OP
YoungScud
Similarly to your apparent unwillingness to try to uderstand the subject of sovereignty, your lack of reading comprehension is a bit puzzling. I think I made it perfectly clear as to how I judge credibility or otherwise, but just because it's you, I'll try again. I read many sources. Over a period of time, clarity comes from events. If a source states onew thin and then, over a period of time, that transpires not to have been the case, then clearly misreporting has taken place. Thus, gradually, I can begin to judge who is attempting to get to the truth and who is not. It's not an exact science, but that's just not really possible with the vast amount of information swilling around in the ether.
Now, I'm not quite sure what your phrase 'contract out' was meant to convey, but it's an odd choice of words. Scotland's taxpayers, like those of Wales, England and Northern Ireland, fund government projects and effectively own public property. During the referendum campaign, the Westminster government suggested, completely disingenuously, that it could effectively simply refuse to share the family jewels. Even the Governor of the Bank of England bravely attempted to stop them spreading the lie, but they were not to be told. So here's how it works. First of all, currency. England, or 'rUK', however you wish to put it, does not 'own' the Bank of England, it owns a share of it. Similarly, it cannot stop anyone trading Sterling, nor using it as currency. Now Scotland did not want acrimony in the event of a yes vote, but Cameron and his minions set off down that very course. A few home truths were in order, so they were informed that it's as simple as this; if the 'rUK' (by the way, there would have been no such body, since the existence of the UK only occurs by virtue of the Treaty of Union) chose to attempt to deny Scotland its share of assets, jointly held between all parties, then it could not expect Scotland to service its share of UK debt. Now, I want you to think long and hard before replying. In what walk of human existence would anyone want to service another's debts? Scotland borrowed none of that money, nor did it have any say in its borrowing. It was though, prepared to act responsibly and accept its share of the debt, but only if assets were equably distributed. We didn't want the army, DVLA, Passport Offices nor any other assets, simply our share of them. You appear to think that somehow unfair. By the way, I'm absolutely mystified as to where you got the idea that Scotalnd wants to pay England for the use of its government services. Plenty of feasibility studies were carried out and, as expected, they uniformly found that transfer of governmet offices really wouldn't be all that difficult. All it really needed was the will. Hubris might have been a problem, but not likely for long.
As to the credibility or otherwise of campaign literature, I tend to pretty well ignore it. On the odd occasion I'm tempted to berak my own rules, it doesn't take long to remember why they exist.
Finally, get over yourself about the price of oil. I've repeatedly shown that the price of oil, or more importantly oil revenues, are not used in calculating Scotland's GDP, since Scotland doesn't accrue any oil revenues. Of course, oil prices have an effect on Scotland's economy. Many jobs in Scotland, as well as ancillary services, depend on oil, but that hardly makes us unique. Jobs, both domestically and internationally, depend on North Sea Oil. The point is, we have never seen oil as our long term strategy for success. That's why Scotland's leading the rest of the UK and a large part of Europe in renewable energy. We see the writing on the wall, and have done for a long time. As for going quiet, I can only suggest you spend a bit more time reading Scottish publications. You'll find plenty of references to North Sea Oil. Of course, reading the tabloid papers won't cut it. There's no sex involved.
Last edited by a moderator:
