|
Post by bormes on Sept 25, 2014 16:50:12 GMT -1
Well, What a wee surprise this is? Scotland has just found an oil field larger than the previous largest one in Saudi!! Imagine, Could that mean WESTMINSTER and ALL her supporters who knew about this were actually lying? Surely NOT, surely our Prime Minister and all the negative NO people who pedal FEAR are so amazed at the wonderful opportunity for UK and English MP'S now to have the financial means to start motre wars since this massive find which can last for a couple of hundred years!! Just THINK what Scotland COULD have achieved with this sort of bonanza? Perhaps it still CAN? A wonderful find no matter what particularly IF it is used wisely UNLIKE the past!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2014 18:05:26 GMT -1
We KNEW they knew and tried to keep it under wraps.
Clare Ridge may possibly yield 100 years worth of energy, when the NO mob tried to convince all the oil would run out in 40 years.
Imagine, just imagine what Scotland could achieve with the taxation on that kind of resource. But NO kept trying to convince the naive that Scotland'd be the only country on the globe that got poorer with oil.
It beggars belief, it really does.
|
|
|
Post by democrat on Sept 26, 2014 9:15:08 GMT -1
|
|
|
Post by bormes on Sept 26, 2014 19:01:59 GMT -1
Well spotted Demo, Unfortunately unlike the amount of fear and lies put out over the two year process these wee gems you have posted do tell some of the story but as you obviously know it was NOT trumpeted and told to all and sundry, it has been put out like a wee afterthought in my opinion. Of course I am saying this as Westminster was crowing about this event as though it was a sudden new discovery only yesterday so perhaps if they had given much more information about it instead of telling us our oil will run out very soon and how volatile it is around the world maybe more people would not have been so scared and willing to take a chance? Perhaps not?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2014 20:09:26 GMT -1
Hi Demo, good to see a new member joining here, welcome. Would you agree that the NO campaign repeatedly stressed various oil experts, such as Sir Ian Wood's, opinion (which then strangely became fact....) that the oil will run out in about 40 years? As stated in one of the pieces you've quoted. This was supposed to be a linchpin argument against the economic calculations of a future independent Scotland, was it not? What do we make of this, from BBC News just two days ago---and safely after polling day, I wonder? www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-29342142
|
|
|
Post by democrat on Sept 26, 2014 22:12:33 GMT -1
Thanks for the welcome.
What I would agree is that during the referendum campaigning, both sides were equally to blame for misrepresenting facts in support of their own arguments. Why anyone would be surprised by that in the modern political environment is beyond me. It strikes me that Alex Salmond would have espoused any populist, simplified economic policy as long as he could have achieved his lifelong dream of Scotttish independence. Please don't be so blinkered as to think otherwise. Equally Alistair Darling, in one of the most ineffective political displays imaginable, would have exaggerated any perceived negative effect of independence to achieve his belief that Scotland was best served by the maintaining of the Union.
The reason I posted these links was to show that the information that you both suggest was suppressed, was most definitely in the public arena for the whole period of the referendum debate. That being the case why did we never hear the nationalists shouting from the rooftops that the unionists were keeping the truth from the electorate? If your conspiracy theory is correct then the current government of Scotland, with the full machinery of Holyrood within its control, have failed the nationalist cause spectacularly by failing to highlight a hitherto unknown oil find. Rather than that, however, I feel that the truth is there is no cover up but that this is one of many excuses being used to mask the failings of the Yes campaign to effectively campaign for Scottish independence.
Independence was within the grasp of those who sought it but the personality cult surrounding Alex Salmond and a decision to mask solid, reasoned arguments with a bland and populist white paper which left more questions than answers, ultimately cost the Yes campaign dearly. Remember this was no close contest, there was a majority of some 400,000 people supporting the status quo which is no mean majority in a country of our size. Against the backdrop of a hopeless, uninspired and insipid Better Together campaign, the nationalist cause was heavily defeated. Instead of using a scattergun approach to blame the tactics of the unionists for the defeat of the nationalist cause, a period of inward reflection would benefit your cause greatly. The fact that Nichola Sturgeon, with great difficulty, is trying to subtly distance herself from Alex Salmonds recent unilateral Declaration of Independence pronouncements should tell you all you need to know. His way is a failed path and she recognises it. She sees a more conciliatory approach of maintaining power at the next Scottish elections.
The defeat of the indepence campaign was not as a result of last minute promises of greater devolution, scare tactics by Better Together or David Cameron's eleventh hour lobbying of industry leaders. Rather it was as a result of a gross miscalculation of the economic and political intelligence of the Scottish electorate, a distorted belief that social media support for independence translated across the electorate as a whole and fatally, the use of Alex Salmond and to a lesser extent Nichola Sturgeon to be the public face of independence. You can argue convincingly that Alex Salmond made the referendum possible but at the same time his tendency to dismiss the genuine concerns of the Scottish electorate as scaremongering and his miscalculation of the real world political mood in the country has cost his cause dearly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2014 23:34:09 GMT -1
Great post, Demo, that raises the bar a notch or three! I'd not insult you with a very late Friday night knee-jerk response though: it's been a long, emotional week for us all, I think. So I'd like to come back to you on your salient points over the weekend. We all want the very best for Scotland, we just differ in how best to achieve it
|
|
|
Post by ozneil on Sept 27, 2014 5:04:31 GMT -1
Great post Demo Welcome
Another fiendish anti-Tory myth exposed!!!
Salmond lost me when he said you, the Scots, could use the GBP after independence. I knew that was economically irresponsible and he, being an economist, must have known that too so I started wondering what else was being said to sway the populace.
|
|
|
Post by bormes on Sept 28, 2014 7:37:42 GMT -1
How many countries use the GBP? The reason they continually lie about NOT using a union for the pound is purely political. The rest of the UK would not stand for the chancellor refusing to it if the SNP had won, it would have caused the UK to lose AAA It comes down to trust, there are experts on BOTH sides telling us which way to jump. I DO NOT TRUST WESTMINSTER, I in my lifetime have found them a rather disgusting bunch of LIARS. I am of the opinion that our LIARS are easier to control than the London LIARS. I am also of the opinion that whatever the amount of money removed from the North Sea will GO FURTHER being spent on 5 Million than it will being spent on 65 Million. I have read in the past answers to all the points put on here by various NO supporters, however I have read nothing new in any of them and as I said, I trust the YES people more than those who can support the warmongers who ignore foodbanks and give us the bedroom tax. I want a better country, whither wealthier or NOT. I do realise that NO supporters find that strange.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2014 18:00:49 GMT -1
Great post Demo Welcome Another fiendish anti-Tory myth exposed!!! Salmond lost me when he said you, the Scots, could use the GBP after independence. I knew that was economically irresponsible and he, being an economist, must have known that too so I started wondering what else was being said to sway the populace. Hmmm, thought you didn't care either way Of COURSE we would have achieved a currency union, Oz. The value of the pound and the UKE's credit rating are both underwritten by North Sea oil and gas. That, plus losing 10% of the UKE's population and 33% of its land mass, would have caused a serious crisis, so Westmonster threatened us with everything in their arsenal, including manipulating multi-nationals and 99% of the mainstream press and media. In the longer term,possibly 5 years down the line, and depending on the speed of negotiating Scotland's re-entry into the EU, the plan would likely have been to either form our own currency or perhaps join the Euro. Either way, what really upsets me is the total lack of faith in our own ability by those who voted NO.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2014 18:09:12 GMT -1
I am also of the opinion that whatever the amount of money removed from the North Sea will GO FURTHER being spent on 5 Million than it will being spent on 65 Million. I have read in the past answers to all the points put on here by various NO supporters, however I have read nothing new in any of them and as I said, I trust the YES people more than those who can support the warmongers who ignore foodbanks and give us the bedroom tax. I want a better country, whither wealthier or NOT.I do realise that NO supporters find that strange. As I said on the other thread there were multiple reasons why 45% voted YES. I'm interested to hear how the NO voters (or would-have-been NO voters...Oz! ) care to respond to those. As you say, Bormes, rightly--I doubt for a second, with our strengths, Scotland would have been worse off with Indy. Wealthy would be great of course (and we were accused of expecting Nirvana, a land of milk and honey etc etc etc) but I think most of us YES voters would be happy with a fairer distribution of our wealth, and decisions on how we invest in our best interests being made by OUR people, here in Scotland.
|
|
|
Post by ozneil on Sept 28, 2014 19:19:48 GMT -1
As I have said all along I dont know enough to form a definitive opinion but I thought Salmond was firing from the lip more often than not. The other mob were useless.
I made my decision years ago and voted with my feet. I left and came home.
|
|
|
Post by ozneil on Sept 28, 2014 19:29:18 GMT -1
You cant share currency where some one else (Bank of England ) controls the value and supply... Nowhere did they agree to sharing that function with you..... you are at the mercy of any whim.
as they say they have you by the b***s and can twist at any time
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2014 19:35:33 GMT -1
You cant share currency where some one else (Bank of England ) controls the value and supply... Nowhere did they agree to sharing that function with you..... you are at the mercy of any whim. Once again for the hard of hearing.... of course we would have got a currency union for the reasons I described above. I sure hope you're not just giving it any old knee-jerk response and not bothering to read what people here--who live here and are pretty conversant with the politics--- have to say? Please tell us why, in your view, a currency union would not have been a workable arrangement, Oz?
|
|
|
Post by ozneil on Sept 28, 2014 19:41:11 GMT -1
B of E controls the pound . THEY decide interest rates and can manipulate the value of the pound against other currencies. This effects your borrowing capacityamongst other things You dont have control You have to take it with no input.
Didnt the treasurer say they wouldnt let you have control of pound. You are right in one thing I have only paid cursory attention to whole thing ... It is interesting but to not absorbing so I have prob missed aboUt 75% of what was bandied about.
That is why countries have different currencies. We stopped using £ in 1810
The Euro is very interesting.
|
|