By: Bob
- 19th September 2014 at 18:01Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
People in Orkney and Shetland (and the Western Isles for that, though they were nearer 50/50) feel as isolated from Holyrood as most Scots felt from Westminster. Maybe why they voted No. Exchange one set of out of touch politicians for another...
By: charliehunt
- 19th September 2014 at 20:29Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
People in Orkney and Shetland (and the Western Isles for that, though they were nearer 50/50) feel as isolated from Holyrood as most Scots felt from Westminster. Maybe why they voted No. Exchange one set of out of touch politicians for another...
Scottish Nationalism is an anathema to Orcadians and Shetland Islanders. They have been a Nick Clegg outpost since before he was born!!
By: Bob
- 19th September 2014 at 21:15Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Orkney and Shetland have stronger bonds with Norway than with Scotland. It manifests itself in a different attitude to outsiders - maybe more liberal and so they have a more 'welcoming' demeanour which many observe. I recently helped someone with arrangements for filming in Orkney (with a Norwegian crew) and he was amazed at how nothing was too much trouble while making reservations and during their time filming. He'd also lived in Norway so was aware of the similarity between the two countries. I have a brother living there and have visited many times. I actually prefer the place to the mainland...
By: charliehunt
- 19th September 2014 at 21:23Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I couldn't agree more Bob. I have many friends and have been visiting since the early 70s although have not managed the journey for three or four years now. And I really miss the islands. I know Orkney better but like Shetland better - for the scenery and birdlife.
By: Amiga500
- 20th September 2014 at 10:39Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
This thread is about the aftermath of the Scottish referendum.
What aftermath?
There is no aftermath - nothing substantial will change and the weasels will roll back on their weasel words.
Well, I suppose there is an aftermath if you count the discontent of the "yes" voters that will be increasingly able to point to non-action on the "promises" made pre-referendum.
By: charliehunt
- 20th September 2014 at 12:10Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Quite correct - "post mortem" is the thread title - nevertheless it's certainly nothing to do with WW2, which was the point of my post!
Oh, I think the effect on the campaign and the vote will be felt for many months. And at the end of it all if Scots get more devolved powers including a degree of tax raising and the Lothian and Barnett problems are resolved then it will all have been worthwhile for all - except for a minority rump of ardent nationalists who are destined never be satisfied.
By: Creaking Door
- 20th September 2014 at 12:41Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Why not give Scotland a kind of trial 'independence' within the United Kingdom; the Scots already have far more 'power' than anybody else in the United Kingdom through devolution.
The only real links with the United Kingdom would be defence, currency-union (that an independent Scotland wanted to keep anyway) and the universal agencies of the United Kingdom: passports, Foreign Office, DVLA and so on.
Give them all the damn oil revenue and any other tax revenue from Scotland but cut any other form of subsidy from England (obviously excluding the massive bailout that the Scottish banks enjoy!) and then let them see something of the reality of being an independent country...
...maybe then Scotland would appreciate the benefits of the Union instead of constantly moaning and demanding more powers!
By: Creaking Door
- 20th September 2014 at 14:31Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
But I want Scotland to stay part of the Union because there are benefits that we cannot get any other way. Most notably the security of our northern border and airspace; not a big deal today but who knows in the future? Our currency, the pound, also benefits from Scotland's contribution; the fewer people who use the pound the more marginalised that currency would become.
However, the rest of the United Kingdom, and by that I mean England, pays for these benefits; it is a price worth paying in my opinion but it also benefits Scotland.
Blimey! Could the Union actually be 'win-win' for England and Scotland!
By: charliehunt
- 20th September 2014 at 15:14Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
But I want Scotland to stay part of the Union because there are benefits that we cannot get any other way. Most notably the security of our northern border and airspace; not a big deal today but who knows in the future? Our currency, the pound, also benefits from Scotland's contribution; the fewer people who use the pound the more marginalised that currency would become.
However, the rest of the United Kingdom, and by that I mean England, pays for these benefits; it is a price worth paying in my opinion but it also benefits Scotland.
Blimey! Could the Union actually be 'win-win' for England and Scotland!
I should have thought the Union always has been and and remains a win win!! "Trial independence within the the UK" is surely an oxymoron.
To my mind giving Scotland more tax raising powers so that the, by the creator's admission, out-dated Barnett Formula is scrapped and answering the anomaly of the West Lothian Question gives succour to both sides.
By: Creaking Door
- 20th September 2014 at 18:29Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I should have thought the Union always has been and and remains a win win!! "Trial independence within the the UK" is surely an oxymoron.
Not a trial-independence as such; rather a nominal rearrangement of tax 'borders' so that Scotland would get all the oil-revenue and with, as you say, a scrapping of the Barnett Formula, Scotland's true independent financial position would be clear. No United Kingdom agencies would need to be broken-up but Scotland, for example, would have to fund all the benefits that Scotland enjoyed (specifically tuition-fees and prescriptions). Scotland would agree to match defence spending as a percentage of GDP and would have the full backing of the Bank-of-England but borrowing would be kept separate and paying-back (and funding) borrowing would be the responsibility of each individual nation.
Maybe Scotland would find out that it was possible to build a much 'better society' with only the benefit of a few billion pounds of oil tax-revenue? But if Scotland didn't then maybe the Scots would appreciate what they gain from the Union without first having to lose it (forever). And none of us would have to suffer the chaos, and undoubted serious financial costs, that a proper irreversible break-up of the Union would inevitably cause.
By: charliehunt
- 20th September 2014 at 19:29Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Interesting ideas but if there is one currency there is one lender of last resort and one arbiter of fiscal policy.
Two years ago the Barnett benefits exceeded oil revenues and that imbalance will only widen as revenues continue to fall as forecast by every disinterested industry specialist.
And the Lothian Question has to be addressed.
By: Meddle
- 20th September 2014 at 22:00Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What's all this to do with the Scottish Referendum:confused:
I dare say Salmond has shown his true colour by choosing to quit on the spot. Whilst hardly surprising, if he really had the interests of us Scots at heart then he would be sticking out his term. Perhaps history shows this is always the case, I'm not knowledgeable in this regard. I really do not look forward to having Sturgeon as our next leader. Again, Salmond was the only good orator in that party, whilst Sturgeon squawks out smug platitudes and hyperbole with neither wit nor sophistication. I was lucky enough to catch her on Daily Politics failing to answer any questions whilst giving it the duh, its obvious rhetoric.
Posts: 8,983
By: TonyT - 19th September 2014 at 17:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well he's fallen on his Claymore, Dirk, Caber and quit, the only bad news is that annoying woman will now move to the fore
Posts: 3,566
By: Bob - 19th September 2014 at 18:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
People in Orkney and Shetland (and the Western Isles for that, though they were nearer 50/50) feel as isolated from Holyrood as most Scots felt from Westminster. Maybe why they voted No. Exchange one set of out of touch politicians for another...
Posts: 9,823
By: J Boyle - 19th September 2014 at 19:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sorry, I took the bait from Edgar and his usual "the Yanks show up late nonsense">
The real story of today is the Scottish news....
Posts: 11,141
By: charliehunt - 19th September 2014 at 20:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Scottish Nationalism is an anathema to Orcadians and Shetland Islanders. They have been a Nick Clegg outpost since before he was born!!
Posts: 3,566
By: Bob - 19th September 2014 at 21:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Orkney and Shetland have stronger bonds with Norway than with Scotland. It manifests itself in a different attitude to outsiders - maybe more liberal and so they have a more 'welcoming' demeanour which many observe. I recently helped someone with arrangements for filming in Orkney (with a Norwegian crew) and he was amazed at how nothing was too much trouble while making reservations and during their time filming. He'd also lived in Norway so was aware of the similarity between the two countries. I have a brother living there and have visited many times. I actually prefer the place to the mainland...
Posts: 11,141
By: charliehunt - 19th September 2014 at 21:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I couldn't agree more Bob. I have many friends and have been visiting since the early 70s although have not managed the journey for three or four years now. And I really miss the islands. I know Orkney better but like Shetland better - for the scenery and birdlife.
Posts: 3,566
By: Bob - 19th September 2014 at 22:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Ahhhh, Shetland girls...
Ohhh, wrong birdlife... ;)
Posts: 1,542
By: j_jza80 - 20th September 2014 at 01:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Meanwhile, in Catalonia...
[ATTACH=CONFIG]231838[/ATTACH]
Posts: 2,163
By: Amiga500 - 20th September 2014 at 10:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What aftermath?
There is no aftermath - nothing substantial will change and the weasels will roll back on their weasel words.
Well, I suppose there is an aftermath if you count the discontent of the "yes" voters that will be increasingly able to point to non-action on the "promises" made pre-referendum.
Posts: 11,141
By: charliehunt - 20th September 2014 at 12:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Quite correct - "post mortem" is the thread title - nevertheless it's certainly nothing to do with WW2, which was the point of my post!
Oh, I think the effect on the campaign and the vote will be felt for many months. And at the end of it all if Scots get more devolved powers including a degree of tax raising and the Lothian and Barnett problems are resolved then it will all have been worthwhile for all - except for a minority rump of ardent nationalists who are destined never be satisfied.
Posts: 9,739
By: Creaking Door - 20th September 2014 at 12:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Why not give Scotland a kind of trial 'independence' within the United Kingdom; the Scots already have far more 'power' than anybody else in the United Kingdom through devolution.
The only real links with the United Kingdom would be defence, currency-union (that an independent Scotland wanted to keep anyway) and the universal agencies of the United Kingdom: passports, Foreign Office, DVLA and so on.
Give them all the damn oil revenue and any other tax revenue from Scotland but cut any other form of subsidy from England (obviously excluding the massive bailout that the Scottish banks enjoy!) and then let them see something of the reality of being an independent country...
...maybe then Scotland would appreciate the benefits of the Union instead of constantly moaning and demanding more powers!
Posts: 16,832
By: Moggy C - 20th September 2014 at 13:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Better still, let's have a referendum in England as to whether we actually want them to be part of the union?
Moggy
Posts: 11,141
By: charliehunt - 20th September 2014 at 13:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
CD - after all the acrimony of the past few months - you must be joking. Now Moggy has a much better idea!!:eagerness:
Posts: 9,739
By: Creaking Door - 20th September 2014 at 14:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
But I want Scotland to stay part of the Union because there are benefits that we cannot get any other way. Most notably the security of our northern border and airspace; not a big deal today but who knows in the future? Our currency, the pound, also benefits from Scotland's contribution; the fewer people who use the pound the more marginalised that currency would become.
However, the rest of the United Kingdom, and by that I mean England, pays for these benefits; it is a price worth paying in my opinion but it also benefits Scotland.
Blimey! Could the Union actually be 'win-win' for England and Scotland!
Posts: 16,832
By: Moggy C - 20th September 2014 at 14:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Meanwhile, for those not on Facebook ...
Moggy
Posts: 11,141
By: charliehunt - 20th September 2014 at 15:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I should have thought the Union always has been and and remains a win win!! "Trial independence within the the UK" is surely an oxymoron.
To my mind giving Scotland more tax raising powers so that the, by the creator's admission, out-dated Barnett Formula is scrapped and answering the anomaly of the West Lothian Question gives succour to both sides.
Posts: 1,542
By: j_jza80 - 20th September 2014 at 15:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
[ATTACH=CONFIG]231851[/ATTACH]
Posts: 9,739
By: Creaking Door - 20th September 2014 at 18:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not a trial-independence as such; rather a nominal rearrangement of tax 'borders' so that Scotland would get all the oil-revenue and with, as you say, a scrapping of the Barnett Formula, Scotland's true independent financial position would be clear. No United Kingdom agencies would need to be broken-up but Scotland, for example, would have to fund all the benefits that Scotland enjoyed (specifically tuition-fees and prescriptions). Scotland would agree to match defence spending as a percentage of GDP and would have the full backing of the Bank-of-England but borrowing would be kept separate and paying-back (and funding) borrowing would be the responsibility of each individual nation.
Maybe Scotland would find out that it was possible to build a much 'better society' with only the benefit of a few billion pounds of oil tax-revenue? But if Scotland didn't then maybe the Scots would appreciate what they gain from the Union without first having to lose it (forever). And none of us would have to suffer the chaos, and undoubted serious financial costs, that a proper irreversible break-up of the Union would inevitably cause.
Posts: 11,141
By: charliehunt - 20th September 2014 at 19:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Interesting ideas but if there is one currency there is one lender of last resort and one arbiter of fiscal policy.
Two years ago the Barnett benefits exceeded oil revenues and that imbalance will only widen as revenues continue to fall as forecast by every disinterested industry specialist.
And the Lothian Question has to be addressed.
Posts: 1,613
By: Meddle - 20th September 2014 at 22:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I dare say Salmond has shown his true colour by choosing to quit on the spot. Whilst hardly surprising, if he really had the interests of us Scots at heart then he would be sticking out his term. Perhaps history shows this is always the case, I'm not knowledgeable in this regard. I really do not look forward to having Sturgeon as our next leader. Again, Salmond was the only good orator in that party, whilst Sturgeon squawks out smug platitudes and hyperbole with neither wit nor sophistication. I was lucky enough to catch her on Daily Politics failing to answer any questions whilst giving it the duh, its obvious rhetoric.