DanishVillan

 

that phrase 'small price to pay' is quite Orwellian in its own way

Indeed it is, but I fear our pals in the IS are far more of a threat to the west than our understandably cynical public are prepared to accept.

 

Why?

Not even Israel really seem scared of them.

The usually scream of red lines and nukes if anyone farts in their general direction.

We may talk about bombing Isis but meanwhile it seems some EU members buy their oil from them.
 

If Scotland do break away from the UK, would they still be an EU nation? I'm not very clued up on these things

There would be a 2-year divorce period. Most of these questions can´t be answered before the result is in. EU loves Oil and NG though.

Agreed, the turnout will be huge as it should be on such a matter.

I don't know many yes voters but the few that I have met all seem rather weird and couldn't give me any valid reasons for voting yes other than "**** it, why not"

 

My biggest fear, even on the day, is that the the people who would vote no just won't bother turning up.

Tired of being outvoted 10-1 is a valid reason, though you probably wont agree.

I doubt the normal "couch-voters" will turn up, just this once, to vote "No, thanks" and then go back to having no influence.

 

This would be a landslide, were it not for the media.

Actually it would have been a landslide if the No campaign had said absolutely nothing

 

The No campaign is a clear part in the election with a clear and known goal. Don´t know what they have to do with the media coverage.

 

 

The loss of 95% of oil revenues to Scotland would mean that UK taxes would have to be increased or further cuts made.

Hold on.

Haven't the No people been arguing that the Scots would either have to cut more deeply or put up taxes in order to keep the same level of public spending in light of a Yes vote?

If the argument is also that the same applies for the rest of the UK then, ceteris paribus, something does not add up.

 

 

It is amazingly difficult to actually find out what Scotland's net contribution to UK revenues is.

 

The Flanders woman at the BBC excludes oil revenue, which seems perverse, and arrives at a net subsidy for Scotland from the rest.

 

If the Kemp and Stephen study quoted earlier is correct and that 95% of North Sea oil is in Scottish waters, then it would seem ridiculous to exclude that, when assessing the viability of the project.

 

I've heard some Yes voters complaining about the BBC and I can understand why now.

 

The last figure I read stated that Scotland has contributed a net £20bn in revenues since 1980.

 

As ever, the media are as shamefully unhelpful, just as they are when it comes to other issues.

 

Not helpful?

They go out of their way to portrait this as a win-lose scenario with rUK the winner and Scotland the loser.

They report of bookies already paying out if you had put a bet on No. Nice stunt.

This would be a landslide, were it not for the media.

 

 

2) Oil and Gas is about 10% of UK GDP. Population of Scotland is about 9% of UK population. So thats a resounding no

 

You would become more or less dependent on (dwindling) foreign energy and that would cause a big swing in trade balances.

 

I work in Energy and trust me, that's not the case.

 

Ah, but are you willing to bike there?

I don´t know the location of your nuclear plants and wind farms, or what percentage they produce, but I do believe you are already a net importer of fossils?

It would seem like a sensible place to focus given that the future of millions of people depend on this vote. However my focus on it was actually a response to the focus of the voters providing the talking head spots in the media, you seem to have missed that bit of my post which was kind of the entire point of it but never mind.

 

In regards your two points.

 

1. A failed state? No not quite but it will be an state with a seriously damaged economy, on the outside of Europe with no timescale for re-entry and no guarantee of a future invitation. It will be an economy with rising costs and tax's, decreased public spending and an economy very heavily dependent upon a natural resource which they don't yet know exactly how much of which they will control, how much of it is left or its future value. There financial model is based upon massively inflated estimations of reserves and completely ignores that the peak of supply was some 5 or 6 years ago. so failed state? No. A state with a lot of financial issues and no big brother of the UK or Europe to help them? Yes

 

2. It as yet remains to be seen how much of the natural resources would pass to Scotland. But even if they were to take the 90-95% some predict the impact on the rest of the UK will be far less than the impact of the move on the financial future of Scotland given that they aren't making any more oil.

 

Thanks for answering Trent and agree, I missed that point.

Coming from a country with similar population as Scotland I will support them in this, almost per reflex, and I think they will be fine.

Concept of big brother is really scary to most small nations.

2) Oil and Gas is about 10% of UK GDP. Population of Scotland is about 9% of UK population. So thats a resounding no

You would become more or less dependent on (dwindling) foreign energy and that would cause a big swing in trade balances.

It just seems to me that whenever you hear those that are intending to vote yes they are often seeing this as being a vote almost against austerity.

 

I get the sense that they see this as much about being a vote to escape the economic hardship of the years following the credit crunch as it is about an independent Scotland.

 

They seem completely and utterly unaware of the fact that Scotland will have less money not more money as a result of independence, yes they will have more 'freedom' to spend their money as they wish but they will still have less money.

 

It is simply staggering that so many people are seemingly taken in by this and the 'it will be okay' mentality of the yes campaign.

 

I rather suspect if they do vote yes that in years to come many more Scots will celebrate their new found independence by packing their bags and moving to England.

You focus alot on the economy, imo.

You really think that:

1) Independence will turn Scotland into some sort of failed state?

2) Losing most of the oil and half the NG wont be noticed economically south of the border in those years to come?

That is sure to turn a few doubters into Yes-votes.

Better order some Diebold voting machines right now.

So how long before they realise airstrikes won't cut it and boots are on the ground?

Isis is the developed extension of the Free Syrian Army and the other freedomfighters the US supported against Assad.

What makes you think those bombing runs isn´t targetting Assad and the boots are already there?

How many middle-east fighters can you buy for the price of 1 F-35?

All three of the banks that produce Scottish notes (RBS, Lloyds and Clydesdale) have announced they'll be moving down if yes then. I'm not clued up on what the effects would be.

The banks need a large population to bailout the large losses. UK>England>Scotland.

what share of the Scottish money supply is in printed form anyway..3-4% ?

Its not like Scotland will have a navy to defend those waters...

Press them too hard and they join the BRICS.

I think the Scots will be welcome in our little crappy Nordic Union.

 

How's everyone else thinking? Scandinavian lot on here confident or not?

Never confident but having Portugal in the group is always a bonus.

Good start with a home win against a side that humiliated us 4-0 in the WC qualifiers.

Also great to see Højbjerg scoring in his first important international and becoming locked to DK.

Now promoted to A-team as Agger is doubtful. Could play tomorrow against Armenia...Hope he is ready as we got some serious revenge to do.

Mercenaries do not need leaders or to make statements of intent. They just need orders and a check.

Who stopped the war escalation in Syria earlier and what is going on in Ukraine?

America is coming to help

 

 

... what could possibly go wrong

Well, it is almost like giving Putin a legit reason in Ukraine. To protect Russian personel.

So 1 month of money printing equals 30-40 years of Egyptian aid.

 

 

A war in the Middle east is most certainly not World War 3, so please stop with the hilarious over exaggeration.

 

WW3 would need at least one of USA, Europe, Russia or China on opposing sides. As any one of those would have an overwhelming victory over any other country or even continent.

 

The middle eat only matters because of Israel lobby in the United States and because of Oil. Otherwise nobody would give a shit, like Africa.

It could happen out of nothing like WW1.

Trade and currency wars are already happening within that group. The BRICS are trying to get away from the dollar (as it is dying) and will more and more support whoever is against US.

They already do this in Syria, Iraq and a host of African nations. Didn´t Russia sign a deal with Hamas regarding Natural gas recently?

Meanwhile the US is busy fining French banks and spying on Germany.

 

 

 

Utterly proposterous to think WW3 could start in a similar way to WW1. People wanted a war back then, people had yet to see the real devestation modern war can wraught. World War 2 showed what all out war brings, no winners everyone suffers.

 

The modern trials of the world are miniscule compared to that of years gone by. Yes 3000 people dies in 9/11 but how many people died in the Vietnam War? Far worse time for Americans, being drafted to go die in a Jungle.

 

Whatever happens is the middle East for example is only an issue because of the age of information. civilians have been murdered in far greater numbers in almost every decade prior to this.

 

To believe for one second that our worries over the price of oil will be so strong we'd be willing to go into all out war where our own nations can be attacked is so utterly nonsense I worry for the intelligence levels of people who genuinely think that.

 

At the end of the day, Germany really doesn't give two shits about the Ukraine. It cares about it's need for Russian Oil and Gas to power its industry and keep its economy out of recession. People care more about the money in their pockets than dying children in a far away land they happen to read about because of the age of information.

 

Yeah, they are so much better of in a desert.

There will be no Yes/No election coming ahead of WW3 btw.

Ukraine is about getting them into EU/NATO knowing full well the Russian reaction. To me that means they are atleast willing to bluff about WW3. Dangerous game.

A war in the Middle east is most certainly not World War 3, so please stop with the hilarious over exaggeration.

 

WW3 would need at least one of USA, Europe, Russia or China on opposing sides. As any one of those would have an overwhelming victory over any other country or even continent.

 

The middle eat only matters because of Israel lobby in the United States and because of Oil. Otherwise nobody would give a shit, like Africa.

It could happen out of nothing like WW1.

Trade and currency wars are already happening within that group. The BRICS are trying to get away from the dollar (as it is dying) and will more and more support whoever is against US.

They already do this in Syria, Iraq and a host of African nations. Didn´t Russia sign a deal with Hamas regarding Natural gas recently?

Meanwhile the US is busy fining French banks and spying on Germany.

 

Marcus Christenson @m_christenson  ·  4h

BT says Nicklas Bendtner demanded nearly £40,000 a week PLUS £30k for every point picked up to join Frankfurt. They're now looking elsewhere

 

He'll never find a club with demands like that. Phew good job...Keep demanding.

 

It will be a cold day in hell when BT gets anything right.