2141 replies to this topic

[myles]

 

 

 

 

Just a question in this weird world, would Scotland be rated a third world country if it wins independence?    

  The Leaping Salmond will no doubt have factored in the income gained from being a Third World country into their budget. He isn't too proud to take money from other sources, much the same as he isn't too proud to keep taking money from the group of countries he is so keen to be separated from.  

 

  Go on then...make that make sense?   Scotland has 8.3% population and contributes 9.2% of GDP.   Tell me who is taking who's money again?   Do you think if we were such a burden and a weight around the neck of the UK they people looking at the balance sheets would be falling over themselves to get us to stay?    

 

So with all that in mind, we will be worse off if Scotland is devolved from the Union? I tend not to agree. Does that also mean that Scotland would be a wealthy country when unshackled from the freeloaders south of the Wall? I tend not to agree with that either.   It won't happen so we will never be able to see the true impact of the devolution.

 

It doesn't really matter what you believe. See above. Also we're already devolved. You mean independence.

 

As the matter of oil and gas is not yet settled (who it belongs to etc.) you can't use that as a makeweight. If we talk about figures without that, the GDP per capita is the same as the rest of the Union.

 

That's what I believe. You are right about one thing though; I meant independence. But it wont happen.

[LY_Scott]

Why would you remove it completely? 90% of oil revenue is from Scotland. But thanks for making my point. Even without it we are fine.

[myles]

Why would you remove it completely? 90% of oil revenue is from Scotland. But thanks for making my point. Even without it we are fine.

 

 

On paper. You intimated that the rest of the Union are not on a par with Scotland's input, you were wrong.

 

If this is such a good thing for Scotland, why is Salmond the only person that thinks so?

Edited by myles, 03 February 2014 - 11:14 AM.

[LY_Scott]

He isn't. The yes campaign is run by a former labour independent. All of the Scottish parties support independence plus Greens. The parties opposing are Labour, Tory, Lib Dem. There are also parts of the labour party in Scotland who are pro independence. The main bulk are toeing the party line. In 2016 when independence actually happens there will also be a general election in Scotland. Its not about Salmond. But its convenient to create a villain especially one who is as politically capable as Eck Salmond.

[myles]

I've seen figures of a 30-60% positive reaction to independence depending who is commissioning the poll. Lets call that 40-45% from a neutral perspective; is that enough to go ahead?

[techieboy]

You've gotta assume every "Yes" supporter will be motivated enough to vote on the day. Will the same apply to the "No" voters who may just rely on the status quo being maintained and not be as motivated. Likewise the probably large proportion of currently undecideds. If the numbers are that close, you've gotta hope for a high turnout or they may fall into independence by apathy (though I'm sure the SNP will claim that as a massive mandate).

[myles]

You've gotta assume every "Yes" supporter will be motivated enough to vote on the day. Will the same apply to the "No" voters who may just rely on the status quo being maintained and not be as motivated. Likewise the probably large proportion of currently undecideds. If the numbers are that close, you've gotta hope for a high turnout or they may fall into independence by apathy (though I'm sure the SNP will claim that as a massive mandate).

 

They need Dermot O'Leary to appear on TV telling people that they cant ensure their 'favourite won't go home' if they don't vote.

 

In all seriousness, it's difficult to gauge the strength of their opinion and the real result could be between 20-80%! Who is more dedicated to their cause, the 'YES' or 'NO' collective?

 

It makes absolutely no difference to me personally, I hark from the Scotland of the south, Plymouth!

[LY_Scott]

I've seen figures of a 30-60% positive reaction to independence depending who is commissioning the poll. Lets call that 40-45% from a neutral perspective; is that enough to go ahead?

 

51% is

 

Around 20% are undecided.

 

It's all to play for essentially.

[Mangham54]

Compulsory voting would be interesting - I have settled back from the discussions on here, as I am not well enough informed.

 

However, it does worry me that a minority who do vote (as does all political elections) can create a mandate for change / no change, that the rest of the country may not agree to.

[myles]

Compulsory voting would be interesting - I have settled back from the discussions on here, as I am not well enough informed.

 

However, it does worry me that a minority who do vote (as does all political elections) can create a mandate for change / no change, that the rest of the country may not agree to.

 

 

As LYScott rightly suggested above, 51% is the required amount to put the wheels in motion.

 

Apathy, as stated earlier, is democracy's biggest stumbling block. Whichever way the vote goes, I hope there is a high turnout so that there can be no complaint or argument against the result. If there is a lack of interest reflected in the number voting, a load of money will be wasted in a time when we can't afford to lose any more.

[LY_Scott]

 

Why would you remove it completely? 90% of oil revenue is from Scotland. But thanks for making my point. Even without it we are fine.

 

 

On paper. You intimated that the rest of the Union are not on a par with Scotland's input, you were wrong.

 

 

Still don't get what you are getting at here. You're essentially cherry picking things out until you reach your desired statistic?

 

90% of oil revenue comes from Scotland.

 

It's a bit like ripping the financial sector out of London and saying look...they have less money....

 

As I stated above even without you are saying we're on a par and even in a worst case of boundary manipulation we won't lose it all or even very much.

 

[techieboy]

You're essentially cherry picking things out until you reach your desired statistic?

Because your boys haven't done the same thing with as yet unknown liabilities in building their case?

[myles]

 

 

Why would you remove it completely? 90% of oil revenue is from Scotland. But thanks for making my point. Even without it we are fine.

 

 

On paper. You intimated that the rest of the Union are not on a par with Scotland's input, you were wrong.

 

 

Still don't get what you are getting at here. You're essentially cherry picking things out until you reach your desired statistic?

 

90% of oil revenue comes from Scotland.

 

It's a bit like ripping the financial sector out of London and saying look...they have less money....

 

As I stated above even without you are saying we're on a par and even in a worst case of boundary manipulation we won't lose it all or even very much.

 

 

So why are figures quoted both with oil and without oil? If the oil is without doubt yours, why would the figures be quoted without oil revenue as well?

 

Don't trim my quote then say I'm cherry picking........

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk...otland-24866266

 

 

 

From another site:-

 

'At the moment, money raised from North Sea Gas and Oil revenues goes into the UK's central government pot. The Scottish government argues that geography is crucial to this and has calculated the effect of North Sea revenues based on the UK's continental shelf.'

 

Scottish government argues..............just like you argue......therefore figures are produced with and without North Sea revenue.

[LY_Scott]

[LY_Scott]

I trimmed your quote because I'd already covered the other bit and to show what I was asking about ffs.

 

The status of who owns the oil isn't as often disputed as is it's longevity so it will show with both stats for that reason. The BBC aren't the best source for a neutral viewpoint either.

 

All tax goes into the UK government pot thats where tax goes for the whole of the UK, it's not unique to oil.

 

The UK's continental shelf obviously includes Scotland at present.

 

 

was for techie btw

 

 

[techieboy]

was for techie btw

As always. Happy to help.

[G-Bob]

The BBC are like all others though.  They report what they want to report depending on what side they are on.... that's the hard part for everyone as everything has a slant.  The ones that you think are balanced will no doubt be biased if you ask the better together people and vice versa.

 

Has anyone answered any questions about any share of the national debt.  I know there's the argument thatSCotland has paid it's fair share etc etc blah blah blah, but has anyone come out and said you will owe x%?

 

[LY_Scott]

Population share. So 8.3% of total is what I have seen. Being underwritten by rUK whichever way the vote goes.

[myles]

I trimmed your quote because I'd already covered the other bit and to show what I was asking about ffs.

 

The status of who owns the oil isn't as often disputed as is it's longevity so it will show with both stats for that reason. The BBC aren't the best source for a neutral viewpoint either.

 

All tax goes into the UK government pot thats where tax goes for the whole of the UK, it's not unique to oil.

 

The UK's continental shelf obviously includes Scotland at present.

 

 

was for techie btw

 

 

No sh*t Sherlock.

 

The problem with this discussion is you can't be objective about it, because of your affiliation. And as one of your countrymen says, 'I'm oot'.

[RabnaKS]

This lot

 

 Second World Country List   Country formerly part of: Region Albania * Southern Europe Armenia Soviet Union Western Asia Azerbaijan Soviet Union Western Asia Belarus Soviet Union Eastern Europe Bosnia and Herzegovina Yugoslavia Southern Europe Bulgaria   Eastern Europe Croatia Yugoslavia Southern Europe Czech Republic Czechoslovakia Eastern Europe Estonia annexed by Soviet Union** Northern Europe Georgia Soviet Union Western Asia East Germany   Western Europe Hungary   Eastern Europe Kazakhstan Soviet Union South-Central Asia Kyrgyzstan Soviet Union South-Central Asia Latvia annexed by Soviet Union** Northern Europe Lithuania annexed by Soviet Union** Northern Europe Macedonia, Rep. of Yugoslavia Southern Europe Moldova Soviet Union Eastern Europe Montenegro Yugoslavia   Poland   Eastern Europe Romania   Eastern Europe Russia Soviet Union Northern Europe/Asia Serbia Yugoslavia Southern Europe Slovakia Czechoslovakia Eastern Europe Slovenia Yugoslavia Southern Europe Tajikistan Soviet Union South-Central Asia Turkmenistan Soviet Union South-Central Asia Ukraine Soviet Union Eastern Europe Uzbekistan Soviet Union South-Central Asia
(Formerly) Communist States in Asia *** China   Eastern Asia Korea (North) Korea Ea

stern Asia Lao PDR   South East Asia Mongolia**** China, until 1921 Eastern Asia Viet Nam (North)   South East Asia

 

That's novel, all them countries 2nd world & Ireland 3rd! But wait. I just Googled Is Ireland 3rd world, which in my ignorance, I have always assumed it was about the economy of the country, because of how the media reported it, obviously.

Wikipedia helpfully informs us that the term Third World arose during the Cold War, when it referred not to economic development but to military and political alliances. So basically any country allied to the US was First World, any allied to Russia was Second World, and any neutral or non-aligned country (like us!) was Third World.

So there we go. Ireland is officially a Third World country. But not in the bad way.

It was certainly interesting asking the question. LOL