UKBouldering.com

Och aye the Yes! Or Noooo.... (The Scottish Independence thread) (Read 106745 times)

SA Chris

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 29221
  • Karma: +630/-11
    • http://groups.msn.com/ChrisClix
Wave and tidal? Really? I can't imagine trying to support a country's economic development on a technology that hasn't got beyond pilot scale for >20 years...

Wind as well. Farms going up everywhere, on and offshore.

Pitcairn

Offline
  • **
  • player
  • Posts: 84
  • Karma: +3/-0
I live in Sweden but am a proud Scot and Im against independence for Scotland.  I agree with Fultonious that the chance to be rid of the current British government is appealing if it meant Scotland could be remodeled as a small scandinavian-style socialist state with high taxes and well-funded health system and education at the heart of society.  But there is no indication that this is what would happen.  Firstly the economic argument for independence has yet to be shown in detail by the SNP.  Clearly keeping the pound is preferable to having the euro (what sort of credit rating would we get - not great i suspect) or developing our own currency (costs a fortune and again exchange rates could cripple us), but then if we are going to keep the pound and use other British services such as defense, what really is the point.

I fear that Alex Salmond whom I think is a very shrewd politician is going to use a wave of 2014 nationalism to get the weekend-nationalists who like to hate England when we play them at football or rugby but who dont know anything about economics to vote yes without putting forward the proper economic blueprint.  It seems very possible that we would be worse off as an independent country.  I just hope that people get a chance to see the argument and vote with their brains.

Snoops

Offline
  • ***
  • obsessive maniac
  • Posts: 496
  • Karma: +20/-0
I'm glad that at least it seems to be a one off - 'are u in or out?' question.

I don't have a problem at all if Scots want to be independent, but I do think that this 'devo max' stuff is slightly taking the piss - have the good bits without the bad bits....non?


tomtom

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 20282
  • Karma: +641/-11
Well, I think it leaves Cameron in a win-win situation.

If its a no vote then he can glow in his victory etc..

If its a yes, then a Tory majority will be guarunteed for years to come... and it can look like he's letting the people do what they want to do. It will also probably lead to whats left of the UK having to leave/renegotiate their EU presence - which would please many members of the Tory party to no end...

Stewart

Offline
  • **
  • menacing presence
  • Posts: 208
  • Karma: +11/-0
I wouldnt want to live in a small country who's entire economy was pegged to the oil price.

That's why Salmond is focussing massively on the renewables market. If efficient wave and tidal power generators can be developed - which they will be (and there are huge developmental grants from the Scottish government and EU available and many ongoing trials to achieve this) - Scotland has access to around 25% of the total EU potential.


Wave and tidal? Really? I can't imagine trying to support a country's economic development on a technology that hasn't got beyond pilot scale for >20 years...

The point is the independence movement and Scotland's economy is not just about oil as many seem to think it is. The wave & tidal technology is progressing rapidly but it's at the point wind power was 20yrs ago where trials are still ongoing to find the most efficient solution to harvest the energy. The potential is huge though and will be realised, i think around 35% of Scotland's energy is currently from renewable with the target to be 100% by 2050. We're already a net exporter when the UK as a whole is a net importer.

However, the yes vote will be driven primarily by the feeling that Cameron, Clegg, Miliband et al are not much different from Blair, Brown even Thatcher and Scotland has always sat distinctly to the left of mainstream Uk politics.

The no vote (which will win) is driven by the fact that this is the worst possible time to engage in massive constitutional change and the fear factor of what is happening in Spain and Greece coupled with unanswered questions/scaremongering about switching to the euro etc mean people will vote for the status quo.
 

abarro81

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 4289
  • Karma: +341/-25
The potential is huge though and will be realised, i think around 35% of Scotland's energy is currently from renewable with the target to be 100% by 2050.

The 'potential' wont be realised if they're talking about a theoretical capacity rather than taking logistics into account. There's two refs for the 25% figure on wikipedia but I haven't got time to see what sort of capacity they're talking about.

From the ref. on wikipedia it's actually 31% of electricity generation in 2011 (http://www.ren21.net/Portals/97/documents/GSR/GSR2011_Master18.pdf), which is significantly different to total energy use (think gas heating/cooking, transport, etc).

galpinos

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 2114
  • Karma: +85/-1
The potential is huge though and will be realised, i think around 35% of Scotland's energy is currently from renewable with the target to be 100% by 2050. We're already a net exporter when the UK as a whole is a net importer.

I realise abarro has made this point but 35% of Scotland's electricity is from the renewables market (and this is assuming 2011 comnsumption was the same as 2010). This is better than the UK as a whole though, as it sits at 10% approx.

Also, the reason you are a net exporter of energy is due to oil and gas, not renewables.

However, despite the whinging by me above it is nice to see a country investing in renewables (they could do with investing more in the technology/design and less on just installing imo) as the only way this side of the market will improve is via investment.

Falling Down

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 4880
  • Karma: +333/-4
    • bensblogredux
We're also confusing domestic energy demand and consumption versus export of energy (hydrocarbons + electricity) and oil and gas services.

AndyR

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1179
  • Karma: +16/-1
I wouldnt want to live in a small country who's entire economy was pegged to the oil price.

That's why Salmond is focussing massively on the renewables market. If efficient wave and tidal power generators can be developed - which they will be (and there are huge developmental grants from the Scottish government and EU available and many ongoing trials to achieve this) - Scotland has access to around 25% of the total EU potential.


Wave and tidal? Really? I can't imagine trying to support a country's economic development on a technology that hasn't got beyond pilot scale for >20 years...

The point is the independence movement and Scotland's economy is not just about oil as many seem to think it is. The wave & tidal technology is progressing rapidly but it's at the point wind power was 20yrs ago where trials are still ongoing to find the most efficient solution to harvest the energy. The potential is huge though and will be realised, i think around 35% of Scotland's energy is currently from renewable with the target to be 100% by 2050. We're already a net exporter when the UK as a whole is a net importer.


Fair point re diversity of Scotland's economy - I am hugely ignorant in that regard. However, I fail to be optimistic re the potential for tidal and wave energy - perhaps in a few generation's time, but the energy density is so low (i.e. infrastructure required per watt capacity), that it can only be competitive in a market where other forms of energy are hugely expensive, or wind/wave are subsidised. Given the advances in unconventional land-based gas elsewhere in the world, I would not bet on it - far better to start building LNG import terminals if you ask me...
Sorry, this is massively off-topic  ;)

i.munro

Offline
  • ****
  • junky
  • Posts: 942
  • Karma: +15/-11

Fair point re diversity of Scotland's economy - I am hugely ignorant in that regard. However, I fail to be optimistic re the potential for tidal and wave energy - perhaps in a few generation's time,
Sorry, this is massively off-topic  ;)

Sorry to be even further odd-topic but if it takes more than a few years then there aren't going to be a few more generations.

Stewart

Offline
  • **
  • menacing presence
  • Posts: 208
  • Karma: +11/-0

[/quote]
Fair point re diversity of Scotland's economy .....  far better to start building LNG import terminals if you ask me...
Sorry, this is massively off-topic  ;)
[/quote]

Yes, i kinda dragged it off topic in the first place but it is all valid and open to debate.

Anyhoo - some interesting stuff here arguing the Barnett formula is not currently fair on Scotland. A pro-independence slant on it for sure and it raises a few obvious questions. It has long been argued that Scotland actually runs at a surpluss but again thats going back to oil revenues, the below link sets out more info on the effect of privitisation in England on the Scottish budget - more interesting than it sounds!

http://wingsland.podgamer.com/the-barnett-trap-and-the-expensive-lunch/

I am a target voter here. Usually vote SNP because they've made a better job at running things at a local level than the others but leaning towards voting no primarily cause I do think all countries in the Union can be better together if we could massively amend the current outdated financial and democratic systems. However, it currently looks like there is no appetite for the change required in Westminster and for that reason i'm still very much undecided.

Sloper

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • fat and weak but with good footwork.
  • Posts: 5199
  • Karma: +130/-78
My view is that they should vote yes.

Ok I'll probably pay more for my whisky and tweeds but look on the plus side, we'll never, ever, ever have a Labour government in England & Wales again. :goodidea:

tomtom

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 20282
  • Karma: +641/-11
No lose situation for ol puffy condom face..

Sloper

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • fat and weak but with good footwork.
  • Posts: 5199
  • Karma: +130/-78
If it's a no vote then we could also see a big swing from Labour to SNP, which would also be a bonus.

tomtom

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 20282
  • Karma: +641/-11
As its getting close to the time - and having read Dave M's post on the blogpiler (below) I thought it time to give this thread a kick...

Scotland - what to decide? A starting place in the decision making process
4 September 2014, 6:44 pm

 Although this blog is primarily about my thoughts on climbing, I’m aware that the huge decision on Scottish independence is getting close, and I need to think about whether to keep my thoughts to myself, or share them with others. It doesn’t seem to make sense for interested parties to make their decision in a bubble of isolation. Why not discuss it openly? Moreover, why not make clear where the gaps in the arguments aired in the media lie, so that we may have more of the information we need to come to the best possible decision.

Unlike the way the decision is presented by politicians, I don’t feel that anyone can truly come to the right or wrong decision, where right or wrong implies prosperity of the country in the future. Either path carries considerable uncertainty. In my mind, the right decision is the one that people are happy to have made, given the information and feelings we have at the time. Even if it did turn out to make us a tiny bit worse off in the pocket, that won’t make it the wrong decision because either path could have led to that outcome.

Because of these uncertainties, I was undecided for a long time, but as I’ve thought it over repeatedly, I have now decided that a Yes vote is definitely the choice I wish to make. Part of the reason it took me a long time to reach a firm conclusion was the the disappointing level of coverage of the issue in the mass media. In the political field, each side is obliged to try to strengthen it’s case. Realistically, what else could we expect? I hoped to hear more from respected intellectuals who were prepared to offer their thoughts. Thankfully, these have appeared on the internet over the past few months.

If ever there was an issue that is not black and white, it is this. Here are some questions and ideas that have come to my mind to guide me through this decision, which I am so happy to have made. It’s the first time in my life where I’ve been truly excited to receive my ballot paper through the letterbox.

These ideas span several different concepts and issues, and all of them seem relevant to me. I hope they are at least interesting to some of you who may be going through the same difficult process.

Part 1: Power

They say that the one lesson from history is that no one learns anything from history. However, right now we have a future in front of us of being able to make decisions for ourselves. I cannot find a good reason to take a huge gamble in handing this power over to a distant government. The idea that power is never given, only taken comes to mind here. Although I do think there are some major problems with politicians, political system, and the way the media handle it in the UK, on the whole I do think that many politicians are trying to do good work under difficult constraints. However, I have a basic worry that the distance breeds complacency. I am unsure about others worries that Scotland may lose influence internationally. If we replace the ability to interfere in the middle east with a focus on the advancement of education of our own people, we will end up being able to exert global influence in much more effective ways (such as in solving many of the problems that cause wars in the first place).

I just mentioned that I felt Westminster politicians are generally speaking trying to do good work. The British political system is a somewhat archaic arrangement, which creates some  undesirable consequences and sometimes appears to reward the wrong behaviour among politicians. There have been repeated opportunities to change it, but these haven’t been taken. I fear that this will simply continue if we vote to hand our power over to a government in London.

Peoples across the ages right up to the present day have given their lives in a struggle to take their power back from distant government. All those people didn’t fight for nothing. In general, it’s because distant government just doesn’t act in their best interests. It is interested in the resources of the territory, rather than taking care of the people living on it. It’s almost unbelievable that we are being given the opportunity to take the decision without a single bullet fired.

So why are the polls predicting that we will vote to reject home rule? Surely, it must be down to psychology?

Part 2: Psychology

Consider the scenario that we were voting for or against a union with a government in London if we had been an independent country for the past 300 years. Do you think we would vote for it? Surely, the very idea would be laughed at. Therefore, the psychology of the status quo must play a huge part in our decision making.

The current government is in severe danger from UKIP simply because of the very modest effects of European influence on our government. There is an irony that that they argue that the UK union should stay together. I also wonder how the English would vote in a referendum to move the seat of government to Belfast, Cardiff or Edinburgh.

Is the future status quo not an illusion? Obviously, it’s a leap of faith to vote for setting up a new government (not a country - we are already a country!). But surely it’s also obvious that it’s a huge leap of faith to enter a union with a country which has some frightening looming problems. I’m thinking here about us leaving Europe, spending vast quantities of money and lives on wars that don’t seem to have helped, killing off the NHS, failing to properly address the many issues that contribute to wellbeing of the population.

The status quo in our country is that the leading cause of death among male adults between 21-50 is suicide. I can’t see any reason to vote for a status quo where our children are more likely to wish to end their own lives in their prime than in years gone by. The status quo is not making us happy. I don’t feel that there is much to lose by letting go of risk aversion and voting to take another path.

Part 3: Wealth

Despite the fact that our current wealth (in a world perspective) has not made us happy, the data shows that the short term effects on our financial situation are most likely to swing voters decisions. There are two critical points about this.

Firstly, the predictions about whether we may be slightly better or slightly worse off are totally unreliable. On both sides, they are assumptions, based on assumptions. Economists are famous for being unable to agree on anything. And recent history certainly underlines the lack of ability to predict avoidable economic disasters. To vote based on predicted numbers truly is to take a gamble.

Secondly, what is wealth? The most exciting piece of discussion I’ve heard in the mass media relating to the independence debate was back in May and wasn’t even being discussed in the context of independence. It’s well known that above a basic level, more money doesn’t mean more happiness and wellbeing. I’m simplifying and recommend some good reading that explores the complex picture. The media constantly encourages us to worry about GDP, despite the ever greater understanding that it doesn’t relate to quality of life. Back in 1968 Bobby Kennedy said GDP “measures everything except that which makes life worthwhile”. Although it doesn’t make such an easy headline for mass media, the social progress index has over recent years shed much more light on what is important. It puts GDP in it’s place as one among many factors we should be concerned about. The findings, and the league table of countries makes interesting reading. Note that the UK is a lot lower on the list than some other countries that have much in common with Scotland.

I’m not saying money isn’t important. But since the numbers war averages out at a few hundred quid either side of the recent past and it’s clear that this sort of difference has only limited effects on wellbeing (that may well be countered in other ways), it doesn’t seem right to take the gamble along these lines. Moreover, an Independent Scotland, even in tough times is likely to be more left leaning than the current government and pay closer attention to those with least opportunity. For these reasons, surely the best lines across which to thrash out a decision are cultural.

Part 4: Culture

Niall Ferguson (a conservative) described in 2012’s BBC Reith* lectures why countries prosper first and foremost from their institutions rather than simply their industries. He was referring to legal and educational institutions. In both of these fields, Scotland has institutions which are looked up to around the world. He also pointed out that the accumulation of national debt is now undermining democracy since successive generations inherit the debt without having voted to accumulate it. Whether you choose to love or hate the SNP, they have been clear about their intention and proposed methods to reverse the current direction of the UK of accumulating vast quantities of debt. Although our current austerity programme is reducing our national deficit, the debt is still rising.

Very few Scots seriously question whether we ‘could’ be independent. I would urge the few that do to have more confidence! So to decide whether we should, surely we should think about what would give us a greater sense of being part of a community, greater sense of purpose and a feeling that our voice as individuals or may be heard.

This aspect has been my strongest lever towards voting yes. We are already a country, in all but government. Completing that missing piece by deciding to govern ourselves would allow us to shape our circumstances to better reflect our needs. Sure, we have absorbed so much of culture from the rest of the UK and the rest of the world. There is a McDonalds in every town. We eat full Scottish breakfasts, which are basically full English breakfasts plus Irn Bru. Etc. But it seems pretty clear to me that we are different from the rest of the UK. Suitably different to benefit from having a sovereign government. That was also the view of the UK's outgoing permanent representative to NATO, expressed while she was pointing out that NATO would have no reason to interrupt Scotland's membership.

Where England is one of the most densely populated countries in Europe, Scotland is one of the least. Rather than worrying about the influx of foreign talent, we realise that we need it. Where England repeatedly votes for a Tory government with a far right chaser, we have always leaned a little more to the left.

I just don’t feel the government represents us. In fact, I don’t think we are even on their radar. The independence referendum neatly illustrates this. So many in England are barely even aware that the UK is a few points away from breaking up.

It ought to go without saying that I have no axe to grind against the UK. None whatsoever. I feel that the situation we are in is just human nature. We are a tiny part of the UK, population wise, with quite different needs and ideals. And so it has come about that we have been given the chance to represent ourselves, but remain connected in the wider European Union. At a very basic level, it makes sense. I still want to do business with, travel to and consume culture from the rest of the UK, just as I do from the the rest of Europe which I regularly spend time in and have friends in.

I do feel that taking the step to independence will do Scotland a massive amount of good. If there is one piece of Scottish culture that I feel still exists and is not our best asset, it’s lack of confidence. I think that it will make it more focused, more flexible, and especially more confident.

So I’m voting Yes.

*Footnote: John Reith, of Stonehaven, developed the concept of public service broadcasting for the education of the people and created the modern BBC as its first director general. I doubt he would have any confidence issues with the idea of establishing a Scottish broadcasting service. He admitted that he felt he had the skills to “manage any company”. He put his money where his mouth was.Dave MacLeod

My book - 9 out of 10 climbers make the same mistakes

Source: Dave MacLeod blog

SamT

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 2074
  • Karma: +95/-0


Bookies are fairly certain which way its going (and they're not usually far off the mark)

...as is this guy...

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/07/record-bet-scottish-independence

petejh

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 5778
  • Karma: +622/-36
I think overall too many Scots are just too Scottish to gain independence, i.e. as per Dave Mac's second-to-last paragraph they lack the self-confidence and/or are too wary of change to see it through. Which I think is a pity, I hope I'm wrong.

tomtom

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 20282
  • Karma: +641/-11
Good luck which ever way it goes - Living in the North of England I wish we had an opportunity to stick two fingers up at Westminster and London... the UK has sadly become increasingly london centric...

dave

  • Guest
I spoke to a few expat irnbru-swilling kilt wearers, currently living in Norway, at a wedding in Austria this summer (regarded moi). They all said that it would be a No vote, and that it's only within the UK where anyone genuinely thinks a Yes vote is on the cards. They drew analogy with Obama vs Mitt Romney, the rest of the world could see the result as a foregone conclusion.

I bet if it does happen it'll make little practical difference to anyone, especially not any of us sooth of the border. The main arguments and ideologies seem to be romantically driven notions of national identity and statesmanship by Salmond, I don't buy any of the practical or economic arguments.

Will Hunt

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Superworm is super-long
  • Posts: 7976
  • Karma: +631/-115
    • Unknown Stones
An excellent post by Dave McLeod there. If I was a Scot I would be voting Yes Yes Fucking Yes. However, as I'm British (read as "English" in this context) I desperately hope they stay. Scotland is great and, aside from all the other positives,  it helps to reign in the tories every general election.

fatneck

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 2894
  • Karma: +143/-3
  • Fishing Helm
A fifth of my family are angry Glaswegians and all vehemently voting yes...

Sloper

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • fat and weak but with good footwork.
  • Posts: 5199
  • Karma: +130/-78
For all those hoping that the vote is Yes, be prepared for an emergency Bill through Parliament that means that the election in 2015 won't return any MPs to Westminster.  Predicted results, Con -1, Lib Dem, -4? (is that right, can't be arsed to Google) and Labour -54

Which on current numbers would mean

Con 302
Lib Dem 52
Labour 203
Others c. 20
Result Con absolute and working majority

petejh

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 5778
  • Karma: +622/-36
I hope it's a yes because I think it would be a good thing overall for Scotland. It's not about England/Wales/N.Ireland.

Sloper

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • fat and weak but with good footwork.
  • Posts: 5199
  • Karma: +130/-78
My view is that it will be bad for Scotland in the short and long term, it wil be bad for England in the short term but good in the long term.

That said, a price worth paying if it effectively casts Labour into the history books.

fried

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1892
  • Karma: +60/-3
Why would you want to consign Labour to the history books?

 

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2024, SimplePortal