK spend, Scotland would have a fiscal deficit, as the UK does This is all carefully worded, but the bottom line would be Scotland would have large fiscal deficit and with fewer people in the country the impact of the deficit would be higher to individuals. North sea oil is also another red herring. It is a volatile offering ranging from a few hundred million to a few billion. The idea that North sea oil revenue and ownership would default to Scotland is not certain, boundaries would need to be agreed and investments made would be a bargaining tool for shared revenue. If revenue did go to Scotland and we take the best year for returns which was 2023 when Ukraine war destabilised the markets, Scotland would have still had a deficit of just over £19 billion, which is 9% of GDP. They could increase their population though. They'd be in charge of their own border policy. Could have visas for EU or even the rest of the world!! True, they could set their own immigration policy, but population growth is a slow fix on returns. It would take years for new arrivals to generate enough tax revenue to clear the deficit, and during that time the costs of services, infrastructure and integration would need to be paid for by an economy that was already in a substantial fiscal deficit. So what your saying is they'd have the control to handle their issues closer to their people but have the same problems as being a part of the UK. I can definitely see why nationalists want from the English people who keep trying to tell us we can't cope with out that racist nation That is not what I'm saying. I'm saying the messaging that Scotland will be better off, or easily self sufficient because of North sea oil is not correct. If the people of Scotland want independence that will be down to the majority but they should not be led by information that would end up later to be incorrect. I'm sure we all have experiences of that. Farage led you down that garden!!! But if the importance of independence takes priority then screw the racists in England Farage led me nowhere. Have you setup your own Farage thread yet, or are you remaining steadfast in your attempt to turn every subject into Reform and Farage topics? Absolutely not!! You are not conditioned to think like Farage!! Yet repeat his lines word for word " Start your thread and we can discuss, but this thread is about Scottish Independence | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The questions about any possible deficit I think came up in the past. I just googled that question and the first result took me to the Scottish government website and went to the below paragraph: As part of the UK, estimates set out in Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland 2021-22[118] show that expenditure for Scotland exceeds total revenues, with expenditure standing at £97.5 bn in 2021-22 and total revenues (including North Sea revenues) standing at £73.8 bn. In 2021-22, therefore, Scottish revenue was sufficient to cover all devolved day-to-day services, all social security, including state pensions, and public sector pensions. An independent Scotland would take on responsibility for other areas of expenditure that are currently reserved, such as defence, investment, and repaying the national debt. Were Scottish spend in these areas to be broadly similar to existing UK spend, Scotland would have a fiscal deficit, as the UK does This is all carefully worded, but the bottom line would be Scotland would have large fiscal deficit and with fewer people in the country the impact of the deficit would be higher to individuals. North sea oil is also another red herring. It is a volatile offering ranging from a few hundred million to a few billion. The idea that North sea oil revenue and ownership would default to Scotland is not certain, boundaries would need to be agreed and investments made would be a bargaining tool for shared revenue. If revenue did go to Scotland and we take the best year for returns which was 2023 when Ukraine war destabilised the markets, Scotland would have still had a deficit of just over £19 billion, which is 9% of GDP. " Yes these things are often carefully written but it does seem to confirm that Scotland would start with a deficit and that their income would not cover all expenses once they are responsible for all areas. Like the current UK and many countries the deficit would continue to grow | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
