Chess Scotland Noticeboard

HughBrechin · Posted: Fri May 13, 2011 10:53 am Post subject:

Potentially. It's very difficult to calculate how an independent Scotland would do financially because there are so many variables involved: how big a share of the oil money would we actually get? How would the decreased costs from scrapping nuclear weapons stack up against the significant job losses from the presumed departure of various bases? (Incidentally, disentangling the British armed forces would be very very difficult). Would the social democracy both of the two main Scottish parties support need taxes to be raised for the sums to add up? Would corporations then high-tail it down the A1 and the M6?

Salmond thinks that we'd be better off, or he says that he does. Various Unionists are saying that we'd maybe struggle. I'm pretty sure we'd be okay, but I don't think anybody knows whether we'd be better off.

I doubt saving the Chess Scotland grant would be Salmond's top priority, though cuts might be lower and that might help.
I'll be honest here though, I don't really consider chess issues when voting...

Paul Denham · Posted: Fri May 13, 2011 11:36 am Post subject:

Great choice for a discussion thready Andrew.

Though I fear we may be drifting onto the macro issue of would Scotland do well as an Independent Nation rather than the micro issue you raised of would Chess in Scotland do better.... there may be some linkage as a Scotland on its knees economically is not likely to support chess financially.

I think both points are worth debating and the macro issue should be debated by anyone and everyone as often as possible as its a huge issue and as someone stated no-one will no for sure if its better or worse at this stage.

I think CS wise, its a better organisation than ECF and given we are a smaller country and an Independent Scotland would likely want to make some step changes/quick wins/eyecatching initiatives it could be a chance to capitalise for the CS organisation... we would have fewer people to convince at Holyrood than at Westminster or the lobbies/groups that operate out of each government.

Think on the big issue it comes down to two questions;
1) Is it economically viable to have a balanced economy (public: private sector, GDP, corporation taxes etc etc) to fund the type of health care/education/local government services/transport systems we want WITHOUT paying extortionate amount of tax?

2) If viable, how likely are we to make a pigs ear of it?

I am not offering answers to either question, but am seeking them.

Read an interesting article at weekend which talked of Salmond potentially being winner in next 5 years regardless as;
- nation votes yes at referendum and he has won his lifelong battle
- nation votes no at referendum (but end up with much greater autonomy... the so called Federalist approach) and he has taken the country one step closer to independence.

Gut tells me that ridding ourselves of David Cameron and co. permanently would be no bad thing.
Head tells me that taking one more step along the road to Independence with the Federalist approach may be better and give us more time to make the changes necessary over a decent timeframe (as opposed to "well you voted independence now choose your currency £, $ or Euro .... come on you only have 1 month to decide").

Chess analogy may be appropriate here - I don't think we are in major time trouble as a nation here so perhaps taking our time and thinking through all the moves and taking a step at a time may be the way to go.

Just my thoughts & opinions anyway....
_________________
It is said that life is too short for chess but that is the fault of life, not chess

Paul Denham · Posted: Fri May 13, 2011 11:40 am Post subject:

" Potentially. It's very difficult to calculate how an independent Scotland would do financially because there are so many variables involved: how big a share of the oil money would we actually get? How would the decreased costs from scrapping nuclear weapons stack up against the significant job losses from the presumed departure of various bases? (Incidentally, disentangling the British armed forces would be very very difficult). Would the social democracy both of the two main Scottish parties support need taxes to be raised for the sums to add up? Would corporations then high-tail it down the A1 and the M6? "

Question: If the independence question(s) was a chess game... how many squares and pieces would it have and how many moves ahead would we have to see to come up with the "best move"

_________________
It is said that life is too short for chess but that is the fault of life, not chess

SteveHilton · King Joined: 24 Jul 2007 Posts: 443 Location: Greenock

Yes I support full independence for Scotland and I have always done so even though I am half English (father)
CS does have to look at finding other sources of funding anyway so the question of independence is irrelevant in this case anyway.

I would put this question to everyone Are we entitled to independent sporting representation when we are not an independent nation? This is a question that should be answerd by all sports in my view

JR · King Joined: 23 Jan 2007 Posts: 447 Location: Edinburgh

The chances of Scotland ever becoming independent very slim and for good reasons, it would be a disaster! I am sure I read opinion polls showed only around 25% of people would support independence although with the current terrible Tory government I guess this could change.

AMcHarg · Posted: Fri May 13, 2011 2:00 pm Post subject:

Angus McDonald · King Joined: 08 Apr 2009 Posts: 162

LOL Andrew,

Couldn't you leave this chestnut alone?

You state you think Independence is inevitable.

Scotland and England are as interwoven as a tightly knotted ball of wool.

The effort to separate would be painful and long lasting and totally uneccesary. The search for nation or race or whatever it is does not suit the 21st century when more integration and interconnection between people's is inevitable and indeed desirable. If it's a search for self determination then we have 400,000 English born living within Scotland and it would be best to search for self determination as being British and devolving government closer to the people it represents. Oh! We've already done that. Looking back into history for division is just that. Divisive. So no it won't be good for Chess in Scotland
as it won't be good for Scotland.

400,000 English living in Scotland would I guess be living in a foreign land whilst 1 million Scots living in England may have to choose between an English and Scottish passport.

Politics in a United land where former enemy countries are united shouldn't be about nationality but should be about value and the values which are common to all who populate these lands.

But Andrew, perhaps you can help me. I was born in England from a 1,000 years of Scottish ancestors. Which passport do you think I should apply for?

My wife has British nationality born in Brazil. Which passport should she apply for
and will you pay for them Very Happy

because we've just got new British passports!

I should ofcourse add that we are members of Chess Scotland. Perhaps in the future we'll have to join the ECF?

Nice job on the website but for me it would be better as a Chess website.
Please thoroughly read the points made before responding. TIA
regards
Angus

AMcHarg · Posted: Fri May 13, 2011 3:50 pm Post subject:

I'll reply in more detail later Angus. Smile

Well there was an interesting unfolding of politics in another thread so I felt compelled to at least have a topic which was geared towards it than hijack other topics. Very Happy

Besides, I did actually intend for it to be discussed in a 'Chess' context as everything ultimately is affected by politics, including Chess.

Don't get me wrong, I am not anti-English, indeed I have many English relatives and friends. I don't claim to know all the answers, and I also think I have structured this topic in a way which invites fair and equal opportunity for people to express their opinions if they wish. Very Happy

I genuinly do not see any reason why Scotland cannot govern itself. Whether it should or should not is a different debate.

A

JR · King Joined: 23 Jan 2007 Posts: 447 Location: Edinburgh

AMcHarg · Posted: Fri May 13, 2011 5:39 pm Post subject:

johnmcbride · Queen Joined: 25 Jan 2007 Posts: 94

You forget that England is a mixed place too. Outside the areas where the well off people live. People north of the Midlands generally detest the Conservatives and also feel detached from the south of England.

Most true blue Tories politicians are independently wealthy and have no idea or care about ordinary people. They are only concerned with lowering taxes for them and their friends by reducing the size of the state.

There are many pros and cons of independence, but the biggest pro for me would the reduction of the Conservatives influence in Scotland. Though this might be best achieved by slowly increasing devolved powers over time. A sudden split would be traumatic, a gentle split over time would be easier to manage.

AMcHarg · Posted: Fri May 13, 2011 6:43 pm Post subject:

Angus, I have now thoroughly read your points. Very Happy

Scotland and England are very different in size. As long as we are tied together Scotland will have to endure the responsibilities of being in a union with a much bigger neighbour, such as owning nuclear weapons and invading foreign lands as part of a 'liberation' force. Name one other country in the world with a population the size of Scotland which has nuclear weapons on their doorstep. I do not want them here, I think they are a waste of money and a danger to our country. I also do not want Scottish soldiers to be involved in foreign wars. Wars are very expensive and I fail to see what we are achieving with our soldiers halfway around the world. I don't feel any safer from terrorism and we don't need the commercial benefits.

So whether independence is neccessary or not is open to personal opinion and for the above two reasons (plus quite a few more) I think it is neccessary.

I think in an independence scenario you would have a passport of whichever country you felt you were a national of? Please forgive if I make assumptions to answer your question but I'd imagine you and your wife would get Scottish passports as you live in Scotland (and have done for quite a few years?). I don't think the issue of cost comes into it because it would depend how the transition from union to independence came about. It wouldn't just happen overnight, as you said yourself it would be a long process. It might be that your British passports would be left to expire before you were given Scottish ones. I don't see how the transition to independence would be painful, although I can see how it could be long. Very Happy

With regard to CS Membership I don't actually think that would be influenced in any way as CS and ECF are already completely independent of each other. I think you would still live in Scotland and probably still play most of your Chess in Scotland so would probably still have CS Membership.

We will not agree on the issue, I suspect. The people of Scotland will make the ultimate decision in a referendum though. Cool

RE: Politics. If it's contained within one topic then people can decide whether they want to read or not, and whether they want to contribute or not. I don't intend to make any of the website political ever as I agree that it's best kept as a Chess website, it's original purpose. As I mentioned earlier though I did intend for this topic to focus on Chess and how independence might have any impact on Chess. Funding aside; is there more chance of having Chess taught in Scottish schools as an independent nation or not?

Regards
Very Happy

HughBrechin · Posted: Fri May 13, 2011 6:58 pm Post subject: