Scottish Independence

[scottish-guy]

Where to start?

1. Yes "the people of Scotland" means everybody who lives here - I've already told you that.
2. No, people who do NOT live here ought not to have "the wealth of Scotland" spent on them - I've already told you that. International aid excepted.
3. No, the people who do NOT live here ought not to have a vote - and they won't! The franchise in the Independence Referendum is determined by residency alone. Hence, Sean Connery (whom you cite) will not have a vote whereas an English person who lives in Scotland will (and quite rightly).
4. Being "anti-UK" cannot be racist - the UK is not a race - hello! - it is a man-made entity and I am against the entity rather than the nationalities within it.
5. I am a Nationalist - I am pro-Scottish. If I was a racist I would be against people who shared my nationality but who were of a different race or ethnicity - you know - like YOU are.

Now, the last time you made a fool of yourself I generously told you to go get some advice and come back with some comments which stood up to scrutiny - but you've failed again, and I think I know why:

I suggested that you ought to go off and consult your mentor.
But it's clear you misunderstood me - obviously you went off and consulted somebody mental-er.

However, I'll give you brownie points for perseverance. To borrow Arsenal's analogy, you're like the boxer who's already been on the canvas several times but keeps struggling to his (shaky) feet because he doesn't know when to throw in the towel.

And I'll give it only a very short time before you re-appear with more barely literate outpourings. Despite saying you were leaving 3 comments ago (I count the last comment as actually being 2 comments because you went back and added more drivel to it)

:occasion9:

[timmberty]

my drivel isnt any worse than your drivel ...
the is no difference between being a nationalist and a racist.
still im glad to know you are happy to get out of this man made entity called the u.k. but are more than happy to remain within the man made entity called the e.u.
bty who is my mentor?

oh added on bit.. people who live in scotland, i.e. people of scotland, the ones who are there as illegal immigrants, they get to vote too being as they live there ? or is it racist to stop them from doing so ?

p.s. you almost forgot to add the ' except for international aid' woulda been a bit racist.
what is the snp's view on international aid ?

[scottish-guy]

No difference between a Nationalist and a Racist?

Are you sure?

Was Thatcher a racist then? In your expert opinion.

To answer your point on illegal immigrants voting in the Referendum - what an idiotic question! They're hardly likely to be on the Electoral Roll.

:occasion9:

[timmberty]

the u.k. and the e.u. ??? come on stop answering the easy ones ... i throw them in to make you feel clever ..
but as always you only answer the bits you want to.
explaine the difference between the u.k. and the e.u.?

and illegal immigrants .. no they aint on the electrol roll, cause they shouldnt be there ... you might make out you are happy for tax payers money going to them, but somehow i dont think you will be winding down your window to give the scum bags money at the traffic lights when they make the screen filthy.

[scottish-guy]

What's the difference between the UK and the EU?

You're peddling the UKIP argument.

Anyone who believes that Brussels would exert greater control over an independent Scotland than Westminster currently does also believes that a person who joins a darts club loses more personal autonomy than a granny whose arm was twisted into giving power of attorney to an avaricious relative who proceeded to raid the bank account and flog off the family inheritance before putting arsenic in her Ovaltine.

The only difference between Scotland under Westminster and a whodunnit is that we already know whodunnit. We don't need Hercule Poirot to tell us it was Westminster.

1. Brussels does not collect all UK taxation and then decide how much it's going to give back. Westminster does that to Scotland.

2. Brussels doesn't even set the rate of VAT, Westminster does that.

3. Brussels doesn't have the power to insist we keep nuclear warheads on the Clyde. Westminster does that.

4. We wouldn't have had to ask Brussels for permission to regulate our broadcasters, but we had to ask Westminster's permission to set up a Gaelic language TV channel, because Conservative MPs from Surrey need to be consulted before punters in Portree can watch Gaelic soaps.

5. Brussels wouldn't have been able to commit a Scottish defence force to the invasion of Iraq, but Westminster tells us what countries we'll go to war with (illegally).

6. Brussels doesn't have the power to tell us how much the state pension for the elderly would be or what administrative hoops disabled people have to go through in order to get benefits, only Westminster does.

7. If the UK (via Cameron) goes ahead with plans to hold a referendum on leaving the EU, there would be an outcry if Brussels decided it would determine the timing and question of the vote, yet that's exactly what Westminster wanted to do in Scotland.

Is that enough? Want more?

Here's some - you asked what was the SNP policy on International Aid:

http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news...g-world-issues

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/h...n-aid.19897958

When you've digested that - could you please answer my previous question - do you think Thatcher was a racist?

:occasion9:

[timmberty]

no thats fine ... the e.u. is a man made entity that you like because in your opion would favour scotland
whilst the u.k. is a man made entity that you dislike because in your opion it doesnt favour the scots.
so the fact its man made really isnt the point what-so-ever, its more about what you will get.

bty, you have told me i dont have a clue what im talking about .. well you are right not only do i not know i also dont care,
i just knew you wouldnt be able to let go, like a rottweiler. but thanks for the laugh.
so easy to wind up.. good luck with your vote win or lose, i shall be many miles away from this spetic isle.
just for you :occasion9:

sadly i just had to look .... HUMZA Yousaf, the man who would be Scotland's foreign secretary.... local lad? now i know why you are so proud to be scottish !!!!! arty

[Surfcrest]

I also struggle to see any valid comparison between the Irish economy - which is a overwhelmingly a knowledge economy - and the Scottish economy which is rich in natural resources (not least an estimated ┬г1.5 TRILLION worth of oil) and which would help to rank an Independent Scotland 6th in the world on GDP per head (according to OECD figures) - compared to what would be the UK's 16th place (on the same figures).

When the oil finally runs out (and despite UK Treasury scaremongering there's no sign of that - capital investment in North Sea Oil is running at record levels and those guys know a damn sight more that agenda-driven UK ministers) then Scotland is well placed to be a world leader in renewable energies - on target to generate 100% of all our requirements from renewable sources by 2020 and already a net exporter of energy (unlike the UK). Food and Drink exports are at record levels and, with the explosion in Asian markets, will only rise. Inward investment in Scotland is also a success story and Scottish Development International are judged one of the most successful international development agencies in the world.

Unfortunately, if you were to closely study the Oil issue as you present it (In terms of Scottish wealth) you are in a unique location in terms of marketing. It would be difficult, if not problematic to believe that from a geographical stand point your most likely best customer (in the event of independence) would not be.....England. And because they most likely have a sizeable investment in the projects in Scotland already...with other international firms...the best you could hope from the resource would be tax revenues and unfortunately again...these percentages are based capped or limited by the international price of crude oil.

Next, with respect to oil prices....is that we are currently surfing on yesterday's demand for crude, with existing reserves. Todays, or more importantly tomorrow's demand will take into consideration all of the adjustments that have been made in primarily the auto sector since 2008 to reduce consumption. Maybe I am wrong, but I see demand for crude and especially prices to stall...if not fall somewhat over the coming years. Unless you can remain competitive for the Chinese demand for oil or refined products through the Grangemouth Refinery, I don't see the most promising market for you. Even though Grangemouth is quite an aging refinery (2nd oldest in the UK), heavy Chinese investment in the past 5 years...combined with the fact that the refinery only really serves Scotland, Ireland and North England (With the exception of refined chemicals going to China Petrolneas), means some significant re-investment is going to be required

And so, while the resource...where it sits represents a promising future for Scotland in terms of future revenues and economic spin-offs (Especially Aberdeen)...it will require refineries and a transportation infrastructure to get it to market. All of these costs will off-set the direct benefits...putting money in the pockets of the multi nationals, such as China, Germany, Canada (Suncor)...and indeed England.

This whole independence question is not unique to the UK or even Spain. We too struggle with the very same question in terms of our French province Quebec. Certainly, both Canada and Quebec realize the tremendous costs and economic uncertainty for both of us if we head down the path of Quebec Independence someday. Quebec, believes they have the upper hand in terms of the hydro electric impact they provide to the region and indeed to the North American power grid. What they sometimes fail to see is that this market was created by the government they want to succeed from and that investment into these projects didn't necessarily come from Quebec.

From Scotland's independence, I can see there might be quite some debate as to who really has the rights to North Sea Oil, once independence happens...which will only create uncertainty for investors in both Scotland and the UK...which could very well make this dream of independence all the more unaffordable.

Where we in Canada have found the most success with this question is in allowing Quebec to feel more a part of our National Government, to feel represented in the say of the greater good of the country, rather than to remain focused on their own plight. We, the rest of the country does indeed spend a great deal of money appeasing the French....making decisions for the good of their economic health...than say what is good for Canada (And some of these decisions were quite wrong), but it was for the good of our combined economic health...both Canada and Quebec.

For many of us, especially in the business sector....realize that if we did not make these sacrifices...for the sake of our own less advantaged family member (Quebec), that our own economic fortunes would be adversely affected...so it remains, the right thing to do. Hopefully, whether it's the Scots, or the Basques or the Catalans...or even Taiwan, to a certain extent....will see it that way.

Any good investor wouldn't put all of his / her chips into one Sector, oil. Investment has to be diversified to create real long term wealth, jobs and tax revenues. If Scotland really believes she has the potential to go it on her own, beyond the oil she sits above....then let's show the world the bigger vision!

Surfcrest

[scottish-guy]

Bye Timmy.


[attachment=0:225jlglr]timmyonthecanvas.jpg[/attachment:225jlglr]

[timmberty]

very good .. after 2 years you finally made me laugh ..
a solid left hook from, HUMZA Yousaf.

[scottish-guy]

Thanks for that Surfcrest - only in the minds of the UK Govt and SGT admins does a trillion dollar national asset become a liability.


:sign5: