1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Scottish Nationalists set for a majority

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by ThePirateHulk, May 6, 2011.

  1. RDM

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 1, 2007

    Posts: 20,213

    So if I have English parents but happen to be born in Scotland I am Scottish, but if both my parents are half Scot and I am born in England I am not?
     
  2. scorza

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jun 22, 2004

    Posts: 26,685

    Location: Deep England

    I don't know, it's a good question that may not be possible to have an appropriate answer for. You see the problem though? You're asking a question to only a segment of the population it affects.

    Any Scots who have settled in England have any thoughts on this? or are you happy that you'll be excluded from the vote, and presumably from automatically being a Scottish national if independence is obtained?
     
  3. ubersonic

    Capodecina

    Joined: May 26, 2009

    Posts: 20,670

    Yeah I share Bio's bemusement here, they would have their own oil so why would the need some of the UK's share?
     
  4. Biohazard

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Aug 29, 2003

    Posts: 31,334

    At this theoretical point in time I couldn't be more diametrically opposed to the parties principles if I tried.

    I am pretty much right wing, I do not want Europe and I want Scotland to be a republic.

    Unfortunately, Alex Salmond at the moment doesn't want what I want.

    I've spoke to him in person about this intellectual straight jacket as I see it - independence for Scotland to just hand it over to a the ever increasing EU state; but he does believe in those principles.. although I suspect it's the only way he can present it.

    Offering what I want to the electorate would probably have people shaking with fear with such drastic constitutional changes.

    State dependancy - quite simply grow the private sector. England et al have the exact same problem regionally.

    Free movement - Yes, I'd certainly move for it.

    I would expect to see not just Scotland, but all the constituent nations, to have a more prosperous future if we untangle ourself from this debt inducing union.
     
    Last edited: May 6, 2011
  5. Mr Jack

    Capodecina

    Joined: May 19, 2004

    Posts: 17,441

    Location: Kiel, Germany

    Are you seriously suggesting voting power should be based on geographic area and not population? Huh?

    Labour are winning because many more people have voted for them.
     
  6. scorza

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jun 22, 2004

    Posts: 26,685

    Location: Deep England

    All of the oil and gas in the North Sea is the UK's, not Scotland's as it was discovered in the '50s when the UK was the only sovereign state involved. Now if Scotland were to gain independence I would propose they would be entitled to a proportion of the revenue from that oil and gas equivalent to their "share" in the UK, let's say around 10% given the respective populations of Scotland and the UK minus Scotland.
     
  7. Biohazard

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Aug 29, 2003

    Posts: 31,334

    That isn't how it works I'm afraid. This is exactly why nationalism has been supressed, otherwise the apron strings would have been cut a long time ago. Scotland has a legal and rightful claim to its own waters and resources.

    But if it we are playing this game, we'll have northumbria back thanks very much. :p
     
  8. ubersonic

    Capodecina

    Joined: May 26, 2009

    Posts: 20,670

    Wtf?, that's not what im saying, im saying the opposite, it should be changed to make it population based :S

    Of course their winning because more people voted for them why else would they be :S
     
  9. RDM

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 1, 2007

    Posts: 20,213

    Are you really sure you want the North East? I am quite happy for you to take them, but Scotland will have enough problems to start without adding that burden to you! :D
     
  10. ubersonic

    Capodecina

    Joined: May 26, 2009

    Posts: 20,670

    Your both right and wrong, The oil fields in the North sea would not belong to the UK just because they discovered it, otherwise the oil fields in Texas would too lol. They would belong to both the UK and Scotland and both would get a share.
     
  11. scorza

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jun 22, 2004

    Posts: 26,685

    Location: Deep England

    The UK has a legal and rightful claim to its own waters and resources. If part of the UK wants independence then then the exact terms of devolution would have to be negotiated with Westminster.

    It's the when that matters - if oil had been discovered in the 17th century when Scotland was a sovereign nation then it would belong to Scotland. As it is, the oil was discovered in the 1950s, so the oil belongs to the UK.
     
    Last edited: May 6, 2011
  12. Tefal

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: Jun 30, 2007

    Posts: 66,560

    Location: Wales

    is that the full context though?


    Was there more like say he was saying that they were building up the services unsustainably to gain votes in the short term but it would all collapse eventually, kinda like labour have done.
     
  13. Biohazard

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Aug 29, 2003

    Posts: 31,334

    We have devolution, it's independence.

    Yes terms would have to be negotiated with Westminster but Scottish sovereignty would be an inevitable outcome. With a yes vote, the Scot's would be able to re-claim their territorial rights which include its resources.



    Ok, what ever you say. ;)
     
  14. ubersonic

    Capodecina

    Joined: May 26, 2009

    Posts: 20,670


    .........I can't tell if your being serious or deliberately silly, if Scotland becomes independent then the see of its coast is its waters no longer the UK's, like how Canadian/American waters end at the border, are you saying all the coal in India/Afghanistan belongs to us too? What about the oil in Libya? (that was discovered back when we were a colonial power there iirc)
     
  15. Biohazard

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Aug 29, 2003

    Posts: 31,334

    No, given the context of the interview and his previous musings it was just that.

    Spitting the dummy out because it 'isn't fair'.
     
  16. scorza

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jun 22, 2004

    Posts: 26,685

    Location: Deep England

    OK, all the off-shore oil and gas contracts in the North Sea will be between companies like Shell, BP etc and the UK government and will define how much revenue goes to the Exchequer in Westminster - Scottish independence does not change those contracts. However any negotiations for Scottish independence will include discussions on what proportion of that revenue Scotland is entitled to as part of its "shareholding" in the UK when the oil was discovered.

    Post-independence, for any new oil or gas discoveries in Scottish waters, contracts will be signed between the oil companies and the Scottish government, so the UK need not be involved at all.

    Hope that clears things up :) I'm afraid I don't know the details of the independence arrangements between the UK and India/Afghanistan or between Libya and the former colonial power there (Italy).
     
  17. Biohazard

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Aug 29, 2003

    Posts: 31,334

    Of course it doesn't, it re-directs the tax gained from it.

    The contract 'ownership' if would be transfered essentially, although Scotland couldn't and certainly shouldn't disturb them.

    It doesn't work like this, again.

    Priceless :D

    It clears up nothing to be fair.
     
  18. ubersonic

    Capodecina

    Joined: May 26, 2009

    Posts: 20,670

    Ahh, I see what you mean, if they oil companies have legal contracts then Scotland would be powerless to strip them of them (well they could do it but they would end up in court). However I believe the money would start going to Edinburgh not London, kinda like a new landlord buying a house with tenants, they don't keep paying the old landlord until their tenancy agreement is renewed.

    And before Libya was Libya it was three separate regions (much like the UK) called Tripolitania, Cyrenaica and Fezzan. As many news agency's seem to be pointing out Italy ruled them after WW2, however in between that and the formation of Libya Tripolitania and Cyrenaica were under British rule and the French controlled Fezzan.
     
  19. Biohazard

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Aug 29, 2003

    Posts: 31,334

    Scotland would have no reason to do anything like that though.
     
  20. ubersonic

    Capodecina

    Joined: May 26, 2009

    Posts: 20,670

    I know, well you would if Westminster decided to screw you out of the profit from the oil after an independence referendum but I doubt they would do that (only because of the bad press though not because I think their honest :p) I just thought I should point out that he'd managed to make [the correct part of] his point understandable as i'd been arguing with him :p