No to Scottish Independance

the snp want scotland to be uk's bitch.

if scotland got independance then the people of scotland would need their own boarder control, army, health service, police etc, also take their share of the national debt, refund the english taxpayer for bailing out rbs and hbos or cameron can move the rbs hq to london. this would meant the scottish people facing a massive tax hike to fund it all. the barnett formulea which calculates the funding scotland get should be scrapped since scotland already have the powers to raise their taxes.

alex salmond first wanted to keep the sterling which would mean the bank of england controling what the scots do. then he wanted was monarity union like the euro but if scotland go under like greece then england would have to bail out the scots.

they could become like falkland islands a protectorate of the uk which would mean scotland would have to pay england to protect scotland. this would mean scotland wont be in the eu, nato etc.

the problem with being in the eu is all the crap that gets done, stupids policies like this financial transfer tax the euro zone want which mean london being hit the hardest which is why cameron vetoed the eu financial package.

labour are against it because they would lose upto 30 odd seats in parliament therefore they would never be in government. labour have relied on the mps with scottish seats on getting policies through or blocked like when labour first introduced student fees the mps with scottish seats voted for it even though it wont affect scotland because in scotland its free uni for scottish students.

alex salmond is on a power trip and wants a war for independance.

i say stop the barnnett formula, mps with scottish seats cannot vote on policies which only affect england and wales and still be part of the uk.

(30-01-2012 22:58 )bigguy01 Wrote:  if scotland got independance then the people of scotland would need their own boarder control, army, health service, police etc

Check your facts. We've already got our own police. We've got our own health service service too - NHS Scotland.

(31-01-2012 09:47 )MacDanett Wrote:  

(30-01-2012 22:58 )bigguy01 Wrote:  if scotland got independance then the people of scotland would need their own boarder control, army, health service, police etc

Check your facts. We've already got our own police. We've got our own health service service too - NHS Scotland.

I am sure independence will be able to comfortably pay for all of that.

(30-01-2012 13:54 )southsidestu Wrote:  Alex Salmond has said that Scotland will keep the pound as its currency meaning that our Intrest and borrowing rates will be controlled by the bank of england.

Which would be nonsense. In reality independent Scotland would have no option but to adopt the euro – a case of out of the frying pan into the fire if ever there was one – or it would have to start its own Scottish currency, and very probably the latter given the strict economic rules that exist before any country can join the eurozone.

(31-01-2012 12:21 )sweetsugar007 Wrote:  

(31-01-2012 09:47 )MacDanett Wrote:  Check your facts. We've already got our own police. We've got our own health service service too - NHS Scotland.

I am sure independence will be able to comfortably pay for all of that.

Yes sure will. Norway is a similar country to Scotland in many ways and has a very similar population size, 4.9 million against Scotland's 5.2 million. Independent Norway has more than adequate policing and health services.

It does but it also has better employment, GDP and ridiculous taxation which is traded off for a heavily fortified welfare service. The Scandinavian countries do a lot of intra trading between each other.

They seem to think the gas and oil is the trump card.

Well, they'll run out in 70 years if that.

The ports dealing with them will just move to England because England wouldn't give up the oil fields, what they goign to do, fight for them?

(02-02-2012 17:33 )mellover Wrote:  The ports dealing with them will just move to England because England wouldn't give up the oil fields, what they goign to do, fight for them?

The oilfields don't belong to 'England' now, they belong to the UK. England doesn't have anything to give up.

As for the UK giving them up, the UK would have no choice and this has already been determined by the UN. The hypothetical Scottish share of North Sea oil is calculated by dividing the UK sector of the North Sea into separate Scottish and UK sectors using the international principle of equidistance laid down in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) - this has already been used many times by the United Nations for defining the maritime assets of newly formed states and for resolving international maritime disputes.

Scottish sector? Hows is this done? a line across the map? England is bigger than Scotland, unless of course ALL the oil fields so happen to lie upside of the boader.

But, millions have died over oil, doubt it would be given up that easy.

(02-02-2012 22:30 )mellover Wrote:  Scottish sector? Hows is this done? a line across the map? England is bigger than Scotland, unless of course ALL the oil fields so happen to lie upside of the boader.

But, millions have died over oil, doubt it would be given up that easy.

The UK is a signatory to the UNCLOS treaty, which places 91% of the North Sea oilfields in the hypothetical Scottish sector. The UK would have the remaining 9%, which would still fall within UK territorial waters.