We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Why doesn't Cameron want Scottish Independence?
Comments
-
What does a license have to do with anything when scotland has territorial rights over the north sea reserves?
Unlike you BP won't cut off their noises to spoil their face. They would still drill under a scottish license as they would a UK one. Although you're forgetting in a free market the contract could be tendered out.
I'm sure ExxonMobil or Chevron would acquire the rights if Alex Salmond were to make a similar deal with the american as Richard Nixon made with saudi arabia in the 70's.
You and others like you complain the scots are a drain on the english taxpayers. you loath the fact their politicians decide matters in parliament effecting england. yet you don't want to see them leave the union.
Your indignation stems from the very real possibility that the scottish will stop believing the lies we tell about them and realise the truth. It makes you feel powerless and it carries with it the very real likelihood our consumer driven economy would collapse if Salmond negotiates independence.
I'm not sure where you get territorial rights from. United Nations Conventions have for a long time defined these as 12 nautical miles out from low tide. Not many platforms there!
All I am saying is that current licenses belong to the United Kingdom. Scotland is planning to leave the United Kingdom. Hence any licencing rights to be acquired by Scotland will have to be negotiated. Nothing wrong with that.
I have never 'complained' about Scotland being a drain. I simply state it as a fact. There's a difference.
As for the issue itself, I have no "indignation" whatsoever. Seems you might have to look in the mirror for that. The Scottish voted for a government that wants independence. Wonderful. A referendum on the subject is forthcoming. Great. If that confirms independence, then all well and good.
Why get so uppity about it? I assume you want independence?0 -
ruggedtoast wrote: »Your interpretation of these events is at variance with the facts. To use the politest terminology that I can think of.
In every example the invading aggressor won.
The Falklands were held by the Argentines. The British invaded.
South Vietnam was held by the Americans and South Vietnamese government. The VC and Chinese communist troops invaded and overwhelmed them.
The decision to try and press north was taken fairly early on in the campaign by the Americans, but was not the primary purpose of the deployment.
The French controlled parts of Indo-China were taken over by invading armies.
Read my posts carefully. Locals and their backers won. Unwanted aggressors/invaders lost. Argentina's not got the Falklands any more. The French don't have Indochina. The Americans are welcome as tourists in Vietnam IIRC.
By all means think that invading countries that don't want you there gets long-term results. Just show me evidence that military invasion by outsiders gains lasting results or achieves long-term goals. Nothing you've described looks convincing; in fact, the opposite.:DThere is no honour to be had in not knowing a thing that can be known - Danny Baker0 -
You really dont have a clue what your talking about do you. Twisting and turning things to suit your definitions do not make you right.
As a soldier who has served in Bosnia and Iraq - seeing both the before and after, and as someone who has studies modern military history - i can tell your your wrong on pretty much all counts.0 -
Read my posts carefully. Locals and their backers won. Unwanted aggressors/invaders lost. Argentina's not got the Falklands any more. The French don't have Indochina. The Americans are welcome as tourists in Vietnam IIRC.
The Normans?
Definitely unwanted, definitely aggressors. The motto of the British Royal Family is still in French!
The English in Australia, New Zealand and Canada?0 -
As for the Oil - Scotland have no geographical rights to the Oil as their techically in internatiol waters. the reserves were claimed by the UK, and licesnes are helb by UK. The only influence Scotland has over the oil is because of where its landed, and the infostructure already there. Too many of our Northern Clan fail to realise this.
In truth, there will be a bigger financial cost in moving the British Army/nuclear bases - which would almost certainly have to happen.
Scottish independance is an ideal - its not financially manageable with its current infrastructure and economy. Whether you want them or not, thy are not going to get independance as there are actually too many clever people up north who can see the reality.0 -
Loughton_Monkey wrote: »
All I am saying is that current licenses belong to the United Kingdom. Scotland is planning to leave the United Kingdom. Hence any licencing rights to be acquired by Scotland will have to be negotiated. Nothing wrong with that.
That means we can leave the UK debt with the UK also or are you just making it up as you go along?
We all know why Cameron or any other political leader want's Scotland to remain in the uk. London and the south east has most to lose.0 -
That means we can leave the UK debt with the UK also or are you just making it up as you go along?
We all know why Cameron or any other political leader want's Scotland to remain in the uk. London and the south east has most to lose.
Well technically of course Scotland can leave with no debt, it'll be a new country after all.
Its just that to actually break away from the UK it will need permission from the UK government to do so. And no British Prime Minister in their right mind will allow Scotland to secede with 100% of the UK's oil and 0% of the UK's debts.
This is the thing about secession, the bit you are seceding from doesn't have to be especially nice to you any more.0 -
ruggedtoast wrote: »Well technically of course Scotland can leave with no debt, it'll be a new country after all.
Its just that to actually break away from the UK it will need permission from the UK government to do so. And no British Prime Minister in their right mind will allow Scotland to secede with 100% of the UK's oil and 0% of the UK's debts.
This is the thing about secession, the bit you are seceding from doesn't have to be especially nice to you any more.
That was my whole point. It was Mr Monkey who posted as if he wanted his cake and eat it.0 -
Could you remind me of any single instance since WW2 that sending the troops in anywhere instead of politicians has ever achieved any long-term goal whatsoever?:)The Normans?
Definitely unwanted, definitely aggressors. The motto of the British Royal Family is still in French!
The English in Australia, New Zealand and Canada?
I was careful to exclude pre-20th century military adventures from my posts. These earlier military actions frequently achieved long-term strategic goals.There is no honour to be had in not knowing a thing that can be known - Danny Baker0 -
I was careful to exclude pre-20th century military adventures from my posts. These earlier military actions frequently achieved long-term strategic goals.
Fair enough. I was going to add the English in the USA to my list but I won't bother now.
C20th:
NATO in various bits of what used to be Yugo seems to have ended well although IMHO the troops should have gone in much sooner (this is peacekeeping not invasion as such).
Red Russians in Ukraine? The Ukraine ended up as part of the USSR for the best part of a century.
Soviet invasion of Poland (and indeed much of Eastern, Central and Southern Europe)? Lasted nearly 50 years until the Poles kicked Marx in the cojones (and good on them!).0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards