Reading the Sainsbury's Christmas catalogue, I came across this monstrosity: Scottish salmon with cranberry and apricot stuffing and a honey and citrus glaze. If they'd advertised that three months ago, the Scots would have unanimously voted for independence when seeing what the English were doing to their produce.
All very defeatest reading these comments but nothing positive The Tories are simply managers of finance beyond the capability of any previous labour government The labour party simply does not offer a viable option To be positive and gain a party that actually considers and plans and impliments for the entire population we need a challange from a genuine socialist party It can happen for instance the only ever truly socialist party succesful in Government occured in Sweden but it took the vast majority of the population to to understand the need and the across the board losses and gains
[video=youtube;5ZrtOM7CicM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZrtOM7CicM&feature=player_detailpage[/video]
http://www.heraldscotland.com/polit...bc-ahead-of-tv-seven-leaders-debate.121898550 Alex Salmond ramps up pressure on BBC ahead of TV seven leaders' debate
Nick Robinson querying Salmond on how well an independent Scotland would be doing right now with the price of oil + the Euro as their currency. Comedy gold in the making.
It's a very stupid question as Scotland would not be Independent right now even if a yes vote had prevailed.
The answer is of course if Scotland were Independent (which it actually would not be atm even if it had voted YES) it would be considerably better off and that, as was explained MANY TIMES during the course of the referendum is because the Scottish economy is not reliant on oil. We would be better off even if we had NO oil, the oil is a bonus. Right now we would have to borrow to prop the industry up just as the UK is doing.
I don't wish to reopen this whole debate again as nobody is going to change anybody else's point of view. However, in my view, this is far closer to the facts. http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article49032.html
The Standard report that Londoners are strongly opposed to the SNP holding the balance of power. A bit rich for people who have repeatedly voted for Boris Johnson...
If you say you don't want to debate this and then post an extremely biased site you can expect there to be a comeback. The problem of the oil price fall in Scotland is the effect in Aberdeen the oil capitol with oil companies backing off because of fall in profits. With a change in the tax regime this has been stopped. A Scottish government would have reacted quicker than Westminster did as has been made clear by the SNP as soon as the price fell. Scotland is not dependent on oil but Aberdeen is atm. This site prints very clearly the spending per capita throughout the British Isles highlighting that SCotland spends more it fails to mention that Scotland raises £800 pounds per capita MORE than England, this means that Scotland would have been £8.3 Billion better off if Scotland had been an Independent country. Scotland has generated more tax per person for the past 33 years. The bias is clear and to talk of lies from the SNP is rich conisidering the spin on this article. Any intelligent person can look up the figures for themselves provided by central government. The argument that Scotland would be poorer Independent is simply untrue and a reversal of the true position. Westminster has cost Scotland £64 Billion in UK debt interest that it did not need in other words Scotland has been financing Westminster mismanagement. Over the last 5 years Scotland had lower deficits than the UK. Scotland's average deficit has been 7.2% while the UK deficit has been 8.4% Scotland's public spending is 42.7% of Scotland's GDP the UK in the same 5 years has spent 45.4% of it's GDP. And on and on in nearly all measure of public finance Scotland would be better off as an Independent country.
It's late here. I'll go through the figures tomorrow. But the basic figures given on that site tie in pretty much with what my contacts in The City tell me. In short, I don't believe it to be particularly biased.
Sorry NSIS you can't get much more biased than the CITY when it comes to Scotland. The City is one of the major reasons for wanting Scottish Independence. Two major reasons Westminster & The City. Not necessarily in that order.
Two very bad ideas were to create a monetary union without a national one, and to respond to a crash with austerity measures.The dollar and China have skyrocketed because Europe has taken careful aim and shot itself in the foot, twice, with those two policies. Without a world government, capital will continue to play one country off against another. I'll get off my soapbox now.
Why? It's fairly From my personal experience, there are also very, very good and highly intelligent economists working there too. The vast majority of these guys are not biased in any way. They simply interpret what the figures and trends are indicating. In our discussions of some six months ago, when I was over there, the opinion was that with oil at $100+ Scotland would struggle, at today's price, it would be an economic basket case.
and as has been pointed out twice already, Scotland would not be Independent TODAY. The handover would take 2 years.
We can only comment on today's prices, unless you know what the price of Oil will be in 18 months? The flaw is that Oil could be at today's price and the discussion is therefore what the impact on self government would be IF that was the case on Independence day. If we accept Spurf's view, that the Oil revenue has no bearing, then fine. If you think the new State would rely on the revenue from Oil, then the fact that it MIGHT be as low as today is worth discussing. Surely?
On the contrary, its not me who's guessing what the price of oil will be in 18 months, I'm merely stating a simple fact, today's prices are irrelevant
And their forecast is for the oil price to stay low for the foreseeable future. That includes the next two years and more....