Non- Rugby Related Chat. Please note that this forum is moderated. If you wish to make comments for the club's attention please do so in Fans Forum and not this one.
when it comes to military power, I'd rather not send our young men to die in foreign countries for dubious political reasons
The UK would retain UK forces, Scotland will need considerable military power if it wishes to protect it's so called mineral rights and borders. Assuming Scotland are not arrogant enough to assume the rest of the UK will do this for them this will require massive investment from Scotland.
The thing is, most people in Scotland aren't that concerned about this nebulous 'influencing world affairs' concept
You would not send young men to help protect foreign nations and people in Scotland aren't concerned about world affairs but they are quite happy to quote international law concerning the split of mineral rights.
Scotland also needs to remember these issues affect the whole of the UK. Our Welsh and N.I freinds will also be considerably poorer assuming you are correct and should YOU get your way. How do you feel about this?
Anyone can wear a kilt, but it should be Royal Stewart tartan. Otherwise the kilt of your clan or sept.
Oil revenue distribution is decided by international law, which means that 95% will accrue to Scotland.
Scotland has declared it wants no nuclear weapons on it's territory, so England and Wales can have them!
Financially Scotland is as likely to be able to stand on it's own two feet as England, and the funding it will receive from the EU will be far larger than it's contribution, unlike England's which will have to be renegotiated. A two tier EU could see Scotland in tier 1, England sidelined in tier 2, or out altogether.
Cameron's interference is likely to have aggravated many "don't knows" who will see it as yet another incident where England wants to impose it's will on Scotland. The fact that he has been joined by Ed "Wallace" Milliband, whose Labour Party are the second party in Scotland, will doubtless energise SNP supporters too.
biffer wrote:The rest of the UK should not vote. The principle under international law is the right to self-determination. If you want a divorce, you don't need the permission of the other party to get one. If the UK wanted to leave the EU, would France get a vote?
Does that mean that the jocks pay us alimony? And by the way your question "If you want a divorce, you don't need the permission of the other party to get one." the answer to this is - actually, yes you do, or if you can't agree then the courts decide and in this case the court is Parliament.
"If the UK wanted to leave the EU, would France get a vote?" is a totally different matter - I would ask you to read the terms of the amended Treaty of Rome (even as adjusted by subsequent treaties) which is a treaty by which we agreed to a degree of financial and political co-operation, and compare them with the Act of Union which describes an "enduring and insoluble union to create one kingdom".
It is NOT one country deciding to leave an agreement with another but one (small) part of a single country deciding that it has greater rights than its fellow countrymen.
For when the One Great Scorer comes to write against your name,
He marks - not that you won or lost - but how you played the Game."
Ze Stade Fan wrote:
By the way : which clan are the Jordan supposed to belong to?
I think Jordan is actually Irish.
As for Scottish independence, would it really be such a good thing for them. As has been mentioned it would give Scotland very little power in world affairs.
Also there is a possibility Scotland would be forced to give up the Pound and join the Euro currency. Not exactly a great move in current times.
I hear nothing but distaste for wee 'eck round here and this is the SNP's heartland.What the Scots don't seem to like,which I fully understand and agree with,is London does not listen or care.Not just for the plight of those north of the border,but those north of Birmingham.
The Londonism does not just apply to rugby clubs allegedly from the capital.Pretty much all of the output of the UK and NI is presumed to be for the south east and that has got to stop.
The decades of squandering the countries wealth has left those outside of Londons thinking feeling neglected,that allows minority extremists of all types and political colour to make mischief .London are playing into the hands of this torrid little mans desires to be the next king of Scotland.That seems to be the general concensus around here of his political desires at the moment.He's done nothing to help Scotlands population apart from free prescriptions,not much of an epitaph for all that posturing.
"If you want entertainment, go to the theatre," says Edinburgh head coach Richard Cockerill. "Rugby players play the game to win.15/1/21.
Following up on Tigerburnie's note about everything being spent on London, it now has reached ridiculous proportions.
I don't mind transport progress, albeit it costs us taxpayers money and it costs the environment.
Mut the multi-billion pound project to make Birmingham to London train journeys (and ultimately Manchester to Lonodon, and Leeds to London) a bit quicker, is pure madness.
Just stop building everything in London. It's too big already. I regularly speak to candidates from Greater London who admit that their average morning commute is 90 - 120 minutes and the same coming home.
So why put the Olympics, the Millenium Dome, Wembley Stadium, the FA Headquarters etc etc in a place that is hopelessly gridlocked already?
And then assist the good people of Birmingham to reach Euston amid the torrid maelstrom being suffered by all Londoners a bit quicker.
Kicks and scrums and ruck and roll.....Is all my brain and body need!
when it comes to military power, I'd rather not send our young men to die in foreign countries for dubious political reasons
The UK would retain UK forces, Scotland will need considerable military power if it wishes to protect it's so called mineral rights and borders. Assuming Scotland are not arrogant enough to assume the rest of the UK will do this for them this will require massive investment from Scotland.
The thing is, most people in Scotland aren't that concerned about this nebulous 'influencing world affairs' concept
You would not send young men to help protect foreign nations and people in Scotland aren't concerned about world affairs but they are quite happy to quote international law concerning the split of mineral rights.
Scotland also needs to remember these issues affect the whole of the UK. Our Welsh and N.I freinds will also be considerably poorer assuming you are correct and should YOU get your way. How do you feel about this?
A percentage of the armed forces infrastructure would be passed to an independent Scotland. If we're expected to take on our portion of the debts (which we will) i seems only reasonable that we take our portion of the assets as well. How these are divided will vary case by case as some cases have ownership well defined and some don't.
Wrt sending young men overseas it depends on the conflict. Iraq and Afghanistan were politically motivated (IMO) but Libya was justified. The arguments around each of these is a whole different thread, but the point is we'd make our own decisions on a case by case basis.
My advice to NI and Wales would be to go their own way so they could run their economies in a way that suited them, rather than havign their agenda set for industrial sectors in which they have little infrastructure.
biffer wrote:
A percentage of the armed forces infrastructure would be passed to an independent Scotland. If we're expected to take on our portion of the debts (which we will) i seems only reasonable that we take our portion of the assets as well.
Bear in mind that a fair portion of the current UK debt is from to having to bail out RBS and HBOS. Would Scotland have been able to afford the bailout costs of these two banks by itself?
biffer wrote:
A percentage of the armed forces infrastructure would be passed to an independent Scotland. If we're expected to take on our portion of the debts (which we will) i seems only reasonable that we take our portion of the assets as well.
Bear in mind that a fair portion of the current UK debt is from to having to bail out RBS and HBOS. Would Scotland have been able to afford the bailout costs of these two banks by itself?
If RBS and HBOS had been allowed to fail, the UK economy would have been knackered - that's the reason they were bailed out. Assuming that the banks would have been the same as they were (would an English government have allowed a hostile foreign takeover of NatWest?) the bailout would have followed a similar model to the action taken by the Belgian, Dutch and Luxembourg governments to bail out Fortis. RBS may be based in Scotland, but it's not owned by Scotland, it doesn't conduct most of its business in Scotland and isn't funded mainly in Scotland. It was bailed out by the country it was critical to - and this is what would have happened if Scotland and England were seperate.
And frankly, the amount of money the government actually put into RBS is £45billion - the current value of the bank is £28billion. As the economy recovers, we WILL get our money back. The debt however is approaching £1trillion, so most of the debt comes from elsewhere.
Europe is on the point of imploding first and as we are outside the euro,we could be in a great position to make some money and jobs out of it,would be a shame if we miss the chance due to infighting.The UK is a small player in the world,be it money or influence.To fragment it could be detrimental to all concerned.I like the National identity of Scotland(and Wales and Northern Ireland),but fear for them when fools like Salmond use the likes of Iceland or Ireland as an example of the way to go and he's considering joining the euro??????????????
More devolvement for Scotland is obviously on the cards and I believe there may be enthusiasm for more in Wales,not a clue about N.I.
Living in Scotland I can see the evidence of decades of under investment,what I can't see as how Scotland would stand alone and improve that situation.Examples of Edinburgh trams and Aberdeen Council bankrupting itself,shows the vulnerability and frailty.
"If you want entertainment, go to the theatre," says Edinburgh head coach Richard Cockerill. "Rugby players play the game to win.15/1/21.
This is another interesting thing - defence spending. It's also interesting for the Midlands, as it demonstrates (again) how much government spending is biased towards the South of England
When Westminster says that the spending in a region of England or one of the other nations of the UK is x amount, it always includes a per head allocation of defence spending. Given that we're defending the country as a whole, that's understandable. However, the trickel down effect of having this spending in an area contributes to the region's economy. Can you imagine the effect of another £1billion of spending in the East Midlands, much of it on personnel wages, which then goes on to be spent in the wider economy?
Of course, Scottish independence would bring about a cultural separation too.
You could enter the stuffed corpse of Andy Stewart miming to "Donald Where's Yer Troosers?" into the Eurovision Song Contest and still get more votes than the UK.
Dancing on Ice would just be CCTV footage of drunks coming out of pubs in Aviemore at midnight.
Scotland's Got Talent would largely consist of bare chested fat blokes fighting, people trout tickling, and the Krankies.
Kicks and scrums and ruck and roll.....Is all my brain and body need!
Kinoulton wrote:Of course, Scottish independence would bring about a cultural separation too.
You could enter the stuffed corpse of Andy Stewart miming to "Donald Where's Yer Troosers?" into the Eurovision Song Contest and still get more votes than the UK.
Dancing on Ice would just be CCTV footage of drunks coming out of pubs in Aviemore at midnight.
Scotland's Got Talent would largely consist of bare chested fat blokes fighting, people trout tickling, and the Krankies.
I don't get it all but the little I get is funny !
