Independence

[bill]

With all the discussion on currency and membership of the E.U. one of the more important issues has not been mentioned so far.If Scotland gains independence they will not automatically gain entry to the final of Eurovision, but have to go through the qualifiers with all the minnows. Just remember that when you vote on Thursday 18 September.

[EMDEE]

With all the discussion on currency and membership of the E.U. one of the more important issues has not been mentioned so far.If Scotland gains independence they will not automatically gain entry to the final of Eurovision, but have to go through the qualifiers with all the minnows. Just remember that when you vote on Thursday 18 September.

That just about clinches it then.

[Shona]

Anyone remember this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SH8BQmfhUgo

Kenneth McKellar in his kilt singing A Man Without Love.

He got marks from just two countries and came ninth of the eighteen entries - the least successful UK showing until 1978. The Irish gave him top marks, though.

[baz]

Back to the subject of Independence

For those who would understand the nature of the Union,
the following passage may enlighten them.

( bear in mind that the people of Scotand, nor indeed the rest the UK, had any say in the matter)

The Darien Scheme

William Paterson, a Scot who's other major claim to fame was the foundation of the Bank of England, was born in Tinwald in Dumfriesshire in 1658. He made his first fortune through international trade, travelling extensively throughout the America's and West Indies.

Upon his return to his native Scotland, Paterson sought to make his second fortune with a scheme of epic proportion. His plan was to create a link between east and west, which could command the trade of the two great oceans of the world, the Pacific and Atlantic. In 1693, Paterson helped to set up the Company of Scotland Trading to Africa and the Indies in Edinburgh to establish an entrepôt on the Isthmus of Darien (the narrow neck of land separating North and South America now known as Panama). It was claimed that the company would prosper through foreign trade and promoted Darien as a remote spot where Scots could settle.

The original directors of the Company of Scotland were Scottish and English in equal numbers, with the risk investment capital being shared half from the English and Dutch, and the other half from the Scots. However, under pressure from the East India Company, afraid of losing their trade monopoly, the English Parliament withdrew its support for the scheme at the last minute, forcing the English and Dutch to withdraw and leaving the Scots as sole investors.

There were no shortage of takers though, as thousands of ordinary Scottish folk invested money in the expedition, to the tune of approximately £500,000 - about half of the national capital available. Almost every Scot who had £5 to spare invested in the Darien scheme. Thousands more volunteered to travel on board the five ships that had been chartered to carry the pioneers to their new home where Scots could settle, including famine driven Highlanders and soldiers discharged following the Glen Coe Massacre.

But, who had actually been out to see this Promised Land, this remote spot where Scots could settle? Well not Paterson apparently! The pioneers had wrongly believed, on the basis of sightings by sailors and pirates, that Darien offered them a colony where entrepreneurs could establish trading links with the world and bring prestige and prosperity to their country. And so it was with much fanfare and excitement that the ships sailed from Leith harbour on 12 July 1698 with 1,200 people on board.

It was however, a depleted and less excited group of pioneers that arrived on the mosquito-infested scrap of land known as Darien on 30 October 1698. Many were already sick and others were quarrelling as power struggles arose among the elected councillors. They struggled ashore and renamed the land Caledonia, with its capital New Edinburgh. The first task was to dig graves for the dead pioneers, which included Paterson's wife. The situation grew worse because of a lack of food and attacks from hostile Spaniards. The native Indians took pity on the Scots, bringing them gifts of fruit and fish. Seven months after arriving, 400 Scots were dead. The rest were emaciated and yellow with fever. They decided to abandon the scheme.

Sadly, news did not travel quickly in the 17th century. Six more ships set sail from Leith in November 1699 loaded with a further 1,300 excited pioneers, all blissfully ignorant about the fate of the earlier settlers. Whoever said that bad news travels fast was obviously not a Scot as a third fleet of five ships left Leith shortly after.

Only one ship returned out of the total of sixteen that had originally sailed. Only a handful survived the return journey. Scotland had paid a terrible price with more than two thousand lives lost. Together with the loss of the £500,000 investment the Scottish economy was almost bankrupted.
It has been argued that the Darien Scheme crippled the country's economy to such an extent that it triggered the dissolution of the Scottish Parliament and led to the 1707 Act of Union with England. Was this a mere coincidence, or had the English withdrawal from the scheme been deliberately engineered to ensure its failure?

[gizmo]

Am I geting this wrong here Baz?
Is this not a tale of Scots deciding to "go it alone" and falling flat on their faces. Whos side are you on.

[tarmmaker]

So it's the fault of the English that a hair brained idea by some greedy bloke wanting to line his pockets ended in disaster. Or perhaps the English saw it for what it was.
These ridiculous digs belittle you.

[baz]

Am I geting this wrong here Baz?
Is this not a tale of Scots deciding to "go it alone" and falling flat on their faces. Whos side are you on.

I think you may have got it wrong.
The Darien Scheme was a joint business venture, which was manipulated to fail.
It would have been a direct competitor to the East India Company (The Crown).
The creation of the Union was basically a bailout, with subversion of Sovereignty as a condition.
This was agreed by the political class, to preserve the political class and their interests.
There was no referendum put to the people of Scotland.

I am on my own side.
If I must be governed, then I would have my say in the matter.

So it's the fault of the English that a hair brained idea by some greedy bloke wanting to line his pockets ended in disaster. Or perhaps the English saw it for what it was.
These ridiculous digs belittle you.

Not at all, it is the ruling classes on both sides of the border that I take issue with.
The Democracy we have today, did not exist when the Union was formed.

To be Pro-Independence, is not to be Anti-English.
It is your fallacious suggestion of digs, that diminishes the conversation.

[EMDEE]

Isn't it a bit confusing that over the past few months the Independence campaign has been criticised for laying emphasis on the North Sea Oil as a factor in the future of an independent Scotland because it is a finite asset, yet now we are being told by London that the future of North Sea Oil would be better assured if Scotland remains part of the UK. We know that every natural resource is finite, but this complete change of mind suggests that the Westminster government is starting to panic, and it also suggests that the North Sea is not as much of a finite asset as we are being led to believe.

And Alex Salmond has been accused of making it up as he goes along.

[baz]

Oil has always been fundamental to Scottish Independence.

There is no question that Scottish Oil, would indeed be Scotland's.
http://www.oilofscotland.org/MccronereportScottishOffice.pdf

The McCrone Report was a UK Government dossier on the economic viability of an independent Scotland, written in 1974 by Professor Gavin McCrone, a leading civil service economist, for the Conservative UK government.
The report predicted that North sea oil revenue would give an independent Scotland a large tax surplus, on such a scale as to be "embarrassing", making the country "as rich as Switzerland."
It also surmised that this surplus revenue would make the Scottish pound the hardest currency in Europe "with the exception of the Norwegian kronor"
The report went on to advise UK government ministers on the various methods they could use to take "the wind out of the SNP sails".

The incoming Labour administration classified the document as secret over fears it could give a further boost to the SNP's policy of Scottish independence.

A year after Professor McCrone had submitted his report to the government, civil servants (including McCrone) met again in London to discuss its implications. They concluded that his findings had been accurate, and that the average income in Scotland would increase by up to 30% per head if the country became an independent state.
They also concluded that Scotland's "economic problems would disappear", and it would become "the Kuwait of the Western world", though this was balanced somewhat by the opinion that Scotland could risk "disaster" if the oil price collapsed. They summed up by finding that there was a good case for the continuation of the Union.
UK oil production peaked in 1999 and had declined 67% by 2012, but petroleum still contributed £35bn to the UK balance of payments in 2011. The UK government took an estimated £6,530m in direct petroleum taxes in 2012-13 plus £6bn in income tax, national insurance and corporation tax from supply companies in 2011-12.
As of 2012 around 45% of UK oil & gas employees are in Scotland.

The dossier came to light in 2005 when the SNP obtained the report under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
The full provisions of the Act came into force on 1 January 2005.

In his evidence to the Lords Committee on the Economic Implications of Scottish Independence in 2012, Professor McCrone stated that Scottish GDP would increase by around 20% if North Sea oil were to be counted as part of it.

[Hume]

The whole McCrone thing is heart breaking. Not only for the fact that we were lied to for 30 years when the evidence was classified - some Union that, where one part treats the other with contempt - but to think what kind of country we could be living in now had we become independent in the seventies say. One that is much more in line with the values of the people who live here, that's for sure and I'd guess we would have a more inclusive society today too.

Its worth understanding though that Scottish GDP is pretty much equal to that of the UK even without oil revenues (99% I believe) so the over dependency / declining resource / price volatility arguments are just more scare tactics. Including oil revenues, it is of course significantly higher.

To have the UK Government up in Aberdeen today lecturing us about how best to manage the oil sector is laughable.

This quick interview with Ivan McKee get's a lot of valid points across. Basically, even if oil is a declining resource, if that's what we must call 50 years of further extraction with a wholesale value of £1.5 trillion, the question is, who do you trust to manage the second half of the oil bonanza (paraphrasing) - Westminster, where those revenues will no doubt go the same way as the first 40 years, or a Scottish Government more likely to use them to improve Scotland?

[Govangirl]

And a wee peek into a Dystopian parallel universe if Scotland says Och Aye . . .

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Price-Freedom-Andy-Skeen/dp/0956761623/ref=tmm_pap_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1393254306&sr=1-1

[baz]

And a wee peek into a Dystopian parallel universe if Scotland says Och Aye . . .
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Price-Freedom-Andy-Skeen/dp/0956761623/ref=tmm_pap_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1393254306&sr=1-1

Poorly written, self-published fiction adds nothing to the debate on Independence.


Ian Hamilton QC

[Govangirl]

For crying out loud Baz, lighten up!!!!!

[baz]

For crying out loud Baz, lighten up!!!!!

No need.
You seem to have light-minded frippery pretty much covered.

Independence is the most serious issue affecting Scotland, and should be approached with gravitas.
Humour has it's place within the conversation, but to the exclusion of all else?

Do you have an opinion on successive Westminster governments concealing the McCrone Report for 30 years?
What are your thoughts on radioactive contamination of Scottish waters?
How about the disparity of the Scottish vote and Westminster parliaments?

[Govangirl]

No need.
You seem to have light-minded frippery pretty much covered.

Yep, thanks.

Independence is the most serious issue affecting Scotland, and should be approached with gravitas.
Humour has it's place within the conversation, but to the exclusion of all else?

Only about 2% of the conversation on this thread is humorous. Don't fret, I realise if the level of humour were to rise above this, the very fabric of the universe itself would implode.

Do you have an opinion on successive Westminster governments concealing the McCrone Report for 30 years?

Yes

What are your thoughts on radioactive contamination of Scottish waters?

As long as it doesn't affect the malt. Oops, sorry, that now makes it 2.1%, Sorry!

How about the disparity of the Scottish vote and Westminster parliaments?

Oh Baz, don't get me started. Really. I'll give you disparity boy!

PS. Are you related to Ionnsaigh by any chance? Just asking.