lynda32

Personally even though i now live in Spain. I cheered when i heard he was stepping down. As far as i can see since he took over there has been nothing but unrest and a war thats took place that the majority did not want and all i see when i look at him is "Bushes Puppet".
Just my opinion but then again you know what they say about opinions there like A holes everyones got one.

lynda32

Sorry my reply was not aimed at you Mitzyboy but just a general comment.

rugbymatt

Streetwise, if you want to add something to the discussion come back on and add something, but this time why don't you try and contribute rather than flame and be critical?

Mitzyboy

Hey, no sweat ....

I just don't think overall Blair has screwed us on taxes any more or less than any other government, its just swings and roundabouts dependent on where on the ladder you are. I've been screwed over by Labour and Conservative alike.
And (bury head in ground) I think Iraq was the right thing to do ...... don't think it was thought through properly ... but I think it was the right thing to do.

Brown will win the next election unless he does something absolutley silly. And after that Millaband will take over from him

rugbymatt

Right, I have read through the Crone report, and yeah, it does state quite clearly that if Scotland should devolve totally and break away from the rest of the UK then the £200 million pound deficit that it held in 1974 between what it put into the economy of the UK and what it took out could be taken away and replaced with massive surpluses of money.

Now this relies on a couple of factors.

Firstly the premise that the South East takes up all the bulk of the UK's money is a complete myth. The South East has greater private sector funding than any other area, but not public sector funding, therefore the South East does not benefit from the Scottish oil more any other area.

So the more impoverished areas of the UK would then suffer. Fine some Scots would say, who gives a crap? Well if we are to assume that the oil returns solely to Scotland, then the entire infrastructure should be taken out, because Scotland, in its pre-oil state could never have afforded the massive investments that were required to establish the oil industry.
The option for Scotland would then be to borrow against its oil reserves, and thats not a very good place to be, because the Americans would be the first to enter the bidding war, and they are not going to help for shits and giggles, they will want their pound of flesh.

Now the second point is that Scotland's Oil fields were first put on line in 1971, and Scotland was economically screwed well before that, now I don't dispute that if only Scotland controlled the oil the story would be different, but it doesn't, and the Acts of Union has ensured that for over 300 years, so the oil belongs to the UK, and it benefits the UK. Maybe now it will be evenly distributed but I think you will be a little shocked to discover exactly how much money has been spent on Scotland given its population size.

rugbymatt

Oh and as a footnote, Scotland has just over 5 million people, the rest of the UK over 55 million, if the majority of Oil revenue goes south of the border, well is it surprising??

SoJohn

Those oil fields won't last forever, yield has already started to decrease.

rugbymatt

True in part, the term Oil Fields also talks of the gas fields and true, they are drying up, but the actual oil fields are beginning to rise in output.

Lochy

"Every Monarch, having two or more kingdoms, will be obliged to prefer the Counsel and Interest of the Stronger to that of the Weaker, and the greater Disparity of Power and Riches there is betwixt these kingdoms, the Greater the Influence the more powerful nation will have on the Soveriegn." William Seton, 1707.

Was true in 1707, and it's true today.

rugbymatt

Its simple numbers Lochy, 5 against 55 million.


You should have a read of the Mcrone report, it is an interesting theory.

Lochy

I'm agreeing with you. The interests of the majority will always outweigh the interests of the minority.

I have read the McCrone report, I find it fascinating and alarming.

Lis48

Anyone around when the McCrone report was leaked will know that it received about as much press coverage as the McCann disappearance has in recent weeks. It hit the papers big time and stunned us all. I particularly remember it as I was teaching about the subject at the time and cut out all the press reports. It may not have been published officially, that I don´t know, but certainly the public knew about it in 1975 and voiced their concerns and it was a major debating issue and not "hidden". I guess in 30 years´time, someone will report about how terrible it was that a child disappeared in Portugal in 2007 and report that no one did anything to find her...or even cared. The press arrogantly assume times have changed and mankind has improved and seem to drag up old news just to sell newspapers that rely on people forgetting.

Lochy

I'm surprised, you must have been the only person who knew about this in 1975 as all repolrts are that this was supressed. I'd be very interested to see anything you have on this from the time.

Lis48

The full report was certainly supressed as it was written in 1974 just weeks before the autumn General Election and classified as secret because of its possible effects on the very close run results. After the election it was the subject of many newspaper editorials and the overall conclusions leaked out.
I think the general public just took its findings for granted then as you are talking about an era when people were convinced that whichever side was in political power at the turn of the century would bankrupt the country as the North Sea oil would have run out. Its life was expected to be 20 years so it was more of an issue what would happen in 21 years than which country in the UK claimed it.