And even if it was the taxpayers - we're included in that number, Scottish citizens pay tax as well. To try and argue that the UK put that infrastructure in place as some kind of favour to us that we should be grateful for is just plain daft - it's not like Westminster said 'there you go, the infrastructure is in place, enjoy your oil and all the income from it', they controlled the income, attributed it to the UK fiscal figures, and wantonly squandered it, again, on shit that Scotland doesn't need/want/see any benefit from.

(and for another take on that, read the mccrone report, that successive Westminster governments suppressed, as it basically said an independent Scotland with control over its oil revenues would have became embarrassingly wealthy)

Look at Norway. Similar in size and population to Scotland, discovered oil, the population got wealthier as a result. We're the only country that has oil but is also skint, according to gers.

If there is only one benifit, that being 'no more Tory rule' then its enough.

cockbeard wrote:

HawBawJaws wrote:

Fair enough mate. I think I'll stop trying to engage with you about this subject now. I know you created this thread with an 'educate me' intention, but tbh, you're coming across the exact same way as the 'too wee, too poor, too stupid' types I see on twitter and in the msm every day. I don't think you wanted any kind of insight, or were ever prepared to take any on board, you've already (IMHO) decided us gaining independence is a daft idea.

And hey, if we do, and it does turn out to be a daft idea, then hey ho, it's on us.

Much love.

No I don't think it's a daft idea, I do think words like "bullied" are very emotive and make a subject difficult to discuss. Especially when it's already emotive enough. I'm trying to be as dispassionate as possible here, I simply fail to see many of the supposed benefits of going it alone. That said you've already turned me on to the skills shortage and current inability to actively encourage immigration within certain industries. That's a freedom which is madness to be denied. As for too small, too stupid, whatever, I think no such thing, and have said no such thing

The taxpayer oil thing, tax subsidies are often given when granting prospect rights, and the licenses to prospect have come down in price the last decade, so the prospecting companies are in effect being supported by the taxpayer. I can't remember who said all this, but it stayed in my head from five years ago when it was discussed. I thought it very strange at the time, as it sounded far more aggressive than was necessary

Again mate, that's fair enough. I'm just trying to stop myself turning into the angry keyboard warrior of 2014 that I used to be. And I'd rather this place didn't go the way of my social media feeds during the indyref as well (not saying that's what you're aiming for either.)

If my response was overly harsh, I apologise. I respect the fact you're seeking to be educated on the independence supporters perspective as well, if more people in England tried that we'd likely already be independent.

All I'd say is, when it comes to Scottish independence, look beyond the msm, there are alternatives out there. Every single mainstream media outlet in the UK is opposed to independence. Even in Scotland, there is only 1 newspaper that actively supports it. 1 newspaper, for what, 40% of the population, at a Conservative guess? My older brother lives down in Sussex, and even he was saying he doesn't know enough about independence as he only heard the UK perspective down there.

But, as myself and others have said - forget every economic and political argument, for me the situation is this - the cunts in charge in Westminster are making a Royal fuck up of things. I fail to see how we could do any worse. That's enough for me.

(I know i said I'd stop, but......)

Difference between the EU and UK. So, brexiteers have been shouting about taking back control, and not having to put up with stuff forced upon them they didn't want. And the obvious comparison is to indy supporters, wanting control, and not having to put up with laws they didn't want.

OK, examples? Give an example of an EU law that we have to abide by, but didn't vote for. In fact, there's some statistic (can't remember the source, or exact percentage) that says since we joined the EU, our meps have voted in favour of over 90% of the laws/rules/regulations the EU has passed. So what exactly are we having to endure that we didn't vote for? What control do we need to take back?

Right, on to Scotland. Off the top of my head, let's go with poll tax, bedroom tax, rape clause?

(when I tried to explain to a slightly dim-witted colleague in head office that the bedroom tax still exists in Scotland, we just don't pay it, the Scottish government effectively pays it on our behalf, he was flabbergasted).

There's dozens of examples of things that Scotland has explicitly opposed, but we have to put up with, because of sheer weight of numbers of English mps. Make no mistake, 'UK wide' elections are won or lost in England. Look at the other night - if all of Scotland had voted Labour, it wouldn't have affected the outcome in any way.

'ah, but why dyou want back into the EU, it'd be just the same!!'

Well, as i said we generally vote along the same lines as the EU anyway, and we'd have a veto, something we don't currently have.

As Andy said, the European Union and the United Kingdom are completely different in the way they're executed.

Diluted Dante wrote:

If the UK was dumb enough to give tax subsidies to oil companies then that's their fault. They can't try charging Scotland for it.

I think that's part of the reason we've made fuck all money from the oil, the government at the time gave really attractive rates to the oil companies. Again, I think there's more detail on that in the mccrone report.

poprock wrote:

Oil isn’t just about the profit it makes. It’s also about the investment it attracts, the employment it brings, the skills it develops, the investment in education it encourages, the innovation it pays for, the infrastructure it demands, etc etc etc.

That's very true, I always thought you'd see a very rich Aberdeen full of foreign contractors and companies actually making the money from any oil, as opposed to it filtering through any future Scottish economy. That worried me, we see enough mining/agriculture concerns in Africa to know that if multinational megacorp doesn't want to spend in the country it works in then it really doesn't have to

The industry is being slowly taken apart now. Very slowly, but it is. Using existing infrastructure in smarter, more efficient ways and decommissioning infrastructure/rigs is where all the big investment is these days.

In the vein of adding something of little value, I'll just state how amused I am at Cocko's insistence that he's here to learn, and then moves goalposts with every answer to his questions. Eventually we arrive at the irrelevantly absurd:

HBJ "we could divert those resources and skills into becoming a leader in renewables"

Cocko "well that would be nice but it rarely happens eh?"

Said in a sort of realpolitik, that's real life mate sort of way (just common sense innit), not acknowledging that this an unprovable negative assertion which effectively ends constructive discussion. You may as well say "well at any point an asteroid could come down in Argyle, so much for that or any other argument"

I'm half Scot on my Mum's side (well, half weegie) and most of my family live there. In 2014, I was on principle not happy about independence - generally I distrust nationalist movements and believe we're only going to be able to work on the bigger problems as larger entities - but since Brexit and the ugliness its revealed, I'm all for it. Fuck Westminster forever

It’s a complicated question with a complex answer.

A short version is that I see functional, pragmatic and scale-based differences between centralised governmental and civil agencies, and devolved, local functions: some things probably work better centralised (water and sewerage treatment infrastructure and modelling on a country or even continental scale) and others probably work better devolved (specific local functions of water and sewage treatment and delivery, dependent on local personal and corporate needs; terrain and other idiosyncrasies). I could probably think of a better particular example than water.

But health equipment procurement on a country scale is going to work out better value for money than asking a load of GP offices / small independent hospitals to source a CT scanner or even just regular supplies (needles etc).

As you say, Policing feels similar: procurement and support functions could be centralised, but policy making, mission focus, prioritisation handled very locally.

How does this scale to government policies? Perhaps I’ve got too much of a utilitarian streak, but at some vague level I haven’t defined, I believe a baseline “good governance for almost all people” can be achieved: great schooling, healthcare, welfare; environmental protections, regulations covering food, industry, working conditions; national level public transportation infrastructure and provision, maybe even centrally mandated rules about buses for example, which arguably could be local but nationally, maybe it’s better to level the field a bit?

So yes: I think the SN movement is different from the typical nationalist nastiness, but I also thought everything could be recovered as long as Scotland was given proper attention and support and respect from a progressive central government. This simply has not happened, so the idea seems to find this respect from the EU. With Bohnson in charge, this isn’t just understandable, it should be encouraged.

Well just about everyone I know up here is now in favour.

He means upstairs in his house.

Precisely.

That would certainly explain his lofty ideals...

Aye. We all know that Scotland’s handled it better than England, so he can fuck right off.

If Scotland goes then we’re all fucked, both sides of the border.