| Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites. |
| azzuri |
SNP welcomes oil chief’s commentssee - http://www.holyrood.com/nav/news/stories/story.asp?story=bus124SNP welcomes oil chief’s comments 20th July 2006 The Scottish National Party has seized on comments made by a senior BP official as proof that an independent Scotland would not adversely affect North Sea oil extraction operations. Responding to a question from Labour MP Jim Devine at Westminster’s Scottish Affairs Committee about the effect an independent Scotland would have on BP’s work, Dave Blackwood, director of BP’s North Sea operations said: “You know, we work with scores of governments around the globe, I’m sure we could manage to work with a Scottish government as well if one existed.” SNP Treasury spokesman Stewart Hosie MP said the comments showed that Labour’s argument that an independent Scotland would jeapordise oil operations was false. “Dave Blackwood was right to dismiss this nonsense argument. People in Scotland are going to face an onslaught of Labour attacks on independence in the months ahead.” “London Labour would like us to believe that Scotland is the only country in the world that wouldn't be able to govern itself and flourish as an independent nation.” "An independent Scotland would prosper like independent Ireland off our west coast and independent Norway off our east.” |
||||||||||||||||||||
| SF102 |
So what arguement are Labour gonna use when the oil runs out in 20-30 yrs time? I'm really struggling to see what the problem is in letting you lot go ya own way . . .except MONEY that can be the only reason for it |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Babygael |
yer richt again SF, money,power all the things that the Brit enmpire stood for.What english fowk have to understand is that Scots,do not and will never be happy untill we regain our COUNTRY We have always had our own leadership for.....1000 years?? The paltry 300 or so of the union is just a mozzie bite!
Its got nothing to do what so ever with being erm"Anglophobic" its just pure common sense. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| George |
I read this a couple of days ago and thought that it backfired badly on Devine. This comment is certainly something the SNP can use in 2007 to fight Unionist scaremongering. Slowly but surely their arguments for keeping this Union are falling apart. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Economist |
What have these Scottish Labour MP's got against Scotland going its own way, that they have to perpetuate the myth that we would somehow "jeopardise" oil operations in the Scottish sector of the North Sea.
I think the answer is that such Scottish labour MP's will be chucked off the Westminster gravy train when independence comes around, and that is probably their overriding concern! I think it is deeply insulting for anyone to suggest we can't run our own country, or by doing so would put the future of Scotland at risk 
|
||||||||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
Some of us just don't think in that sort of 'them and us' type way. This country has many faults, and oil money could probably be spent better/more transparently. However we have a three hundred year history of sharing and I don't believe that when one windfall should come along, one party should decide to run away with it laughing. You see, I rather have a more needy Liverpudlian benefit from tax revenues than a less needy Glaswegian. I see no distinction between the two, both being human beings.
We can quibble over oil reserves and other inconsequential matters for as long as you like, however the fundamental arguments for Union and anti-Nationalism are still the same as they were hundreds of years ago - and becoming even more obvious today when Israel-Palestine and Northern Ireland descend into chaos due to various forms of nationalism while countries in the European Union and other free and co-operative large areas are florishing. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| SF102 |
Aventinian, I suppose it's me being a lazy git in regards to the "us & them" situation "you lot" is easier and quicker to type than Scotland or Scottish Independance. Also from where i'm sat it IS us & you . . .in MY case us=me and you=the rest of you on this forum (i just know that the fellas . .and gals from accross the oceans and seas are gonna comment) Having just actually thought about what i typed i realised that i'm ASLO with YOU in the us&them malarky in that we're us and the govt. are them 
|
||||||||||||||||||||
| SLG |
[quote="Aventinian"]Some of us just don't think in that sort of 'them and us' type way.
Aye, but you're not running the country. Many of those in power do allocate different priorities based on the different parts of the country (including splitting the country in terms of it's constituent nations).
We haven't cut and run. We are still here. The oil has served to highlight inequalities much more than it has served as one itself.
I'd rather that there was the political will to solve the problem of the needy Glaswegian. I hope that a real Scottish Parliament that is closer to the people will be able meet those needs better than at present. Similarly I hope that an English parliament would also be better positioned to meet the needs of the needy Liverpudlian. Although given the size of England, I would hope they will devolve significantly internally. I think political focus is much more important than the redistribution of a few percent of Scottish tax revenue on either side of the border.
The British Union is not anti-nationalism. Yours may be, but in general it is not. I (and more nats I know) are all for co-operation across out island, across the British islands, across Europe and across the world. That is not the argument. The argument is how to structure that cooperation. On that count, the British Union (and I would argue at present the EU) is failing. It needs to be though out again. That means Scottish, English and Welsh Parliaments that can then work out a new basis for cooperation. The result is internationalism, not nationalism. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Avatar |
"You see, I rather have a more needy Liverpudlian benefit from tax revenues than a less needy Glaswegian. I see no distinction between the two, both being human beings."
That sounds fair enough if you are supporting a united government of Earth or even a Federal Europe, but if your opinion is limited to the UK I dont see its logic. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
It isn't, as I've stated many times. I believe that decisions should be made at their most effective level - whether it be globally, on a European base, a British one, a Scottish one, a country one, or a village/town/city one. And yes, I support the idea of exclusive competences for the EU - for example in areas of environmental protection. I would happly see a world government if I thought it was any way feasible (albeit a decentralised one) - but it certainly isn't going to happen in my lifetime. Either way, I am proud to be a member of a human race of 6 billion people and feel far more affinity to that status than I ever could to any state, nation, territory or boundary.
I'm afraid I don't agree. The only think the oil has highlighted is the greed of nationalist and some of the politicians out there.
Devolution can be accomodated in any size of state. Whether it is a British one or a Scottish one is irrelevant. Either way, the British Isles have much to share and are undoubtably able to benefit one another. While there may not be a political will to solve the problems of poverty and deprivation, that is a political problem which needs a political solution, not a constitutional one - as you've rightly observed elsewhere, it is the collective responsibility of the UK public for problems like that. All these things we can tackle in a flexible UK and beyond. However it is not merely the sharing of some revenue that is meaningful, it is the symbolic gesture of offering what we have up to a wider audience than what we consider to be 'our own' people.
A country that shares, has spanned the globe at various points, has been willing to give the status of British to anyone who accepts our political ideas and has shared amongst us, yet not tried to annihilate national divisions on a cultural level. If that isn't anti-nationalist, I don't know what is.
Co-operation is all well and good, but the only form of co-operation which gives equality to each and every person within a defined area is political unity with elected representatives.
A supposedly noble idea. However, the ideas behind the British and European Unions (and indeed the Commonwealth of Nations and the UN) are sound. Which means it shouldn't be the institutions which are tackled, but the way the people's representatives run them. The simple fact is that we consistantly elect complete and utter bastards, yet seek to minimise our responsibility for it. Nationalism is the perfect way of avoiding that, yet if you think it would be any better in a Scots Nationalist state then I think you're deluding yourself. It is often difficult to defend a status quo, but they have often evolved over time for a reason: that they can work. The fact that they don't is a problem which all the people need to unite and solve. Separating us from our fellow human beings isn't going to help anything. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Avatar |
"It isn't, as I've stated many times. I believe that decisions should be made at their most effective level - whether it be globally, on a European base, a British one, a Scottish one, a country one, or a village/town/city one. And yes, I support the idea of exclusive competences for the EU - for example in areas of environmental protection. I would happly see a world government if I thought it was any way feasible (albeit a decentralised one) - but it certainly isn't going to happen in my lifetime. Either way, I am proud to be a member of a human race of 6 billion people and feel far more affinity to that status than I ever could to any state, nation, territory or boundary"
I would quite happily see Scotland as a member state of Europe for the time being - I see the UK as being somewhat of an early version of the EU centred around the british isles - so now we have an EU which extends further than the UK, I dont see any further point in the existance of the UK. Why not break up and join Europe? - then in 50 or 100 years time when we have a world union we all get independence from Europe and Join an Earth Government - I dont understand why anyone has any sort of affinity with the UK - its like having people in the future arguing about not seperating from Europe to join a world government - I mean I see your point about trancending nationality but surely holding on to the concept of the UK is just as nationalist as holding onto the concept of Scotland or eventually Europe? |
||||||||||||||||||||
| SLG |
The oil has mainly been used to counter the argument that we are too poor to be able to govern ourselves. However, if you believe that Scotland is a nation that deserved control over it's land and waters, then that includes the oil and the fact that we do not is wrong. If an independent Scots Parliament then decides (with popular public support) that we are going to give 90% of the oil tax revenues to the rest of the UK, then fine, but we should have that choice. If a British nationalist was calling for only a small number of people to share in the wealth generated by the oil, that would be greedy, but for a Scottish nationalist to presume that the oil revenues should be kept in Scotland is right. In the same way as the UK government don't share their oil tax revenues with the rest of the world.
I would agree with you to an extent if I thought that the present political system was capable of making those changes necessary to solve some of the problems we face. I don't think it is. As I see it, I think we do need constitutional changes to kickstart the reforms needed.
In you're post below, you talk about the different levels of government, surely something at the level of the British Isles is much more appropriate than the UK. I think we are generally in agreement, but I think for this flexible union to be in place, we need to scrap the present one and think about the structures we want, and to include the RoI. Just because ultimate power might lie with Holyrood rather than Westminster, do you think that suddenly Scots would be happy to let the English starve? I think the opposite, there is resentment on both sides now due to the lack of transparency in the Union. It needs to go.
Within Britain (the island) at least, I think that there has been an attempt to foster a British national identity. This could have been done more forcefully (although a lot of force was used at times) as you say "annihilate national divisions on a cultural level", but I think to try and do this would have failed and split Britain. I think people like Brown are regretting that a more forceful approach wasn't taken though. It's too late now.
Why do we all need to be equal? If it means that we some are getting dragged down to the lowest level in order to remain equal, then I disagree. I think a better model is to have strong local democracy where communities are governed on a small enough scale to engender a focus and a responsibility to those citizens under it's responsibility. The London based UK, governing 60 million, with the fptp two party system, doesn't care about the glaswegian or the Liverpudlian living in poverty. A Scottish parliament might. And an English parliament with strong powers devolved to the Merseyside or NW England area might.
I would agree that the EU in principle could be reformed through the existing institution. The British Union is something different. I think the British Union does try and force the politics of identity onto us. I also think that the British state is far to centralised and unlikely to change of it's own accord in my lifetime. I also don't want a Scots Nationalist state. I want a Scots state.
Sometimes you need to break things down in order to rebuild them. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| IF Convenor |
It has been proven that, 30 years ago, the UK government deliberately lied about the potential of North Sea oil so that it could keep the benefits to itself and deprive Scotland of the full potential it represented. Who are you calling greedy? The facts prove it is the UK which is greedy and rapacious, not the people unlucky enough to have the blooming oil off their coast. | ||||||||||||||||||||