One Word Post - Should Scotland Be An Independent Country? Yes Or No.

[The Jukebox Rebel]

Also - if we don't get independance then (ala my signature) i want to start a campaign about amalgamating scottish football with english football - on the basis of being part of the same nation state - that i have banged on here many a times on this forum!!

Hiye hiye hiye... you've taken that too far...

[Guy Incognito]

Oh mrD, why did you have to mention the 'o' word to Norgethistle? It's like asking Uncle Albert to tell you one of his war stories.

[Norgethistle]

Oh mrD, why did you have to mention the 'o' word to Norgethistle? It's like asking Uncle Albert to tell you one of his war stories.

Well as the "o" word is my bread & butter of course I'm interested especially as my supply base takes in both Scotland and England. The response was more on forced nationalisation of private companies which I think is wrong

[mrD]

Well as the "o" word is my bread & butter of course I'm interested especially as my supply base takes in both Scotland and England. The response was more on forced nationalisation of private companies which I think is wrong

 

It's not really forced, The old rhetoric has always been "it's scotlands oil" - does this only have meaning in terms of a question of nationalism - ie between england and scotland - as it has been framed in the past by the snp - ? or is it a question of whether a natural resource which is part of scotland's territories should be for the benefit of the scottish people? A deal between the soverign state of the UK and private companies regarding resources that are part of the scottish territories should surely be looked at if soverignty became organised according to scottish line instead - this is no different to the question of renegotiating the fishing waters with the EU which has been a long term part of SNP policy, where it has been argued that the UK's negotiationoary outcomes has been to the detriment of the scottish fishing industry.

 

If full nationalisation of the oil was somethign that perhaps benefited the people of scotland, then it would surely be daft to not look at that as a possible strategy for getting revenue to implament a social-democractic programme. To see that as a possible option is not, despite the hyperbole, going down 1917 grounds, its an outgrowth of what it means for the proposition of the scottish people being sovereign over the territories of scotland, in outcome.

 

The property rights given to private companies agreed between the UK and the oil companies is not some kind of confirmation of basic lockean natural right, as if it was something inalienable granted down from God Himself - it is simply an agreement between one polity and a private companys stewardship of the polities resources. If a new polity came into being, it is not bound to the agreements made by the old polity, and for it to look at matters again for its members interest does not thus result in usurping some kinda sacred inalienable right granted by God.

 

Obviously private companies have invested time and resources in developing the oil fields, hence why it would probably be understandable and perhaps moral to go about negotiating some kind of settlement to cover investment costs in contemporary oil fields and oil fields they have done survey work on etc. But as for covering the costs of their historic investments, i don't see a case for recompensing them for something that they have already profited from.

Edited July 3, 2014 by mrD

[mrD]

Hiye hiye hiye... you've taken that too far...

 

I have, in the past, made great cases for that. I guess its because i don't take much stock of being scottish as some kinda identity in the way that those who support the national team may do at times. for me, in the independance question is about having a poltical arrangement that gives the ordinary punter a wee bit more power; if we don't get it then there is no nationalist sentiment in me wanting to preserve a football arrangement which has been designed around the hegemony of the old firm, with outcomes of years of having 5 fixtures against livingston per season OR if we are really lucky managing to get 5 against Kilmarnock (as we have currently!).. Nah, give me possibilities of league 1, league 2, who knows maybe the championship playing against a whole plethora of great historic teams as well as the scottish ones under an amalgamation arrangment. Not to mention playing against liverpool in the FA cup. Who knows we might be in a position to compete with the likes of scunthope united over lyle taylor as being part of a british football league!!!

Edited July 3, 2014 by mrD

[Norgethistle]

 

 

It's not really forced, The old rhetoric has always been "it's scotlands oil" - does this only have meaning in terms of a question of nationalism - ie between england and scotland - as it has been framed in the past by the snp - ? or is it a question of whether a natural resource which is part of scotland's territories should be for the benefit of the scottish people? A deal between the soverign state of the UK and private companies regarding resources that are part of the scottish territories should surely be looked at if soverignty became organised according to scottish line instead - this is no different to the question of renegotiating the fishing waters with the EU which has been a long term part of SNP policy, where it has been argued that the UK's negotiationoary outcomes has been to the detriment of the scottish fishing industry.

 

If full nationalisation of the oil was somethign that perhaps benefited the people of scotland, then it would surely be daft to not look at that as a possible strategy for getting revenue to implament a social-democractic programme. To see that as a possible option is not, despite the hyperbole, going down 1917 grounds, its an outgrowth of what it means for the proposition of the scottish people being sovereign over the territories of scotland, in outcome.

 

The property rights given to private companies agreed between the UK and the oil companies is not some kind of confirmation of basic lockean natural right, as if it was something inalienable granted down from God Himself - it is simply an agreement between one polity and a private companys stewardship of the polities resources. If a new polity came into being, it is not bound to the agreements made by the old polity, and for it to look at matters again for its members interest does not thus result in usurping some kinda sacred inalienable right granted by God.

 

Obviously private companies have invested time and resources in developing the oil fields, hence why it would probably be understandable and perhaps moral to go about negotiating some kind of settlement to cover investment costs in contemporary oil fields and oil fields they have done survey work on etc. But as for covering the costs of their historic investments, i don't see a case for recompensing them for something that they have already profited from.

 

To explore, drill, commission an oil field costs millions, Sometimes with no return this isn't fair to snap this back from a company and it's share holders, some who are ordinary people

[mrD]

To explore, drill, commission an oil field costs millions, Sometimes with no return this isn't fair to snap this back from a company and it's share holders, some who are ordinary people

 

The risk of not getting a return on an investment is the nature of the beast that is capitalism. At least getting the costs covered - adjusted for inflation, means no real loss.

[ChewinGumMacaroonBaaaz]

Not really a non-sequitor if the underlying premises are around the political and economic direction that westminster has taken since thatcher has led to the kind of rising inequality that leads to the phenomena of more foodbanks. When one looks at whats on offer between the parties there is no divergence from the neoliberal consensus and thus corresponding prospects of an increasing immiseration amongst those of us who haven't done well out of the post thatcher years.

 

I think what motivates a lot of people to vote yes is the possibility of shifting policies in a different direction and the powers that exist within develotion are probably not suitable for going in that direction. (for example welfare policy is a reserved matter). Going towards a beveridge style welfare state including full employment is most definately not possible under devolution.

 

Now whether such choices are also constrained by wider 'structural' matters is another question, but even if one accepts that there are constraints from the way the global economy is structured, this does not negate the idea that national soverignty should be used in a fashion that at least amilierates the social ramifications of such policies or indeed challenges such a state of affair (albeit as a small nation with limited clout in the international arena). For those of us who are motivated by such concerns there are absolutly no prospects of such policy directions being undertaken in the UK.

 

As for all the chat on this forum about the overarching need to 'balance the books' as the only worthy imperative of consideration for economic policy - all i can say is no thanks! If keynsianism is totally unsustainable, fair dos but id much rather start looking for alternative ways of going about how we produce and distrubute our goods and service rather than the ideas we have in circulation at the moment in westminster.

 

 

"absolutely" ... you let yourself and your ideology down there.

 

e.t.a. I am not referring to the spelling mistake.

Edited July 11, 2014 by ChewinGumMacaroonBaaaz

[mrD]

 

 

 

"absolutely" ... you let yourself and your ideology down there.

 

e.t.a. I am not referring to the spelling mistake.

 

What are you referring to there?

Edited July 11, 2014 by mrD

[ChewinGumMacaroonBaaaz]

What are you referring to there?

 

Your putting of all the eggs in the one basket.

[mrD]

Definitely not it's merely an opportunity to go in a slightly different direction away from the neoliberal consensus - nothing more nothing less. The struggle to build a society directed by the people around the needs of people is going to be a long arduous struggle irrespective of the result of this referendum.

[ChewinGumMacaroonBaaaz]

Definitely not it's merely an opportunity to go in a slightly different direction away from the neoliberal consensus - nothing more nothing less. The struggle to build a society directed by the people around the needs of people is going to be a long arduous struggle irrespective of the result of this referendum.

 

So do you retract the view that there is "absolutely no prospects" in the advent of a No result?

[mrD]

Absolutely no prospects within the Westminster model. If you can point to a counterpoint to neoliberalism in the Westminster set up I'm all ears

[ChewinGumMacaroonBaaaz]

George Galloway M.P.

[PAISLEY-JAG]

Believe!

[mrD]

George Galloway M.P.

 

Ah I see - you are just trolling. Oh well - onto the ignore list you go

[Norgethistle]

Definitely not it's merely an opportunity to go in a slightly different direction away from the neoliberal consensus - nothing more nothing less. The struggle to build a society directed by the people around the needs of people is going to be a long arduous struggle irrespective of the result of this referendum.

 

In otherwise communism

[ChewinGumMacaroonBaaaz]

Ah I see - you are just trolling. Oh well - onto the ignore list you go

 

... what's neoliberal about George?

 

.... Dennis Skinner M.P.

Edited July 15, 2014 by ChewinGumMacaroonBaaaz

[mrD]

In otherwise communism

 

Well to be fair, i havent hidden my politics on this thread or elsewhere. but thats really not what the independance debate is about (for most people) - so i won't derail this thread any further into a discussion of the merits of an economy predicated on the explotation of people versus an economy designed to suit peoples wants and needs. going back to independance,, i think a lot of people can be social democratic and think that independance would be a useful part of realising that vision and im sure that people can be fans of old hayek and think independance would be a useful part of realising that vision. if independance happens, political debate will be very interesting across scotland, thats one thing we can be pretty sure about.

Edited July 15, 2014 by mrD

[ChewinGumMacaroonBaaaz]

Won't be very interesting if people ignore the counterpoints.

[Jaggernaut]

Are people looking forward to the Salmond vs. Darling tv debate?

[jaggybunnet]

Are people looking forward to the Salmond vs. Darling tv debate?

 

not really. it will be the usual bluff and bluster with little substance from both sides, so two hours of shouting at each other with no actual information being given out.

[P-R]

Will certainly be watching, I'm sure it will be better managed than the Sturgeon vs Lamont "debate" earlier on in the year

[Jaggernaut]

not really. it will be the usual bluff and bluster with little substance from both sides, so two hours of shouting at each other with no actual information being given out.

 

You might be right about that.

[Norgethistle]

Are people looking forward to the Salmond vs. Darling tv debate?

 

Salmond used to be a great debater, but recently has went for the "Bluff & Bluster" when asked a pressing question, Captain Darling is not the most exciting to listen to but is steady although quite teflon coated at times too.

 

I would like to see Salmond accept the interview with Andrew Neil on Sunday Politics but he has refused as has he to debate on the BBC, I don't think tonight will answer any questions unfortunatly