Ally Posted June 20, 2006 Report Share Posted June 20, 2006 The oil revenue point has always interested me. Is it any more likely that we'd see any of it should Scotland gain independence? I'm not really convinced by the ownership through proximity argument. However, if this was the case then surely Shetland would be entitled to the lion's share over the rest of Scotland? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonaldM Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 Shetland would rightly get a lot more oil revenue that it does at present as would the rest of Scotland. Would you not prefer that the tax revenues gained from oil were allocated from Edinburgh than London? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ally Posted June 22, 2006 Report Share Posted June 22, 2006 Hmmm. Not sure. Can't say I've been exactly bowled over by Edinburgh's administrative powers (the parliament building being but one example). Having said that, I take your point about Scotland being richer through not having the money go further south, leaving us with a much bigger slice of the pie. However, I have read that we wouldn't necessarily have any legal right to the oil any more so than England. This chap mentions it on the Daily telegraph website : “The ‘Scottish oil’ argument is entirely wrong. Maritime boundaries between nations with adjoining coasts run out to sea along a line equidistant from those coasts. Most of it is therefore England's oil, and England contributed to Scotland's sclerotic Socialist economy by putting the oil terminals there. As England has been a loyal member of the Union (until shamefully abused by New Labours “Scottish Rajâ€) the point was never relevant.†If you ignore the bile about the “socialist economy†and New Labour’s “shameful abuseâ€, the point would appear to be quite valid, although I’d be interested to hear about it from a legal perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rasmie Posted June 22, 2006 Report Share Posted June 22, 2006 i thinkwe should let scotland have its independence. save us a fortune sending tavish to edinburgh all the time. med logum skal land byggja. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustMe Posted June 22, 2006 Report Share Posted June 22, 2006 Translates as "With laws land shall be built" . Poor show that I have never looked at the crest and wondered what the words meant. An independent Scotland within the EU might well work. There are enough small countries to form a small nation group so they do not get beaten to pulp by the French and the Germans. And it seems that English people are starting to realise that they are ruled by Scotland. Independent Shetland?.........for as long as the oil money lasts perhaps but with the fishing and the sheep falling victim not to EU conservation measures but to the growth of vegetarianism in the UK along with most nations in the western world I fear the long term prospects are bleak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonaldM Posted June 22, 2006 Report Share Posted June 22, 2006 I understand you point (Ally) about the current lot down in Hloyrood not exactly setting the world on fire with their adminsitrative prowess but we have to recognise the difference between the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive. If you disagree with the decisions made in Holyrood you can look straight at the Lib Dems and Labours. They form the Exectutive and they *should* take responsibility. I just can't sign up to a system that says Scotland should never govern itself or even want to do that but at the same time should host a massive aresenal of nuclear weapons decided elsewhere. It's wrong. The depopulation of remote mainland and Island communities is well recognised and this is happening on a larger scale in Scotland as it has done for hundreds of years now. Remember, Tavish Scott beleives that Scotland should always play second best to London. That said, the Steel Report as released by the Lib Dems shows that they are very persuadable should the prospects for independence get even rosier. I case in point would be immigration, I would be in favour of that policy being set in Edinburgh and not London. I think if that was the case the recent shenanigans with Sakchai would have never arisen. That would be to the benefit of everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wheesht Posted June 23, 2006 Report Share Posted June 23, 2006 More "independence", watered down maybe, is inevitable over the short term now we have a talking shop at Holyrood, whether Stan and the unionist brigade like it or not. The world changes, borders shift, the demographic make-up of societies move, it's a fact of human life. The country is no longer a white protestant enclave but a very, and increasingly so, multi-cultural mix of religions, non religious people and beliefs and I for one think that is a good thing. Ireland will become a single state through time when demographic make-up of the peoples living there allows the vote to go that way. That will signal the end of the GB union. The Scots will follow suit in time, which from a prosperity and economic angle may or may not be a good thing, but then Rome was a success was it not but still fell through social and demographic changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wheesht Posted June 23, 2006 Report Share Posted June 23, 2006 na an stan me boy if being toghether in the Great British union is good then it must follow that being in the Great European Union is even better could have the Marsiellaise as the Unions national anthem then everyone would have a good tune to play before the match and half the time spent waiting for the kick-off Now Penfold that alone is a very good reason to get rid of the dirg that is god save the little lady with the funny hat. The French know that a national athem should rouse you, not send you to sleep! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorro Posted June 23, 2006 Report Share Posted June 23, 2006 Personally I couldn't care if we're financially better off or not as an independent Nation. That shouldn't be what independence is about, IMO. Anyway, it'll happen whether we cause it or not. I strongly suspect England will vote Tory next time and that'll cause some fun between Westminster and Holyrood. Can't wait! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wheesht Posted June 23, 2006 Report Share Posted June 23, 2006 Personally I couldn't care if we're financially better off or not as an independent Nation. That shouldn't be what independence is about, IMO.quote] Can't agree with that Zorro. The last thing we would want is a finacially bankruprt backwater. Then again keep you mask on and get out on the rob! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorro Posted June 23, 2006 Report Share Posted June 23, 2006 Every other Country in the world strives for independence. Why not us? Something in the water maybe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ally Posted June 23, 2006 Report Share Posted June 23, 2006 The UK, it could be argued, is already independent so why simply shrink us down into smaller parts? To what extent should we keep going? The Nation of Grampian or perhaps Shetland as a country of its own? I understand why folk would want independence from a tyrannical, foreign country. But, beyond long dead historical differences and our obvious sporting allegiances, what’s the difference between an Englishman, a Welshman and a Scotsman (ha-ha)? Leaving aside the obvious racial stereotypes I can’t think of any. What difference in terms of upbringing, will a kid raised in Newcastle, Manchester or Inner-city London have from a kid raised in Glasgow, apart from accent? If the oil money didn't exist (and I'm still not 100% sure that we could get it), what would be the point? Mainland UK is one big island, why should it be broken up into separate countries completely independent of each other? I genuinely don't have any firm feelings on this one way or another; I'm just interested to hear what the arguments are and what makes people believe that a load of British educated politicians in Edinburgh would be any more use than a load of British educated politicians in London. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorro Posted June 23, 2006 Report Share Posted June 23, 2006 You seem to be getting things rather muckle sphincter fur elby, don't you think? We always were an Independent Nation in the past and we can be again. As for what the differences would be.....I strongly suspect that if Scotland were independent we wouldn't be fighting an illegal war right now. A war which, in the eyes of our 'enemies' at least, makes all of us legitimate targets wherever we go in the World. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Njugle Posted June 23, 2006 Report Share Posted June 23, 2006 In contrast to the rulership of England, the declaration of Arbroath in 1320 set the Monarchy as subservient to the people, responsible to them and ultimately replaceable. It is described as the Scottish Bill of Rights and may have been influential in the later US Bill of rights. A concept never accepted under English Law. Some info here particularly the bold print, and the Declaration's own website here In the greater scheme of things this is more a part of Scotland's quest for independance than oil revenue or the Poll Tax, it is because Scotlands heritage of liberty, justice and democracy pre-dates democracy in the UK in general. Indeed it proposed a democratic monarchy, powerful stuff! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorro Posted June 23, 2006 Report Share Posted June 23, 2006 ^ What he said ^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now