Crosswords4 mins ago
If The Rest Of The Country Had A Vote On Scottish Independence ….
88 Answers
…. do you think the ‘Ayes’ would have it?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The Bank of England was set up - to the plans outlined by William Paterson (a Scotsman!) - in 1694. That was a couple of decades prior to the Union Of the Parliaments, so it was NOT "set up by the UK, for the benefit of the UK", though it is now a jointly-owned asset of all UK members.
And where does the nutty idea that Salmond imagines "its entire stock will be transferred to the newly independent nation" come from? The plain fact is that, if he wins, the oil-stocks below the area allocated to Scotland WILL belong to that new nation! In any case, the major income from oil is in the form of the various taxes the exploration and drilling companies have to pay. Post independence these would clearly find their way into Scotland's Treasury, not Westminster's after a 'Yes'.
And where does the nutty idea that Salmond imagines "its entire stock will be transferred to the newly independent nation" come from? The plain fact is that, if he wins, the oil-stocks below the area allocated to Scotland WILL belong to that new nation! In any case, the major income from oil is in the form of the various taxes the exploration and drilling companies have to pay. Post independence these would clearly find their way into Scotland's Treasury, not Westminster's after a 'Yes'.
DTC, I seem to remember in an earlier thread that you claimed the residents of that area were delighted at the prospect of the Tridents heading down there; positively wetting themselves, they were. At the time, I drew to your attention the varied negative aspects of such a move, so don't say you weren't warned!
Jomifl, there are long-lasting 'National' political parties in countries all over the world, so it is not the case that "the whole point of the SNP will have vanished" after a yes vote. Salmond will doubtless feel that his party still has much to offer the Scottish 'nation'.
As regards Shetland and Orkney becoming independent, that is a whole other matter and, I'd guess, about as likely as independence for the Channel Isles. Even if that came to pass, I can but recommend that you look at the map I provided a link to earlier and referred to several times throughout this thread to see how much oil would be theirs.
As regards Shetland and Orkney becoming independent, that is a whole other matter and, I'd guess, about as likely as independence for the Channel Isles. Even if that came to pass, I can but recommend that you look at the map I provided a link to earlier and referred to several times throughout this thread to see how much oil would be theirs.
http://
sounds like they don't want it.
sounds like they don't want it.
In what way, Jourdain, do the Northern Islanders have "far more in common with the Norse than the Scots"? Their Norse connection extended from the 9th to the 15th centuries, whilst their Scottish connection extended from then until now. Those are six-century periods in both cases, with the latter being vastly closer in time.
I very much doubt that - if DNA tests were done on all the islanders today - they would be found to have more Scandinavian genetic traces than Scottish or whatever other incoming people there may have been in over half a millennium.
I would never dream of disputing their Scandinavian heritage, but they speak what amounts to a Scots dialect, not a Norwegian one. Yes, it has a Scandinavian lilt to it, but a form of Norse it ain't!
So, as regards genes and language, I imagine they owe more to Scotland than to Norway.
I very much doubt that - if DNA tests were done on all the islanders today - they would be found to have more Scandinavian genetic traces than Scottish or whatever other incoming people there may have been in over half a millennium.
I would never dream of disputing their Scandinavian heritage, but they speak what amounts to a Scots dialect, not a Norwegian one. Yes, it has a Scandinavian lilt to it, but a form of Norse it ain't!
So, as regards genes and language, I imagine they owe more to Scotland than to Norway.
Hmm. While there was tin, coal and other minerals under the rUK, Scotland was quite happy to benefit from them; but now those assets are mostly depleted and the Scots have the majority share of the oil, independence seems to hinge strongly on the economic arguments that flow from that - despite the fact that independence is forever and the oil will last decades at best. It would be like Cornwall going independent when they had all the tin. Nice for them then, maybe, but it wouldn't be so good now!
I find it sad that economics plays such a large part in the discussions. We have stood alongside, fought alongside and died alongside each other for centuries. The question at a personal level is simply whether or not a Scot wants to continue being British, i.e. an emotional question more than a financial one.
If it does come down to finances then I can't see that the rUK and particularly the English have much to fear. For example, if the rUK feels it has been hard done by Scottish independence, do you really see it continuing to buy Scottish goods - including travel to Scotland - in the current volumes? OK it cuts the other way too, but the rUK outnumber the Scots by over 10:1. The rUK needs to be happy, or the Scots will suffer.
Also, it looks like if the Yes campaign does somehow win, it will be by a few % at best, i.e. still around half the eligible voters didn't want it. Is it really worth all the political, financial and emotional risk and upheaval for that? If I was a Scot and a losing No voter I would feel very disenchanted to see my country ripped apart when I and nearly half my compatriots didn't want it. Sad to say that, whatever happens in the vote, a lot of Scots will be unhappy afterwards.
Anyway, they're a non-Scottish Brit's views. I don't get a vote - not yet, anyway - but if I did, it would be No ...
I find it sad that economics plays such a large part in the discussions. We have stood alongside, fought alongside and died alongside each other for centuries. The question at a personal level is simply whether or not a Scot wants to continue being British, i.e. an emotional question more than a financial one.
If it does come down to finances then I can't see that the rUK and particularly the English have much to fear. For example, if the rUK feels it has been hard done by Scottish independence, do you really see it continuing to buy Scottish goods - including travel to Scotland - in the current volumes? OK it cuts the other way too, but the rUK outnumber the Scots by over 10:1. The rUK needs to be happy, or the Scots will suffer.
Also, it looks like if the Yes campaign does somehow win, it will be by a few % at best, i.e. still around half the eligible voters didn't want it. Is it really worth all the political, financial and emotional risk and upheaval for that? If I was a Scot and a losing No voter I would feel very disenchanted to see my country ripped apart when I and nearly half my compatriots didn't want it. Sad to say that, whatever happens in the vote, a lot of Scots will be unhappy afterwards.
Anyway, they're a non-Scottish Brit's views. I don't get a vote - not yet, anyway - but if I did, it would be No ...
Well, of course, Ellipsis, "Scotland was quite happy to benefit from" earlier UK resources; that's because it was - as, indeed, it still currently remains - part of the UK. Whyever would they not have benefited in those circumstances?
However, the referendum is about the possibility of Scotland's leaving the UK. Should that happen, the sea areas surrounding the UK will be divided by the international maritime authorities between Scotland and the Rump UK. Such a separation will be based on national borders, coastlines and so on.
The oil under the North Sea will probably dwindle away in a matter of decades, as you say, but BP, Chevron, Total and other major oil companies are all investing hugely in developing the North Atlantic fields for no other reason but that they see potential there. That's why "independence seems to hinge strongly on the economic arguments".
Indeed, in my opinion, it is precisely these arguments that drive the Westminster government to try to prevent independence. Why? Because the Rump UK would have no access to that region, having no contiguous coastline.
As for your question, "Do you really see it (the Rump UK) it continuing to buy Scottish goods - including travel to Scotland - in the current volumes?" Yes, I do. They're surely not going to start buying English whisky! Nor will they stay away from the grouse moors and the magnificent Highlands, which are unlike anything elsewhere.
Having said that, I agree that it should be an emotional rather than a financial decision. I myself believe that it would be a desperate pity if the residents of Scotland refuse this once-in-a-lifetime or once-in-centuries opportunity to become a proud independent nation once more.
However, the referendum is about the possibility of Scotland's leaving the UK. Should that happen, the sea areas surrounding the UK will be divided by the international maritime authorities between Scotland and the Rump UK. Such a separation will be based on national borders, coastlines and so on.
The oil under the North Sea will probably dwindle away in a matter of decades, as you say, but BP, Chevron, Total and other major oil companies are all investing hugely in developing the North Atlantic fields for no other reason but that they see potential there. That's why "independence seems to hinge strongly on the economic arguments".
Indeed, in my opinion, it is precisely these arguments that drive the Westminster government to try to prevent independence. Why? Because the Rump UK would have no access to that region, having no contiguous coastline.
As for your question, "Do you really see it (the Rump UK) it continuing to buy Scottish goods - including travel to Scotland - in the current volumes?" Yes, I do. They're surely not going to start buying English whisky! Nor will they stay away from the grouse moors and the magnificent Highlands, which are unlike anything elsewhere.
Having said that, I agree that it should be an emotional rather than a financial decision. I myself believe that it would be a desperate pity if the residents of Scotland refuse this once-in-a-lifetime or once-in-centuries opportunity to become a proud independent nation once more.
QuizM - I buy British and often go out of my way to do so. I look for the Union Jack, or "Made in Great Britain", or similar, on labels and product descriptions. I deliberately choose British brands. Many other people in Britain and around the world do likewise. An independent Scotland would not have this, so even if I (and the rest of Britain and the world) didn't deliberately go out of my way to avoid Scottish goods, I would end up avoiding them by following this policy. And if I was really unhappy and actively chose to go out of my way, well ... let's say I could buy more British Bushmills and less Scots' Laphroaig than I do at present. ;)
But I'm happy to agree that it should be an emotional rather than a financial decision.
But I'm happy to agree that it should be an emotional rather than a financial decision.
Well, good luck to you, Ell, with your 'Buy British' concept. To be honest, I haven't even heard that slogan for many years and - seeing all the foreign products advertised on TV, Japanese cars on the streets and what have you - guessed it had all but disappeared.
The phrase, 'Great Britain' was coined - perhaps even by King James VI/I himself at the union of the crowns in 1603 - to indicate the whole island from John o' Groats to Land's End. It would, therefore, be a total misnomer for the Rump UK to go on using the words after any 'Yes' vote. Indeed, I cannot see how - given that one of the only two kingdoms involved will have left - they can even continue speaking of the 'United Kingdom'. But, I suppose these two points are just linguistic!
Finally, if you're happy to give up Laphroaig for Bushmills, what can one say?
The phrase, 'Great Britain' was coined - perhaps even by King James VI/I himself at the union of the crowns in 1603 - to indicate the whole island from John o' Groats to Land's End. It would, therefore, be a total misnomer for the Rump UK to go on using the words after any 'Yes' vote. Indeed, I cannot see how - given that one of the only two kingdoms involved will have left - they can even continue speaking of the 'United Kingdom'. But, I suppose these two points are just linguistic!
Finally, if you're happy to give up Laphroaig for Bushmills, what can one say?
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.