Thinker

I know mate. Sorry for hi-jacking the thread and taking it so far off topic.

Okay sorry. I wasn't quoting anyone specifically, more of an "in inverted commas" summary of the way I see things. Oops, I've just done it again! How much we would be able to afford as independent nation is clearly linked to the price of oil. If it goes up fantastic, if it goes down, not so fantastic. But I'm not just talking about the finance that we bring to the UK, I'm talking about the influence we bring with our votes. It will be much, much harder for the rest to out-vote the South East if we're not there. That concerns me. When I look at the UK I don't see an us and a them, just an us. I don't want the Scots to have less. Ideally, I'd like us all to get the same - shared out equally across the country. Maybe that doesn't happen at the moment, but that's what I want to happen, and it'll influence who I vote for in the general election. It's not really a magnanimous gesture since I care a great deal about many people who live in the UK outside of Scotland. Possibly, but it hasn't always been that way and it doesn't necessarily have to be that way in the future. I don't believe that's true at all. I believe Scotland can play a major role in creating a fairer UK in the future. Wasn't "It's Scotland's Oil" a slogan coined by the SNP? Personally I don't believe that "England" or "Scotland" believe anything, and it's a crude generalisation to say otherwise. Some constituencies in England traditionally vote in a certain way, others don't, and we form multicultural parts of a multicultural whole. The North-East of England, for example, is staunchly socialist, just like central Scotland. And we can't forget about Northern Ireland and Wales. They don't have fossil fuel reserves to keep to themselves as funding for their independence. In fact, the North East of Scotland and the Shetlands typically vote Lib-Dem as opposed to the Labour voting Central belt. By your argument, why should they have to subsidise us Weegie scum benefit junkies with their oil money? If, as you say, you don't believe that a person's nationality is decided by their ancestry, why should it be decided by ancestral borders? Does it seem fair that the people of Stranraer should get more money from North Sea oil than the people of Berwick? I'm not advocating pledging allegiance to people who've run the country badly, I'm suggesting we vote for people who'll run the country well. The war in the Middle East is more likely to be ended if the people of Scotland get a say in it. Like I've said before, I fully believe that our votes will be important in guiding the UK in the future. It seems very negative to me to suggest that's not a possibility - every bit as negative as those who nay-say your rosy picture of a future independent Scotland.

Irrelevant to you maybe, but no so much to anyone who has loved ones in the wider UK (not just England, a lot of bears reading this will have kith and kin in Northern Ireland, a few in Wales I daresay). When I vote in a general election, I want it to to be a vote for the good of all my friends and family, not just the ones North of the border. And I'm not just talking about solving the South/North financial divide. Earlier in this thread Andy put forward the point that he'll be voting for independence because he's unhappy about the war in the Middle East. Completely understandable feelings, but voting for independence won't end the war. The only difference it will make is that none of the poor bastards who get killed will live around these parts. Will that make it any less tragic? For people like me, who have non-Scots-based relatives with their lives on the line it's especially scant consolation. And should Scotland become independent I won't even be able to vote for a party who will end the war. A vote for independence is effectively an abstention on that matter - and you can apply that same principle to many other issues effecting the UK. The well-being of people in other parts of Britain besides Scotland is not irrelevant to me and that's why I wish to retain a vote and a stake in the running of the UK. To my mind there's a fundamental selfishness about independence ("I'm quids in with this oil, the rest of you can sort yourselves out"). That's why I'm against it. If you were ever trying to convince me to vote Yes you failed with that post.

Well, I suppose by its very nature the No campaign has to be more negative than the Yes campaign. We're dealing with a hypothetical future situation here - it's the Yes campaign's job to paint as rosy a picture of it as possible, the No campaign's to point out the potential pitfalls. In any case, as I've tried to allude to in a couple of my previous posts (#148 and #166), my concern about independence isn't that us fortunate ones North of the border won't make out like bandits (although, that's definitely not a given), it's that its aim is the betterment of the situation of a few of us (UK citizens) at the expense of the rest. That "rest" includes a large number family and friends for me. For whatever reason, none of the pro-independence campaigners on here have replied to those posts. Maybe my point is so stupidly flawed that it's not worth addressing...

I'd far rather fix the problems that the UK faces rather than cut ourselves free and abandon the rest (the North East, North West - pretty much everywhere outside the home counties) to their fate. Personally, I'm not swayed by what's better for me if it comes at the expense of others.

Well, going by your previous arguments, the UK need Scotland more than Scotland needs the UK, due largely to income from oil reserves. Presumably if independence is of financial benefit to Scotland, it's also to the financial detriment of the rest of the UK. Why would I wish to vote for a situation that is detrimental to people that I care about. No, don't get me wrong, it is a simple definition. The point I'm trying to make is that, the definition of Scots that you're using isn't something I can feel passionate about. It's not an ethnicity (happily, as you say) but it's not even really a culture either. It's a multi-cultural "fortunate few" hived off from the larger multi-cultural whole. It seems like more of a separation of "haves" from "have-nots".

In your jesting you've actually raised another point that's always concerned me: What about the generations of children who grow up in the rest of the UK outside of Scotland? Should I stop caring about them? My brother's side of the family all live in Carlisle. And, just to be nit-picky, when you talk about generations of unborn Scots - those who will miss out are Scots in the sense of "whomsoever chooses to live in Scotland", right? Not necessarily my children or the children of anyone who I share my community with at the moment?

This is probably going to sound like a weak argument, but there has to be more to changing something so fundamental about our country's identity than comparing our situation to others' and saying "I'd rather do it like them". Personally, I like being a citizen of the United Kingdom, despite all its quirks and failings - It's part of who I am. The thought of the UK or the monarchy ceasing to exist fills me with the same kind of dread that I felt during admin when it seemed that Rangers might be gone forever. Maintaining traditions for tradition's sake is daft, but maintaining traditions because they're familiar and people like them is surely forgivable. For example. why do I celebrate Christmas? I'm not a Christian, I don't believe in Santa, and you could easily trash my rose-tinted view of it with talk of commercialization and waste. You could probably perform a similar hatchet job on why giving up my hard-earned cash to support a football team full of highly paid young ingrates is logically and ethically flawed. I still hope to find a selection of over-priced Rangers merchandise under the tree this year. Also, sorry that this thread has veered so far off-topic. Maybe we could shunt it out of the way of the folk who want to talk football?

Well, if that article is correct and he's sunk £200 million?! (can that be true?) into Newcastle, imagine what that would have done for us. Even a tenth of that sum would very nearly buy the Scottish title these days.

Not really. I disagree with TRPB but he's clearly not a bigot. Believing two categories of people are different is not the same as saying one is better than the other. It's not hateful.

I don't think it makes them a bigot, but it's just not an accurate view of things.

At the risk of sounding xenophobic, yes I do consider myself to be more different from a Frenchman or an Italian than an Englishman. I've travelled a fair amount and I've had plenty of uni friends, flatmates and a few girlfriends from the continent and further afield but while you're right that we fundamentally all want the same things, we don't have anywhere like the same cultural overlap. When I chat to someone else from another part of the UK, we can reminisce about the same experiences. We were chuffed when Andy won Wimbledon or Paula won the marathon. I can refer to "fork 'andles" or the man with the stick and they'll know what I mean. Our grandads may have done their national service alongside each other. We speak the same language. We both went to Alton Towers with school. We share a common British culture and it's one I like.

That "schizophrenia" is the unpleasant tearing feeling you get when someone demands you choose between two imperfect options. It seems everything has to be portrayed as a black or white choice these days. Maybe people today don't have the patience for anything more complex than a binary decision, or maybe the media have decided on our behalf that that's the case. Actually, we've seen it in the debates amongst our own support in recent times - if you weren't 100% comfortable with Green's mouthing off then obviously you must be in favour of dignified silence / be a hand-wringer. If you didn't think the Blue Knights' proposed bid was up to much then clearly you were happy for venture capitalists to plough up Ibrox and plant tatties. Of course, in almost all cases there are intermediate, less polar options. With regards to the Scottish Parliament, continued or extended devolution seems like a reasonable compromise to me. I can still have a stake in being both Scottish and British.

I think the point is that "inclusive nationalism" would be a phrase that a lot people might consider to be oxymoronic. Given that many consider the word "Nationalism" to be interchangeable with "separatism". Personally as a resident of Glasgow, I don't see myself as being especially different from a resident of Manchester or Newcastle. Not better, not worse, not more deserving. My parents live in Ayrshire and they don't see themselves as having different aims or aspirations from those who live in Yorkshire or Cumbria - we're all citizens of a multi-cultural society. My personal view is that Scottish Nationalism is about drawing a thicker, more divisive line across the map and that's not something I'm comfortable with.

You're talking in broad generalisations there. There are many examples of positive patriotism in England, the UK as a whole, and the US, and plenty of examples of negative Scottish Nationalism.

There's a confusion in terms there. When people talk of not being a Scottish Nationalist what they typically mean is that they're not a supporter of the Scottish National Party and not in favour of an independent Scottish Nation. As you say, you can clearly be a proud Scot without being pro-independence.

To be fair, your posting style is uncannily similar to the old reaper account. Even down to the way you highlight a few words of a previous post and ignore the rest of it.

Well, I expect I'm using the wrong financial terminology and I apologise if I have. Extracted profit is what I'm clumsily trying to describe.

TBH I couldn't tell you what proportion of clubs pay out dividends, but it's an enviable position to be in. We didn't do it until this year. The important point is that, since we are paying out, we need to make sure that it's at a low enough rate that it doesn't impact on our success. Will institutional investors who have no emotional attachment to the club see it that way?

Well, obviously I'd rather they took as small a profit as possible spread over as long a period as possible. That would allow for more money to be ploughed back into the club, and hopefully lead to more success on the park. I don't have anything particularly positive to say about either TBK or SDM. What I am saying is that in an ideal world I'd like us to be in the same position as many clubs, with owners who put money in rather than take money out. Is that so crazy?

Well, we have institutional investors. I'm sure you're aware that there are a bunch of groups and individuals looking to make a profit by taking more money out of the club than they initially put in. As I understand it, they're looking to make as good a profit as they can. At low levels, spread out over time, it's not much of a problem. At high levels these outgoings could be a big drain on the club. It'll be hard to compete for the national title if we are carrying a much larger overhead than our main rivals. Every penny paid out to investors is one that can't be spent on strengthening the squad. How much do you think we should be paying out each year? Wouldn't £0.00 be the best value?

Is it possible then that, rather than Cenkos dropping RIFC, the desire to change nomad was driven from "this end" and is all about circumventing the share lock-in?

True - he's not the ideal watchdog. At least he's loyal to the club though, and he's better than no watchdog at all.

I don't think it's really necessary (or expected) for a football manager to know the financial ins and outs of the corporate structure. Walter probably knows a hell of a lot more about that sort of stuff than either of us, but he doesn't have a huge amount of experience in business law does he? Maybe he's not the ideal candidate for that job. Who would you appoint as chairman to provide confidence that the best interests of the club and support are being looked after?

I've no idea how much information Ally and Walter are privy to, or how much they understand about what's happening. (They're football men after all, not businessmen.) It would be good if there was someone in a position of influence who possessed both a good understanding of the corporate world and an unquestionable love for Rangers Football Club, wouldn't it?