Scottish Referendum question(s)

Fretwired

DiscoStu said:

johnnyurq said:

The better together lot have already noised up the Orkney & Shetland Isles about pushing for self determination in the event of a Yes vote and further splitting the vote, Call me Dave was up a few days ago reiterate this and to try and sew discontent.

Word from Shetland is that they have discovered the world's largest oil field and that was the reason for Cameron's visit. Oil workers have been sent home on full pay and told to keep quiet until after the referendum.

Hmmm.....

Unlikely as you couldn't keep it quiet and since the exporation is funded by multi-national companies they would have an obligation to tell their share holders. I don't believe it. The biggest threat to North Sea oil is fracking. The US and Russia have vast amounts of oil and Australia is sitting on more oil that Saudi Arabia .. they don't have the water yet. fracking is cheap .. North Sea oil is expensive and dangerous. It could become uneconomic.

fretmeister

TimmyO said:

Fretwired said:

Next war with France ... :-)

Yes but what about AFTER lunch...? 

War with Italy.

Still be home for an early supper.

suspiciousminds

Leave as is imo, i have scottish roots but if it means in the long term idiots like salmond have more of a say then its not good.
Although not an independance issue, the fact that he saw fit to get involved with Donald Trump is enough for me to have concerns.

ICBM

@johnnyurq has summed up pretty much what I think - and bear in mind I'm an Englishman living in Scotland.

I did think I would never vote for independence, but now I'm not quite so sure.

The huge question for me is what happens after *either* a yes or a no vote - my preferred option, an almost fully-devolved Scotland within a looser UK, and which also appears to be the choice of most people living here, has been deliberately not offered - but could actually be achieved by either route. If Scotland does vote for independence, the SNP wants a currency union which I believe the UK will never allow without other forms of formal "union" as well - they're not bluffing as Salmond claims. It's not in their interests to grant one without other forms of shared sovereignty - especially over immigration, defence and oil. So we may well end up not very far from where we started, technically independent although not in practice.

But the nightmare scenario is voting to stay in the UK and then the UK leaving Europe - which although unlikely, is possible. I'd rather be in an independent Scotland than that.

johnnyurq

VimFuego;311000" said:

DiscoStu said:



johnnyurq said:

The better together lot have already noised up the Orkney & Shetland Isles about pushing for self determination in the event of a Yes vote and further splitting the vote, Call me Dave was up a few days ago reiterate this and to try and sew discontent.



Word from Shetland is that they have discovered the world's largest oil field and that was the reason for Cameron's visit. OIl workers have been sent home on full pay and told to keep quiet until after the referendum.



Hmmm.....







you guys wanna be careful, we all know what happens to small countries with lots of oil who upset us...

EDIT: though the budget cutbacks will have an effect on the nature of the false flag event. It'll probably be a microlight flown into the Cleethorpes chamber of commerce office.

Yes the USA will annex and/or put boots on the ground for our protection.


Why does poor old Cleethorpes get it in these scenarios?

I thought that Scunny would by far be more popular for these events.

DiscoStu

The three phases of the Clair oil field just west of Shetland currently have around 7 billion barrels of oil. It is the news of a new fourth phase which has caused the stir, and could triple the field's size. The earliest mention of it I have seen is this post:

https://scontent-b-lhr.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/t1.0-9/10346470_538040806322946_3864459025832452564_n.jpg

Shetlanders have been investigating and many oil workers have been told they will lose their job if they speak about it, though information seems to be trickling through.

Cameron flew in to Shetland on July 22nd without telling the media. He then snuck out via a private airfield at Scatsta the next day.
He was photographed by locals with a telephoto lens when he landed.

https://scontent-a-lhr.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xaf1/v/t1.0-9/10013965_888211207858891_288545001876985622_n.jpg?oh=ac8b2ce2475afae3c0b80cb474c6fbcb&oe=544819E6

https://scontent-a-lhr.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/t1.0-9/10565175_888211314525547_8645452865718490919_n.jpg

https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xap1/t1.0-9/10513378_888211394525539_245792831165491924_n.jpg

https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xap1/v/t1.0-9/10526084_888211407858871_8264280334033452075_n.jpg?oh=afecc7757780eed959bea63ae1898372&oe=5440F3B0&__gda__=1412730476_f51c3a8519684b1a310430ed8b8a2297

This could change EVERYTHING.

DiscoStu

Hurricane have also found oil. Some are estimating 3 billion barrels.

http://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/idUKKBN0F10MQ20140626?irpc=932

ICBM

DiscoStu said:

This could change EVERYTHING.

No, it won't change anything - it will simply make the same question slightly more important.

If the new field has been developed with UK money then the same arguments about the share of it will apply as to the existing oil, it's just that there will be more money involved over a longer time frame.

I can understand why they would want to keep it quiet until after the referendum though. Anything Cameron says or does relating to Scotland increases the yes vote.

johnnyurq

Fretwired;311001" said:

johnnyurq said:

@Fretwired



Seriously I have read and watched various programs on it and that is exactly what happened and with France IIRC it was more threats than collusion.



Honestly go and look further into it and maybe watch the series Niall Ferguson among others did.



There was something on BBC 4 the other week where it was discussed and mentoined that although it would have most likely a disaterous overreach it was not given the chance.



The worry from England was that if it took hold we may have had a canal splitting USA & South America and would have been a different world if so, at least for a while in any case.










You'd better tell the Scottish education department whose website I posted the links to ... offending Spain which was the major power in South America was a major reason the small English colony did nothing. The English had their butts kicked many times in wars and battles in SA and were sensitive to the fact that Spain could kick England out of South America which happened in the end.

No offence but I will take the word of eminent History Profs and Economics Profs too as a source of reference.

It seems at that point in history England had more than enough clout to make it so.

Not that I am condemning England for it at the time as things were very different then and as I say we may have done the same with the upper hand.

More just pointing out that the simplistic version of events is always highlighted, ignoring the fuller picture. Things were shades of grey then as now to a lesser extent and events tend to get portrayed certain ways by those with axes to grind, ever has it been so.

That is why wherever possible I try to get the persepctive of any nuetral sources as far as our collective history is more than often reduced to simplistic and not wholly accurate versions.

To be clear I wasn't having a go at hungrymark or anyone here in this thread, only a couple have used it in a properly negative way on here.

Just wanted to use the invoking of Darien to give another angle.

But yes in fact the disaster however it came about created the climate for what came next as far as the Union came about.

Some members of the Stuart Dynasty also screwed the pooch by not carrying on with James VI & 1st plan to create a Great Britain of sorts as per his "Little Arthur" moiker some gave him.

It is interesting to speculate how different these Islands would be if the Stuarts hadn't gone all the King is above all and absolutist, not to mention the whole Catholicism thing.

DiscoStu

ICBM said:

DiscoStu said:

This could change EVERYTHING.

No, it won't change anything - it will simply make the same question slightly more important.

And that in itself changes everything. No voters could change their minds and the unsures/abstainers may very well take an interest.

The man on the left with the open jacket is Alistair Carmichael, the Secretary of State for Scotland. Why did they hush this visit?
https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xap1/v/t1.0-9/10526084_888211407858871_8264280334033452075_n.jpg?oh=afecc7757780eed959bea63ae1898372&oe=5440F3B0&__gda__=1412730476_f51c3a8519684b1a310430ed8b8a2297

ICBM

Yes, but it doesn't "change everything". It just makes the question of oil more important. It's the same question as it's always been, and the truth is that no-one has ever known the correct answer to it, not least because the total reserves are - and are still, even if potentially larger - unknown.

I doubt it will change anyone's mind, or not in large numbers - it's more likely to entrench the positions they already have.

In fact the correct answer to almost any of the financial questions is unknown with any accuracy, and hence it's totally spurious for either side to claim that people will be worse or better off with independence, particularly by artificially calculated amounts. It *all* hinges on the currency issue, fundamentally.

Fretwired

It's funny how when something like the Darien scheme goes wrong the English get blamed. The fact the scheme was based on the hearsay of one man who claimed there was fertile land and friendly Indians. The people that left were not prepared .. they had crates of beads and other tat to trade with the Indians and lacked the tools and knowledge to make a go of it. They found the land was infertile and the Indians were not as advertised. There were also attacked by the Spanish losing one ship which had her crew captured. It's true that the one English settlement in the area refused to trade, but that would have made no difference as it was very small and had limited supplies. The second ship that sailed didn't know about the first one and in the words of the clergyman who accompanied the trip the whole thing descended into a free for all with people fighting each other.

It failed through lack of preparation and understanding of what was required. As for building a canal that was not possible with the technology of the time - . I'd really love some hard evidence that the English sabotaged the endeavour which I have never read. Yes they threatened merchants but Panama was on the other side of the world. It's not they could have phoned Waitrose for a grocery order.

The East India Company didn't want the scheme to succeed and managed to get many of the English and Dutch investors to pull out but that's all they did. The Scots found the money anyway. It was a get rich scheme that went wrong.

Fretwired

DiscoStu said:

The three phases of the Clair oil field just west of Shetland currently have around 7 billion barrels of oil. It is the news of a new fourth phase which has caused the stir, and could triple the field's size. The earliest mention of it I have seen is this post:

Now let me see .. you're saying that a massive field has been found in Scotland and Fergus Ewing doesn't know about it? I don't believe it ...

johnnyurq

@Fretwired

FFS I am not blaming the English for it failing it clearly was ill advised and very likely to have failed, please show me where I galmed England entirely. But the meddling by England/East India Company (not forgetting privateers) ensured that if the initial hurdles had been overcome they had no chance of gaining a foothold.

English bankers and speculators even made money on it going tits up as is the wont of these types whatever country. A lot of them would have been set for life if it worked out.


Consider if it was the other way around I reckon we would have gotten get the blame full force. Such is the way of these things.

I already have conceded that it was a long shot of a venture but some of these bonkers ill advised ventures do come off on ocassion and England, the UK and the US have a few of these under the belt.

Fretwired

johnnyurq said:

@Fretwired

FFS I am not blaming the English for it failing it clearly was ill advised and very likely to have failed, please show me where I galmed England entirely. But the meddling by England/East India Company (not forgetting privateers) ensured that if the initial hurdles had been overcome they had no chance of gaining a foothold.

English bankers and speculators even made money on it going tits up as is the wont of these types whatever country. A lot of them would have been set for life if it worked out.


Consider if it was the other way around I reckon we would have gotten get the blame full force. Such is the way of these things.

I already have conceded that it was a long shot of a venture but some of these bonkers ill advised ventures do come off on ocassion and England, the UK and the US have a few of these under the belt.

Fair enough. I just find some of the anti-English/anti-Scottish rants tiresome. You get it the other way round down here .. "the English paid off the Scots [Darien scheme] debts and have been paying to them ever since" which is also a load of old bollocks.

thomasross20

No idea .. The factual coverage has been nonexistent. One things for sure - I don't want my savings to go down the pan!

johnnyurq

@Fretwired

No worries and FWIW I agree wholeheartedly anti whoever is shit and achieves nothing for either party.

We have similar twats here but thankfully are in the minority.

Look where harkng back to past glories/failures and who lived there first has gotten the Middle East and others.

Time to put it all to bed and sort things out sensibly wherever possible and the rest of the civilised world find ways of curbing the excesses of twatty nations, hopefully without resorting to wars to achieve it. Fat chance I know but a man can dream.

It all begins with drawing lines under old crap that is no longer relevant, whilst keeping an eye on past mistakes so we do not repaet them.

For the record my reasons for wishing for Independence are politcal, societal and to a lesser extent economic reasons. I am one of those leftiesd that woudln't be bothered if we were a bit worse off to begin with because it is incumbent upon us to build the society and wealth we would wish to have.

In the real world a fuller Devolution addressing the things on both sides that are genuinely problematic and in need of sorting. The West Lothian question would be an example of that. although it is not exclusive toi Scotland as if we gain Independence they will be discussing the Mid Glamorgan question or similar.

In any case the ordinary dirt poor ordinary Scots (with 2 cows ands 2 sheep LOL) at the time of Darien would have had no say or stake in it much like other ventures by other home nations over time. As usual those with the power, influence and cash have the final say and set the agendas, much like nowadays.

digitalscream

Rocker said:

What are the advantages/disadvantages to Scotland if they choose to go it alone and ditto if they choose to stay in the United Kingdom?

I think it's fair to say that the answer to that question is either "Nobody knows" or "Everybody knows", which - in this context - basically amounts to the same thing.

VimFuego

just want to clarify one thing, if it's a yes vote we get to give mags back?

johnnyurq

Nooo!!

We can trade some lovely blck oil for you keeping him.

Only jesting Mags, or am I. Yes I am actually.