Latest post of the previous page:
Only the blue ones though.Altfish wrote:And dead parrots
Latest post of the previous page:
Only the blue ones though.Altfish wrote:And dead parrots
No, just better managed by the people that actually own them.Nick.
Indeed. The oil revenues are much much greater in Norway
We could also call it FREEDOM.Alan C. wrote:INDEPENDENCE!
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.Alan C. wrote:The oil and gas fields off Shetland have just been estimated to have another 30 + years lifespan
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.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".
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 wrote: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.Alan C. wrote:The oil and gas fields off Shetland have just been estimated to have another 30 + years lifespan
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?
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.Altfish wrote:Not sure it does, Nick.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?
The first paragraph is more an anti-EU comment than a pro-Union.
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.... It works both ways, you know!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!)
No, not knows better, but works better.The second paragraph is basically saying the rest of the UK knows better.
Not really; do you want me to expand on my opening sentence?You have come across the same problems I have in trying to make any argument for a NO vote.
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.lewist wrote:We could also call it FREEDOM.Alan C. wrote:INDEPENDENCE!
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.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.
I don't know all the details, but it sounds a darned lot more than just being 'misquoted'!Nick wrote:I'm quite happy to accept that Prof. Dunleavy has been misquoted...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".
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. EnglishNick wrote: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.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.
examples?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!
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.lewist wrote: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. EnglishNick wrote: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.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.
MPs have made laws for Scotland that didn't affect England all that time. Don't tell me that's fair, and not asymmetric!
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!Altfish wrote: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.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!
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.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."