PM David Cameron backs Rangers and Celtic move to Premier League

[UCF2008 0]

Of course we don't - because we're not independent yet. You can't have a monetary system with a moneary system. That's like saying we can't be independent because we don't yet have our own embassies or armed forces.

 

Aside from going with the Euro should we gain independence we'd be reliant upon the three banks which hold the rights and facilities to produce Scottish currency, except one is owned by Lloyds, another by the UK government and the third by National Bank of Australia.

 

That's before even going into where we would actually stand in terms of National debt.

[UCF2008 0]

So, if I can summarise your case for remaining in the union it is this: Everything in Scotland is shit: we're controlled and owned by English and foreigners: we're powerless and subjugated .....and the best thing for us to do is to stay in this union that has resulted in the way things are today.

 

Here are a few *facts* to keep you going.

We contribute more to the exchequer than we receive - we subsidise the UK.

Scotch whisky alone accounts for 25% of *total* UK food and drink exports

Scotland accounts for 50% of european oil production

Oil has another 40 years at least to go before it runs out

We will account for 20% of total european renewable energy production by the mid 2020s

We have Europes 6th largest financial services industry.

 

First of all, I didn't say everything in Scotland is shit. Those are entirely your own words and not mine.

 

As for your *facts* - Even assuming they're accurate (of which I have some doubts) how much % of these wonderous resources can Scotland actually stake a claim to?

[UCF2008 0]

That's like saying we can't be independent because we don't yet have our own embassies or armed forces.

 

You'd be needing them unless you think they'd just hand back the oil rights as a parting gift.

[UCF2008 0]

This is all despite the fact that our invention, intellectual capacity, humanism, industry, and general on-the-forefrontism has been a cut above the rest of Europe consistently for the past 300 years.

Or at least until recently.

 

This part I completely agree with. Unfortunately these days many of our great minds don't fancy hanging around for much longer than it takes for them to get an education.

 

The fact that someone tells me that we are betrothen to an English handout because of our inadequacy sticks in my craw.

 

I don't get this. Where is this coming from?

 

They need us much more that we need them.

If the English have decided to use Rangers as a political pawn then shame on them.

It's not the first time in their history that they have played the divide and rule card.

 

Ironically in this respect Rangers need the union more than the union needs Rangers. In an independent Scotland who do you think would replace the monarchy? If you think the sectarianism issue is already skewed in it's political handling and press coverage, do you think that would improve for Rangers and us fans as citizens of an independent Scotland?

[The Real PapaBear 0]

I can assure you the information I have on that front was given some time ago by a reliable source. What information you can get on the issue now is sketchy to say the least, but since you name The Scotsman as being scottish media (which it still is ...for now) a quick look reveals Glasgow as having overtaken Edinburgh as a financial centre despite the both of them being in decline

 

Glasgow beats Edinburgh as financial centre

 

1. The source was not reliable - he was talking unadulterated mince, if that's what he said.

The City of London generates £40 billion profit; The entire Scottish financial services sector combined contributes £5 billion. One eigth of the size, and if Edinburgh is half of that, Edinburgh is one 16th of the size of London. Edinburgh has not declined to become 16 times smaller nor London become 16 times larger in the past 5 years.

 

2. The information on the subject is not sketchy, it is plentiful and easy to find.

3. Why are you talking about Glasgow? You claimed that Edinburgh was the financial capital of Europe and lost its top spot to London because of the crash.

 

Aside from going with the Euro should we gain independence we'd be reliant upon the three banks which hold the rights and facilities to produce Scottish currency, except one is owned by Lloyds, another by the UK government and the third by National Bank of Australia.

The current ownership of the bank which prints the notes becomes irrelevant after independence. We would have our own Central Bank, like every other independent country on earth. The money in would be printed by the Scottish central bank. Hopefully, however, we will be joining the Euro sooner rather than later and so the whole thing becomes moot.

 

That's before even going into where we would actually stand in terms of National debt.

 

Well, I have some good news for you, the Scottish share of UK national debt represents 46.3% of Scottish GDP, compared to 52.9% of GDP for the whole of the UK. i.e. we owe less per person, as well as contributing more, per person.

 

Our national debt would continue to fall as we would no longer be tied into criminally stupid and immoral foreign wars and we wouldn't have to continue to pay for the obscene waste of money that is Trident to name but two.

 

 

 

As for your *facts* - Even assuming they're accurate (of which I have some doubts) how much % of these wonderous resources can Scotland actually stake a claim to?

 

Oh, they are accurate. The resources are not wonderous, they are natural and they are ours.

90% of gas production and almost 100% of oil production lies in Scottish waters, internationally recognised and agreed Scottish waters. The wind is ours and the damns in the highlands are ours - so, we can claim 100% of our own natural resources. We are already entirely energy self-sufficient and once wave and tidal power are fully developed we will be sitting on a second boom, even bigger than the first North Sea oil boom.

 

I can understand the arguments for the union when presented from a cultural or philosophical point of view (disagree, but understand them) but there is no serious economic argument for staying in the union with England. At the very worst, we would find ourselves in the same economic situation we are in at the moment - but in all probability we would soon begin to resemble Norway, the other nation of 5 million on the other side of the North Sea, which is now just about the richest country on the planet, with the highest levels of public services and happiness levels of anywhere.

 

You'd be needing them unless you think they'd just hand back the oil rights as a parting gift.

Interesting. You're happy to stay in a union with people who you think would kill you to get our oil?

 

Ironically in this respect Rangers need the union more than the union needs Rangers. In an independent Scotland who do you think would replace the monarchy? If you think the sectarianism issue is already skewed in it's political handling and press coverage, do you think that would improve for Rangers and us fans as citizens of an independent Scotland?

 

Do I need to point out that it was the UK, Westminster controlled, HMRC that tried to kill us, that it was the UK, Westminster controlled, BBC that set the agenda and maintains that agenda against us and the UK Westminster controlled Lloyds that set the whole thing off in the first place? The establishment that you want to remain part of is the establishment that was largely responsible for the near destruction of the club.

[Bluedell 5,329]

So many assumptions claimed as facts., most of them wrong. The Nast will keep making up stuff over the next 18 months. It's already tedious.

[UCF2008 0]

1. The source was not reliable - he was talking unadulterated mince, if that's what he said.

The City of London generates £40 billion profit; The entire Scottish financial services sector combined contributes £5 billion. One eigth of the size, and if Edinburgh is half of that, Edinburgh is one 16th of the size of London. Edinburgh has not declined to become 16 times smaller nor London become 16 times larger in the past 5 years.

 

2. The information on the subject is not sketchy, it is plentiful and easy to find.

3. Why are you talking about Glasgow? You claimed that Edinburgh was the financial capital of Europe and lost its top spot to London because of the crash.

 

The figures are diverse between sources and do not remain static. As you can see from the article I posted, Scotlands financial centres are in decline and Glasgow is currently recognised as larger financial centre than Edinburgh.

 

You said that the worst effects of the recession were avoided in Scotland with Edinburgh still ranked 15th in the world. Yet the chief executive of the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce appears to claim the recession is the reason for Edinburgh falling almost 40 places on the global financial index to 59th. I think your SNP pamflet is a bit out of date TRPB.

 

The current ownership of the bank which prints the notes becomes irrelevant after independence. We would have our own Central Bank, like every other independent country on earth. The money in would be printed by the Scottish central bank. Hopefully, however, we will be joining the Euro sooner rather than later and so the whole thing becomes moot.

 

I think you'll find you're wrong here. Sure, the Scottish government could place it's assets in a newly established central bank. Ownership of the bank itself is not irrelevant as the cost for the government to go it alone would be huge.

 

 

Well, I have some good news for you, the Scottish share of UK national debt represents 46.3% of Scottish GDP, compared to 52.9% of GDP for the whole of the UK. i.e. we owe less per person, as well as contributing more, per person.

 

Our national debt would continue to fall as we would no longer be tied into criminally stupid and immoral foreign wars and we wouldn't have to continue to pay for the obscene waste of money that is Trident to name but two.

 

That's brilliant. Utopia is truely on the horizon. I can't be bothered arguiing with any of this. If your facts and figures hold up then that's great.

 

 

Oh, they are accurate. The resources are not wonderous, they are natural and they are ours.

90% of gas production and almost 100% of oil production lies in Scottish waters, internationally recognised and agreed Scottish waters.

 

Minus the 15% that the English stole in 1999. Do you think what remains of the UK would just sit back and let Scotland take the rest? We're talking about the largest industry in the UK here and a major contributing factor to those 'criminally stupid and immoral foreign wars' you referred to.

 

I can understand the arguments for the union when presented from a cultural or philosophical point of view (disagree, but understand them) but there is no serious economic argument for staying in the union with England. At the very worst, we would find ourselves in the same economic situation we are in at the moment - but in all probability we would soon begin to resemble Norway, the other nation of 5 million on the other side of the North Sea, which is now just about the richest country on the planet, with the highest levels of public services and happiness levels of anywhere.

 

I can understand why you think our future would be so rose tinted. The nationalist propeganda is effective.

 

Interesting. You're happy to stay in a union with people who you think would kill you to get our oil?

 

Facts of life mate. I'm not happy to stay in a country where people would kill me for my wallet or trainers either, but I don't see many options.

 

Do I need to point out that it was the UK, Westminster controlled, HMRC that tried to kill us, that it was the UK, Westminster controlled, BBC that set the agenda and maintains that agenda against us and the UK Westminster controlled Lloyds that set the whole thing off in the first place? The establishment that you want to remain part of is the establishment that was largely responsible for the near destruction of the club.

 

It took people of that mind a lot of time and effort to infiltrate those positions of power. They've had Scotland covered for a lot longer.

[Ergatrude 0]

I agree mostly with what The Real Papa Bear has to say here but I'm still pro-union. Whatever happened to the so-called "max-devo" option? Surely that option is/was win-win?

[UCF2008 0]

I agree mostly with what The Real Papa Bear has to say here but I'm still pro-union. Whatever happened to the so-called "max-devo" option? Surely that option is/was win-win?

 

I agree with a lot of what he's saying as well in principle. I just think the viewpoint he's putting forward is too heavily based on idealogy rather than reality. The facts and figures look great but they assume we can actually take everything that's rightfully ours. For the most part the politicians promises towards taking Scotland forward as an independent nation simply can't be delivered.

 

Getting back to the OP, what annoys me here is the way we're painted as northern invaders as if to say 'look at the Manchester riots. Potential Rangers fixtures against our smaller clubs are a recipe for disaster.'

 

Meanwhile the other lot are made out to be a group that need to be welcomed with open arms. That they just need to somehow be better integrated into British society .

[The Real PapaBear 0]

I agree with a lot of what he's saying as well in principle. I just think the viewpoint he's putting forward is too heavily based on ideology rather than reality. The facts and figures look great but they assume we can actually take everything that's rightfully ours. For the most part the politicians promises towards taking Scotland forward as an independent nation simply can't be delivered.

 

 

ideology rather than reality? Really?

 

The figures I quoted, from the UK govt, the (pre-SNP ) Scottish Government and other non SNP/independence sources *are* the reality. The only ideology on show here is your own, where everything you say comes from a pro-union standpoint. Your mind is made up already and you seem happy to dismiss any facts that don't support that position and make sweeping statements with little basis in fact.

 

You ignore the fact that we pay more and owe less than the rest of the UK and yet still ask how we would pay for an infrastructure that you say we lack. In fact, Scotland, like the rest of the UK, has one of the world's most highly developed infrastructures - we don't lack anything needed to be independent.

 

You ignore the fact that Scotland will be an exporter of energy for decades to come - irrespective of the territorial waters England stole under your unionist government - and that this industry, both carbon and renewable, will be a gold mine for a nation of 5 million. Christ, let's *give* England half the oil - we would still have far more than we need.

 

And then, once we're free of them, we can start to implement economic policies that suit our economy rather than the economy of south-east england.

 

For example, 15 years ago, we used to export more per head of population than either Japan or Germany.

True; look it up.

Then the 'boom' came and it was party time; the City of London was making billions every day.

 

Problem was, that they were selling 'services' and they needed the Pound to be as strong as possible so that they could make as much profit as possible. We, in Scotland, however, were making 'things' to export (food, whisky, textiles, computers etc) so we needed a weaker pound to help our exports.

 

Guess who got screwed on that one? Westminster allowed the pound to remain artificially strong for far too long. Result? Big banker's bonuses for them; job losses and factory closures for us.

 

Our manufacturing is now only half of what it was 15 years ago because the economic policies followed by Westminster were aimed at the services sector of England's south east and ignored the manufacturing base of the rest of the UK.

 

My conversion to the independence viewpoint comes as a result of looking at the facts and figures of the debate; it is a rational decision and nothing to do with ideology.

 

You actually seem to agree with the basis and facts of most of the points I make, - "The facts and figures look great but they assume we can actually take everything that's rightfully ours." - but dismiss the idea that we, well, can actually take everything that's rightfully ours.

 

You're right in one respect; my arguments are based on facts and figures and on the assumption that we will control what is ours and that international law will apply to us as it is applied to every other country.

 

If, on the other hand, we are to be denied what is rightfully and legally our and if international law is to be flouted and ignored, then, yes, your argument is the one which would be correct.