BS: scottish independence

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Musket
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 02:03 AM

It's all over. The good people of Scotland have spoken.

Salmond is to give a speech at 10.00am. Hopefully to apologise for creating a chism in Scottish society and creating a divide within The UK that will take years to put right.

Mrs Musket is in Edinburgh today to do with work, I would have liked to have gone myself to see the celebrations. Too busy unfortunately. Ah well.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: GUEST,Sol
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 02:18 AM

I'll give credit where credit is due, Mr M.
You are the best wind-up merchant on Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Musket
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 02:28 AM

I'll let you into a secret. I'm not too busy at all. I offered to accompany her on the train this morning as it is a three hour hop.

She said "If you think I am letting you loose in Edinburgh regardless of the vote next Friday you can think again!"

She has a point. Mind you, at least my holiday and student lets North of the border will carry on providing me with sterling rather than groats.

Win win 😜

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 02:43 AM

Bugger the Spanish, what about fair dos for the rest of us? After months of shitting on England, the Scots still magically come out with a deal which gives them yet more advantages, and we were never consulted about it by this limp-dick apology of a Prime Minister.
And we will still have to put up with Salmond and company claiming every moral virtue despite running one of the most vicious campaigns in living memory: the only thing he should do now is resign, but he won't. Po the Dragon Warrior Rules.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 02:56 AM

Hear-hear Rahere.

I'm glad that the sensible element in Scotland won the day, but I fear that England will become the UK's 'Have-Not' country in comparison with Scotland, Wales and NI.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: selby
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 02:57 AM

Pleased for the Scots and very much agree with Neil Olivers sentiments but why now do I a little feeling as though one of my family has done something wrong and they have to work now to gain my respect again
Keith

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: GUEST,Sol
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 02:59 AM

"Vicious campaigns in living memory"???
Dearie me. Why not mention the gutter tactics of Westminster, and the bias press and BBC coverage? Salmond has been a saint compared to that lot.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: GUEST,Sol
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 03:06 AM

Eh???? The Residents of Scotland will have to work to gain your respect again?
Aye right, pal.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: GUEST,Sol
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 03:22 AM

I agree with you Backwoodsman. England, or should I say lots of it, are 'have nots". That's what the Yes campaign was really about, the have & have nots. The underlying sentiment was that it was and still is Scotland v Westminster, NOT Scotland v England or the rest of the UK. Power to ally our elbows.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 04:04 AM

Yay!

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Musket
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 04:10 AM

What I find interesting, and Andrew Marr has alluded to this in his article on BBC News website, is that it has opened up a whole Westminster Vs The UK debate and party leaders are falling over themselves to devolve more powers locally in any way they can.

The most interesting is Cameron reigniting the Westlothian debate this morning. Yes, it is silly that Scottish MPs can vote, sometimes control the vote, on legislation that does not affect Scotland and he has said this will be sorted before the next election if the other parties work together to bring it about.

I fully agree with the sentiment but I also feel that if locally devolved powers, as he puts it, means say, Yorkshire and The Humber making use of the offices in leeds Prescott bought and never used, then if you are not careful, you could ask why a Surrey MP can vote on issues that only affect Yorkshire etc etc.

In any event, you get a two tier MP system, even if you only prevent Scottish MPs voting on England, Wales or NI only bills.

A bit of a Pandora's box in itself..

Although the Scotland debate, for all the rights, wrongs, empty promises and scare mongering has sent a strong message to Westminster about disconnect in general, and for that, may your tartan never get a pull in it.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Howard Jones
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 04:46 AM

So that's that. I feel genuinely sorry for the pro-independence side because I know how passionately they hold their dream. However, on this occasion at least, Scotland made the right decision in my opinion. But I don't suppose we've heard the last of this.

So now what? Despite the commitment in the Edinburgh Agreement to work constructively together, there is already a political backlash against the goodies which all parties have been throwing at Scotland, and a clear feeling that it is now not just about Scottish devolution but the government of the entire UK. I think the English will be demanding a lot more before they will agree to pay for more privileges for Scotland. It's only just begun. Next year's Election could get very interesting.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 05:09 AM

We can start with that nonsense of a Barnett (population-based) formula. Lord Barnett himself expresses his astonishment that what started as an ad-hoc calculation for a specific instance has run amok, applied incoherently to all cases.
A slightly more interesting approach is used in local government, addressing disadvantage by splitting available funds according to a disadvantage weighting. The problem with that is that it has a levelling-down effect, as the areas with advantage get so little they cannot achieve much, and cannot "save up" the credits over the years: the result is that what is available is only spent on low-value low-return projects, whereas the real needs are unaffordable despite the contribution made by that area.
So try the Nation vs Westminster for size. When all political parties court 38 Degrees, Change.org and Common Purpose because they all have greater membership than any political Party, there's something wrong. The demagogues have taken over the asylum, and the failure of NuLab to look after the rights and interests of the common man is having its consequences. One might expect that of the Bullingdon Club, but when nobody speaks to, let alone for, the man in the street, then we have trouble.
It's fairly clear that with this vote, the upheaval to the political system resulting from what are now seen as unwise political promises made to one part of the Nation, however stroppy, is triggering the start of the 2015 election campaign. We must now be careful about the promises made by the Westminster mountebanks,

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 05:34 AM

Once upon a time, it was accepted political currency that a defeat on a constitutional or financial Act would have the immediate consequence of the Government's resignation.
This referendum surely meets that norm, yet has Salmond resigned? No, we will now have to put up with his grumpiness for the foreseeable future. Is it any wonder, therefore, that the people are disillusioned.
Let me quote from Cameron's speech this morning on the situation:
"We now a chance, a great opportunity, to change the way the British people are governed, and change it for the better. Political leaders on all sides of the debate now bear a heavy responsibility to come together and work contructively to advance the interests of people in Scotland as well as those in England, Wales and Northern Ireland for each and every citizen of our United Kingdom."
1. Was changing it for the worse on the table, then?
2. Did they not bear that heavy responsibility before this, or were they playing monopoly with our common wheal?
3. Our United Kingdom? I thought that was the property of Her Majesty.
4. Most importantly, I thought this is what Government was about - of course, it is only too obvious that this has long since been forgotten. Who has Parliament been working for, then? The CIA? Brussels? Their own sticky little fingers? Obviously, a few City wankers (only in the Guardian do we have to maintain the courtesy of aspirating that word into a "b")...
5. The very means by which this was raised is the West Lothian question writ large. Since when does it take the votes of only 3.6 million people, 6% of the population, to give democratic voice to the 60 million otherwise condescended to, bullied and generally ignored?

The plan was to recall Parliament on Saturday if the Yes group had won. Why not do so anyway to examine why nothing has been referred to the people? They have been on holiday for far too long, no other operation clears off on a four-months Wakes Weeks like this.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Ed T
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 06:37 AM

IMO, the pollsters have big-egg on their faces-leading some to believe the unlikely, that, at one point, the majority saw things their way.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Thompson
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 06:41 AM

Women and the rich voted against independence - these were the swing vote, while overwhelming yes votes were registered in poor areas.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: GUEST,Dazbo at Work
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 06:58 AM

Interesting point Thompson, that woman and the rich have some how scuppered the vote by voting for what they wanted - How very undramocratic of them! Besides that, it seemed most polls said that women were more in favour of independence than the men but I suppose it's always been women's prerogative to change their minds, eh?

I'm now looking forward, what's the term they were using? ah yes, engaged by the prospect of huge constitutional changes. Bring on a Federal UK I say :- )

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 07:03 AM

As opposed to the Holyrood con...not much difference there, then. Incompetents all, and we still listen to them.
In this case, if Cameron gives anything, where's the money coming from? Another ruddy Salmond.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: GUEST,Dazbo at Work
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 08:22 AM

At least (according to the BBC radio programme More or Less) most, if not all, the polls prior to the actual vote were online polls. In otherwords asking a panel of self selected group of volunteers questions over the internet. The volunteers' responses are then weighted to account for age, social groups etc (for example "little old ladies" on the panel are more likely to be better off than the average old lady as they can afford computers and internet connections). As there has never been a referendum like this before the weighting was pretty much finger in the air guess work and even the expert pollster interviewed said they could be very accurate or very inaccurate and he had no way of predicting which.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Ed T
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 08:23 AM

""The USA Constitution provides processes for new states to enter the union and for current states to divide or reconfigure, does not have a provision for states to leave the union. A state would have to leave by force."" Adam Cohen

USA democracy, unlike that in the UK, where the Democrats hate the Republicans, the Republicans hate the Democrats and the Tea Party hate both, and it seems an increasing number of USA citizens dont seem to care much for the President.

:)

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Ed T
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 08:38 AM

Note my last post did not even mention the USA black-white-latino hate issues, gun vs non gun lover hate, religious-anti religious form of hate, and those who do not seem to hate any form if federal government. IMO, no country is hate free, or is even close to that-if that is a litmus test of unity.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Musket
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 08:42 AM

Democracy. Where one vote is as valid as the next.

Where your situation is not favourable you tend to want change. Where you feel change could be worse for you, you tend to go for the status quo.

That said, the poorer areas as Thompson calls them are more prone to be influenced by tabloids where more affluent areas are influenced by broadsheet newspapers.

Nothing surprising and nothing wrong with the outcome.

Scotland has spoken. Move on.



Although of course if the authors of some of the nationalistic song lyrics posted here on Mudcat over the last few months are happy with it, I can use some comedy in my act.

🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 09:33 AM

Interesting to note that off the five areas which had a yes majority at least two have some of the worst child deprevation in Europe,
this despite, or for their own reasons, having had Labour controlled councils for over 70 yrs.
A sign that the "Champagne Socialists" chickens have come home to roost.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 09:47 AM

It would seem into the bargain that Gordon Brown was making commitments for the Government without any authority from the Cabinet.

Does the UK have a Government or did Cameron let his autocracy finally get the better of him, allying himself with the previous unaccountable mountebank?

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 10:07 AM

from this side of the pond, no real idea how this will work out in the end... but regarding the vote...

85% of eligible voters went to the polls... pretty good, but that leaves 1 out of every 6 people who essentially abstained for whatever reason...

so of the 85% that voted to stay in the UK, that's approximately 47 people out of the total eligible voters and 38 of the total voted to leave.

I know it sounds better to say 55% vs. 45% but the real outcome was

15% abstained, 47% voted to stay and 38% voted to leave.

What remains to be seen is if the last minute promises are actually kept... or will there be 20 years of I told you so...?

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 10:31 AM

Now the shit is really hitting the fan: it would seem that the Scots can be given something being denied England. Now do you see why I want shot of them?
The question being raised all over now is whether Westminster itself is a failed State. Scottish MPs can vote on English matters, not not even on certain matters in their own constituencies, and it'll get worse with the new arrangements. We've only just got rid of the Irish peers, and no sooner do we dispose of some than others arrive. What a bunch of politicians.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 11:14 AM

Exit Salmond stage left, threatening a repeat performance. To his last, a political child - as are most in that country. "Now we can hold Westminster's feet to the fire" - really? When you never bothered to check if Gordon Brown, who made the promise you want ot hold the UK to, had the authority to do so? It's called Due Diligence, and is of the essence of all management.
In point of fact, it's not that which lost the case: it's his utter incompetence in preparing a case. When Tony Blair became PM back in 1997, he had had his shadow team working with their ministries for years before hand, they were up to speed. If you want to make a case in politics, it must be watertight. His wasn't, and he's paid the bill: few other than a few diehard Braveheart mediaevalists will miss him.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Mrrzy
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 11:17 AM

Apparently the cartoon is Mel Gibson in full Braveheart regalia, with the caption NEVER MIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINDDDDDDDDD!

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 11:21 AM

If you don't want the politicians to get off the hook concerning English rights, there's a petition from 38 Degrees on the go here. These petitions are weighty, the political parties fear them and they have a serious and weighty effect.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: GUEST,gutcher
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 11:23 AM

Mention in my above post of chickens having come home to roost brings us to a conclusion that the self styled "project fear" of the better together side has certainly worked.
Mrs Thatcher, a very shrewed operator, saw that by getting people into debt meant that they could be easily controlled, if only through self interest, thus here in Scotland two thirds of the population who prior to her encouragment, by what can only be described as bribery, chose to give up their rented property and purchase it by borrowing on a mortgage, another word for debt thus putting them in the hands of the fearmongers whose allies the almost wholly owned forgeign press and centralized TV were not slow in magnifying every lie and half truth fed to them from above.
It should be here noted that in Germany where somthing like four fifths of the population rent their propery the effects of the Bankers induced meltdown has been minimal

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 11:49 AM

Bloody hell, she's done it again!

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: GUEST,Ed
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 11:54 AM

What, roughly, were you trying you say Backwoodsman?

(in words that 'she' won't find offensive)

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Musket
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 12:06 PM

Now we seem to be getting silly.

Aye, more people rent in Germany but companies are more likely to own their premises. Result? Err overall similar to here in terms of fiscal impact on society. Germany has many reasons for not being as deep in recession as we were and had reasons for not recovering as fast as we did. If you are poor in Germany, you are as cynical about recovery as you are here.

Owning was far cheaper than renting in much of The UK in Th*tcher's day and to say aspirations of owning your own home are playing to her tune, well that's insulting to a very creditable aim that if you are in a position to, do so. Sustainable low interest rates fuel property inflation and in her day, interest rates were sky high, although it took the Major years to really make mortgages untenable.

She may have been a bitch but she encouraged ownership, she didn't force it. If her approach was part of the problem, go to Dundee and ask yourself why it isn't a utopia...

🏡

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: The Sandman
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 12:53 PM

"It should be here noted that in Germany where somthing like four fifths of the population rent their propery the effects of the Bankers induced meltdown has been minimal"
a good point, mortgages are a way of controlling the workforce, if you a rent a place ite easier to ove to where there is work.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: GUEST,gutcher
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 01:02 PM

I repeat there was bribery used, which meant that although the payments per month or per week were less this was still DEBT which had not been the case when renting.
As I said she was an astute woman.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 01:18 PM

I think a case might be made that Project Fear was actually rather respobnsible: with no answers to a number of very important questions - currency, finance, inherited debt, diplomatic relationships, any one of which could have sunk the operation - it was an act of purblind folly to simply say we'll leave. Our society is never far from chaos, and Salmond brought you close to the edge: that was irresponsible.

What is also irresponsible is his resignation. As leader of a Party which lost a constitutional vote, the entire Party should have resigned, according to past precedent, bringing on a General Election. If he were to resign within that, it would be unremarkable, but going without removing the structursl problem is ducking the issue. Yet again.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Thompson
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 01:58 PM

In my opinion - no expert, mind - the problem with Thatcher's sell-off of publicly-owned homes wasn't that it put people into debt, but that it was accompanied by putting a stop to building any council homes.
The same was done in Ireland, and most of the people I knew who bought their council houses at very cheap rates immediately sold them for double (literally) what they'd paid. They then put the money towards buying another house.
The result was that house prices soared, and those on low wages no longer had the option of renting from the council, because the council houses were gone, and weren't being replaced. Then we started seeing people sleeping on the streets, something I never saw from my 1950s childhood until the late 1980s.
An extraordinary hostility has since grown up between those who have a little and those who had nothing - a modern version of what the Victorians called "tuppence-ha'penny looking down on tuppence" - and people talk about "dole scroungers" having "free houses" from the council, unaware that those few and prized council houses that still exist are as expensive to rent as private dwellings.
In England, John Lanchester has a good piece on this attitude change.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Musket
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 03:18 PM

If you can trust people enough to vote you can trust them to make decisions about their own homes. Don't confuse the many with those who need help.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 05:21 PM

Disappointed, but not surprised.
As I said it became a battle between haves and havenots, wealthy pensioners, fearful women, with a large dash of sectarian laced unionism.

Interesting that over 70% of over 65s voted no, while over 70% of 16/17s voted YES......fortunately the young people are our future, hope they never lose their inspiration and idealism.

The poorest areas voted YES, the wealthiest voted NO.
Who the fuck cares about real equality?

Finally it was a victory, a victory for selfishness and fear.
A defeat for freedom, self determination and a proper chance at life for our young people.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Ed T
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 05:46 PM

""Who the **** cares about real equality?""

"Possibly the gay community and the, so called "fearful women", who some see as less equal than other "real people"? (They may have a well-based reason to be fearful, considering some folks "closet" definition of equality).

;)

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Ed T
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 05:47 PM

""Who the **** cares about real equality?""

"Possibly the gay community and the, so called "fearful women", who some see as less equal than other "real people"? (They may have a well-based reason to be fearful, considering some folks "closet" definition of equality).

;)

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 06:23 PM

Seems to me that there is little wrong with aspiring to acquire rather more of the wealth which one envies in others, but what I see here and increasingly in the population, is the wish for those one envies to be impoverished.

Not an attractive mindset IMNSHO!

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 07:03 PM

Still, predictably enough, Glasgow decided to settle the aftermath traditionally tonight. Any news whether it was aligned with particular football teams might be kept quiet...

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Musket
Date: 20 Sep 14 - 03:13 AM

If it was aligned football teams you might as well align it to sectarian divide. Same thing.

Maybe just idiots playing to the media wishes.

Outcome as expected

Move on and start rebuilding the mess he left. One positive being that the question of Westminster values on a population that doesn't connect well with it is exercising politicians now. Not just the constituencies in the far north section of The UK

🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧

(One of those few moments where flag waving is appropriate. The good people of Scotland voting with their heads and averting a constitutional disaster for all.)

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 20 Sep 14 - 03:31 AM

up in glasgow for the vote and have been around george square for the noisy , entirely peaceful and enjoyable independence party. until last night when some unionist/ british national party turned up looking for a fight -their 'victory' apparently not enough without a bit of violence. can i say this was not the usual sectarian violence involving 2 glasgow football teams. there were no irish tricolours/ celtic shirts or any reference to the old battles in what was an entirely scottish and inclusive campaign on the yes side. any trouble was caused by far right wing, unionist and violent bigots - while they are overwhelmingly rangers supporters (apparently aided by an EDL contingent up for a scrap) this shouldn't be used to slur the majority of good people who support this team. it's a bit lazy to bring football into again - not quite as straightforward as that and much more nasty.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 20 Sep 14 - 05:00 AM

not saying they weren't british - but the people who started the trouble were bigots, fascist -inclined and keen on violence. they are beyond the overwhelmingly peaceful majority on both sides of the scottish debate and seem to enjoy being as offensive possible - while (nearly) everyone else is keen to avoid disputes and getting into nasty and pointless abuse.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Thompson
Date: 20 Sep 14 - 05:19 AM

This report by British newspaper The Independent sounds as if the Unionists were out for trouble.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Musket
Date: 20 Sep 14 - 05:23 AM

Aye so why did you slip the word British in when you meant lads wanting aggro for aggro sake?

You purposely tried to link it to the no voters, or the majority of people in Scotland as they are called.

It's a time to mend bridges not order the timber for a new one.

Scottish people today will be British for the rest of their lives. Now get your Parliament to sort out their social issues that they have been blaming others for but are in their gift.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: GUEST,MikeL2
Date: 20 Sep 14 - 06:40 AM

Hi

This agro is getting worse. The Sunday Express today reports that because Andy Murray said he was voting YES there could be a backlash that would mean his mother would not now win Strictly Come Dancing.

This is incendiary - what next ??

Cheers

MikeL2

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Musket
Date: 20 Sep 14 - 07:55 AM

Funny. The British newspaper The Scotsman reckons it's mindless thugs, not the majority of voters.

British till you die unless you do us a favour and fuck off abroad and take a foreign nationality.

It's alright. Sound off linking crime to Scottish majority all you like. You lost now shut up or be part of the future.