INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

Scottish Devolution

...on serious topics that don't fit anywhere else at present.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Scottish Devolution

#401 Post by Dave B » May 29th, 2014, 8:40 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

Altfish wrote:And dead parrots
Only the blue ones though.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Alan C.
Posts: 10356
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 3:35 pm

Re: Scottish Devolution

#402 Post by Alan C. » May 29th, 2014, 10:04 pm

Nick.
Indeed. The oil revenues are much much greater in Norway
No, just better managed by the people that actually own them.
The oil and gas fields off Shetland have just been estimated to have another 30 + years lifespan,
Total are currently constructing an £80 million gas terminal at Sullom Voe, employing some 1,400 contract workers.
Westminster can take their scare stories and shove them!

PS.
As I've pointed out before, the thread title is wrong, we already have devolution, what we want now is INDEPENDENCE!
Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers.

lewist
Posts: 4402
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 8:53 pm

Re: Scottish Devolution

#403 Post by lewist » May 30th, 2014, 11:03 am

Alan C. wrote:INDEPENDENCE!
We could also call it FREEDOM.
Carpe diem. Savour every moment.

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Scottish Devolution

#404 Post by Nick » May 30th, 2014, 1:16 pm

Alan C. wrote:The oil and gas fields off Shetland have just been estimated to have another 30 + years lifespan
That's what concerns me, only 30 years. And I have my doubts that Scotland will be able to replace such a huge proportion of its industry, which is already in steep decline.

And you still haven't explained to me why you are not pushing for Independence for the Shetland Isles. Makes even more sense, doesn't it? :wink:

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Scottish Devolution

#405 Post by Nick » May 30th, 2014, 1:19 pm

Alan H wrote:Scottish independence: Prof Patrick Dunleavy says Treasury claims 'ludicrous'
An academic has accused the Treasury of a "ludicrous" use of his research in its analysis of the impact of Scottish independence.

The Treasury claimed on Monday that research by the London School of Economics had put the cost of setting up an independent Scotland at £2.7bn.

It cited a study carried out by the school's Prof Patrick Dunleavy.

But Prof Dunleavy described the Treasury's claim as "crude misinformation".
I'm quite happy to accept that Prof. Dunleavy has been misquoted, but given governments' record of bringing buildings and computer systems into use on time and on budget, if I were a betting man, I'd have a punt that £2.7 billion would be around the actual cost. :wink:

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Scottish Devolution

#406 Post by animist » May 30th, 2014, 1:38 pm

Nick wrote:
Alan C. wrote:The oil and gas fields off Shetland have just been estimated to have another 30 + years lifespan
That's what concerns me, only 30 years. And I have my doubts that Scotland will be able to replace such a huge proportion of its industry, which is already in steep decline.

And you still haven't explained to me why you are not pushing for Independence for the Shetland Isles. Makes even more sense, doesn't it? :wink:
you are right about the oil, Nick - who would invest all their money in a house which was going to last for 30 years "or so"? And the oil output is declining already as you say. But I would imagine that Alan C simply feels Scottish rather than Shetland, and therefore he does not really need to justify this.

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Scottish Devolution

#407 Post by Nick » May 30th, 2014, 1:46 pm

Altfish wrote:
Nick wrote: In the broadest terms, I think that the UK represents an optimum solution, in economic and political terms. I think most people feel somewhat disenfranchised in the EU, even if they approve of the free movement of capital and labour and free trade (even though they frequently misunderstand it.) The current status of the UK carries for most of those within it a legitimacy not shown in the EU. There is total opposition to sharing tax revenues across the EU, for example. (And that extends to many in the Yes camp too; "Scotland's oil", and all that.) Just imagine if the EU had decided to invade Iraq!

But with a single currency, the differences between political and economic boundaries and apparent acceptance of legitimacy is a enormous and dangerous handicap. The No camp are happy to share revenues with Scotland, with or without oil. I am at a total loss to understand why the Yes camp are so keen on the EU. Their influence within it will be tiny, but they will continue to be bound by its rules, starting with the Euro.

Does that help? :)
Not sure it does, Nick.
The first paragraph is more an anti-EU comment than a pro-Union.
Maybe I didn't set things out as clearly as I might. It is the first sentence which is pro-Union, not the first paragraph.
Your comment about people feeling disenfranchised with the EU applies to the Scots but they feel disenfranchised with the UK and the south of England in particular. (So does much of northern England too for that matter!)
There is more than a grain of truth in what you say, but my contention is that Britons in general feel even more disenfranchised in Europe than the Scots do in Britain. And a quick glance at an electoral map would show a sea, nay, an ocean, of Tory blue throughout England outside the major conurbations, ruled by a couple of Scots for 13 years.... :wink: It works both ways, you know!

The second paragraph is basically saying the rest of the UK knows better.
No, not knows better, but works better.
You have come across the same problems I have in trying to make any argument for a NO vote.
Not really; do you want me to expand on my opening sentence?

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Scottish Devolution

#408 Post by Nick » May 30th, 2014, 1:55 pm

lewist wrote:
Alan C. wrote:INDEPENDENCE!
We could also call it FREEDOM.
Hmmm... I continue to be puzzled by the SNP's policy of continuing to be shackled by the pound and by EU legislation. As Osborne told the Treaury Select Committee, they would be giving up any influence over major economic levers.

As the House of Commons is not sitting, I have been watching the Scottish Parliament this week. I'm jolly glad I'm not in Scotland (aprt from being so distant from my Scottish friends :wink: ), as every MSP seems to see an independent Scotland as an opportunity to create a tartan Shangri-la, generally based on wild optimism, government action and spending other people's money....

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Scottish Devolution

#409 Post by Nick » May 30th, 2014, 2:01 pm

lewist wrote:It's an interesting one, Nick. I would like to see England with a democratically elected government after our independence but as you say, the Scottish MPs would be in an odd position. Of course, English MPs have inflicted laws for us for 300+ years whatever we thought. The WL question works both ways.
Given that the 300 years started with the Scottish Stuart King James (I or VI) according to taste, and the absence of democracy for most of that period, I think that is stretching it! Furthermore, Scotland have, until recently, overwhelmingly voted Labour, and you've had your fair share of Labour governments, some, by virtue of Scottish votes, "imposed" on England.. And the WL question relates to asymetric voting, not minority rights, so doesn't really support your argument anyway. :)

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Scottish Devolution

#410 Post by Alan H » May 30th, 2014, 8:57 pm

Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:Scottish independence: Prof Patrick Dunleavy says Treasury claims 'ludicrous'
An academic has accused the Treasury of a "ludicrous" use of his research in its analysis of the impact of Scottish independence.

The Treasury claimed on Monday that research by the London School of Economics had put the cost of setting up an independent Scotland at £2.7bn.

It cited a study carried out by the school's Prof Patrick Dunleavy.

But Prof Dunleavy described the Treasury's claim as "crude misinformation".
I'm quite happy to accept that Prof. Dunleavy has been misquoted...
:hilarity: I don't know all the details, but it sounds a darned lot more than just being 'misquoted'!
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

lewist
Posts: 4402
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 8:53 pm

Re: Scottish Devolution

#411 Post by lewist » May 30th, 2014, 9:37 pm

Nick wrote:
lewist wrote:It's an interesting one, Nick. I would like to see England with a democratically elected government after our independence but as you say, the Scottish MPs would be in an odd position. Of course, English MPs have inflicted laws for us for 300+ years whatever we thought. The WL question works both ways.
Given that the 300 years started with the Scottish Stuart King James (I or VI) according to taste, and the absence of democracy for most of that period, I think that is stretching it! Furthermore, Scotland have, until recently, overwhelmingly voted Labour, and you've had your fair share of Labour governments, some, by virtue of Scottish votes, "imposed" on England.. And the WL question relates to asymetric voting, not minority rights, so doesn't really support your argument anyway. :)
James VI was long dead in 1707, Nick. Your history is confused. James VI of Scots became King of England in 1603. The Act of Union was in 1707. During that 307 years, English MPs have been in a huge majority and have enacted our laws. Tam Dalziell was talking about Scots MPs influencing English Laws that didn't affect the Scots. English
MPs have made laws for Scotland that didn't affect England all that time. Don't tell me that's fair, and not asymmetric!
Carpe diem. Savour every moment.

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Scottish Devolution

#412 Post by animist » May 31st, 2014, 8:20 am

lewist wrote:English MPs have made laws for Scotland that didn't affect England all that time. Don't tell me that's fair, and not asymmetric!
examples?

User avatar
Altfish
Posts: 1821
Joined: March 26th, 2012, 8:46 am

Re: Scottish Devolution

#413 Post by Altfish » May 31st, 2014, 10:00 am

lewist wrote:
Nick wrote:
lewist wrote:It's an interesting one, Nick. I would like to see England with a democratically elected government after our independence but as you say, the Scottish MPs would be in an odd position. Of course, English MPs have inflicted laws for us for 300+ years whatever we thought. The WL question works both ways.
Given that the 300 years started with the Scottish Stuart King James (I or VI) according to taste, and the absence of democracy for most of that period, I think that is stretching it! Furthermore, Scotland have, until recently, overwhelmingly voted Labour, and you've had your fair share of Labour governments, some, by virtue of Scottish votes, "imposed" on England.. And the WL question relates to asymetric voting, not minority rights, so doesn't really support your argument anyway. :)
James VI was long dead in 1707, Nick. Your history is confused. James VI of Scots became King of England in 1603. The Act of Union was in 1707. During that 307 years, English MPs have been in a huge majority and have enacted our laws. Tam Dalziell was talking about Scots MPs influencing English Laws that didn't affect the Scots. English
MPs have made laws for Scotland that didn't affect England all that time. Don't tell me that's fair, and not asymmetric!
Whilst I have some sympathy for this argument, Scotland IS still part of the UK and therefore under the UK parliament. Laws are made all the time that affect parts of the country in differing ways.

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Scottish Devolution

#414 Post by animist » May 31st, 2014, 12:04 pm

Altfish wrote:
lewist wrote: Tam Dalziell was talking about Scots MPs influencing English Laws that didn't affect the Scots. English
MPs have made laws for Scotland that didn't affect England all that time. Don't tell me that's fair, and not asymmetric!
Whilst I have some sympathy for this argument, Scotland IS still part of the UK and therefore under the UK parliament. Laws are made all the time that affect parts of the country in differing ways.
yes, I suppose the relevant point is that, even if Lewis comes up with examples of laws affecting Scotland only, they could in principle have affected England and Wales etc as well. The West Lothian problem identified by Dalyell arose because of the fact of devolution in Scotland but not England: therefore Scottish MPs are at present having two bites of the cherry, in a sense, voting in their own devolved parliament on issues assigned to that, but also voting in the UK parliament and thereby affecting the lives of the rest of the UK citizenry. It sounds a pretty good deal to me!

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Scottish Devolution

#415 Post by animist » May 31st, 2014, 1:13 pm

whether Scotland would have to join the euro in order to join the EU does not seem to be a settled question:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/rea ... n-the-euro

This sentence struck me as indicating the field day to come for lawyers: "The division of Czechoslovakia in 1992 required 30 treaties and 12,000 legal agreements."

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Scottish Devolution

#416 Post by Nick » May 31st, 2014, 3:11 pm

animist wrote:whether Scotland would have to join the euro in order to join the EU does not seem to be a settled question:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/rea ... n-the-euro

This sentence struck me as indicating the field day to come for lawyers: "The division of Czechoslovakia in 1992 required 30 treaties and 12,000 legal agreements."
The EU is quite capable of political solutions which go against reason, let alone treaties. But ISTM that Scotland is not going to find itself suddenly stronger, for being free from the yoke of the rest of the UK, when it comes to any negotiations with the EU.

stevenw888
Posts: 694
Joined: July 16th, 2010, 12:48 pm

Re: Scottish Devolution

#417 Post by stevenw888 » June 2nd, 2014, 11:37 am

Rather appropriate image on the side of the London to Edinburgh express train...
Attachments
Salmond.jpg
Salmond.jpg (39.92 KiB) Viewed 1045 times
"There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old, bold pilots." - From the film "Top Gun"

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Scottish Devolution

#418 Post by Dave B » June 2nd, 2014, 11:54 am

Oooops! (hee hee)
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Scottish Devolution

#419 Post by Nick » June 2nd, 2014, 5:13 pm

:pointlaugh:

User avatar
Altfish
Posts: 1821
Joined: March 26th, 2012, 8:46 am

Re: Scottish Devolution

#420 Post by Altfish » June 2nd, 2014, 6:02 pm

Marvellous what can be done with Photoshop

User avatar
Alan C.
Posts: 10356
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 3:35 pm

Re: Scottish Devolution

#421 Post by Alan C. » June 2nd, 2014, 9:40 pm

Still two YES votes here, :D
Yes Nick, Shetland, Orkney, and the Western Isles may well go for independence in the future but first things first eh.
With regards to the oil and gas, can I remind you all (again) there are currently 1,400 contractors here from South (and other places) building the new £80 million TOTAL gas plant and refurbishing the oil terminal to give it another 30 years service.
Westminster is terrified of losing Scotland, why would that be?
To hell (metaphorically speaking) with all you naysayers and doom merchants, most of whom won't have a vote anyway.
Keep your noses out of things that don't concern you. Thanks.
Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers.

Post Reply