|
03 Sep 14 - 05:26 PM (#3656692) Subject: BS: scottish independence From: The Sandman do people think it is a good or bad thing |
|
03 Sep 14 - 07:56 PM (#3656736) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Stilly River Sage We're beginning to hear a few stories about that over on this side of the pond. This morning the news discussed that deep water submarine base. The U.S. has bases all over the place and accords with nations to do so, so with that model in mind, is this a huge issue? Or do Scots in general want to get rid of it? SRS |
|
03 Sep 14 - 08:10 PM (#3656741) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Bill D I saw some debate in the Scottish parliament recently. Some simply doubt that the economy is strong enough to go it alone. Some feel that independence is worth any temporary problems. I just wish them well... |
|
03 Sep 14 - 09:46 PM (#3656761) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Q (Frank Staplin) The referendum on 18 September. Echo Bill D. |
|
04 Sep 14 - 01:18 AM (#3656778) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: michaelr That submarine base employs a lot of people, who are feeling a bit insecure at the moment. Britain has said they won't leave their nukes in a foreign country. Can it be said that the Scots feel as strongly about this as the Irish do/did? |
|
04 Sep 14 - 02:48 AM (#3656788) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Dave Hanson Being English I am against it, if I was Scottish and lived there, I would probably be in favour. Dave H |
|
04 Sep 14 - 04:14 AM (#3656812) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Backwoodsman The SNP (Scottish National Party) which is leading the campaign for independence, has stated categorically that an independent Scotland will not be willing to have nuclear weapons on its soil or in its waters, and that the UK nuclear submarines will not be allowed to be based at Faslane. I would like the Scots to have whatever the majority wish for - if that's independence from the United Kingdom, so be it. |
|
04 Sep 14 - 04:31 AM (#3656820) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket True, The UK would be better off without their drain on resources. However, I keep trying to argue that it is folly to have a referendum when not a single set of "this is what it will look like" scenarios has been put forward for voters to consider. The whole thing seems to be a combination of ugly nationalism and giving the present UK government a bloody nose. Instead of saying where the money and trade will be coming from, the SNP just prattle on about promises they can't make regarding subjects not in their gift to promise. If an independent Scotland can make a better Scotland without making a worse UK, brilliant. But nobody has explained how that might work.. If I thought the majority of people living in Scotland believed promises from politicians when asking for their vote, I'd set up a shop in Edinburgh selling snake oil and long weights. |
|
04 Sep 14 - 04:52 AM (#3656831) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Richard Bridge It'll be a disaster for England. The CON-servatives lose 1 MP, "New" Labour loses 40. |
|
04 Sep 14 - 05:07 AM (#3656841) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Jack Blandiver Being a Northerner I never think of Scotland as a different country. All the Scots I know live in England, and all my friends living in Scotland are English. If I want to feel culturally cosmopolitan in a truly European sense, I go to Edinburgh. Between Scottish independence and UKIP, I'm beginning to feel like stranger in the land where I was born. |
|
04 Sep 14 - 06:17 AM (#3656872) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,Grishka There were times, just a few decades ago, when national independence really meant national independence. These times are gone, at least for societies that do not want or have to live like North Koreans. This means that from every change in world affairs, there will be a group of people to profit, and another group to lose, rarely identical to all citizens of particular countries, or to all members of an ethnic or religious group. Propagandists often try to persuade people that what is good for the nation is good for the citizens. Selfish behaviour by "independent" governments is sometimes successful, but always threatened by sanctions. This includes Swiss bankers and Russian oligarchs. International cooperation, as close as possible, should be the best bet in the long run. There are some areas of politics where regional autonomy is advantageous, for example, which folk songs should be sung in schools. |
|
04 Sep 14 - 06:32 AM (#3656875) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: The Sandman the leader of the no campaign is the nephew of the duke of westminster, the duke of westminster like the queen owns huge parts of scotland,. here is some information about the highland clearances, was this how the duke of w got his land The Highland Clearances (Scottish Gaelic: Fuadach nan Gàidheal, the "expulsion of the Gael") was the forced displacement during the 18th and 19th centuries of a significant number of people from traditional land tenancies in the Scottish Highlands, where they had practised small-scale agriculture. It resulted from enclosures of common lands and a change from farming to sheep raising, an agricultural revolution largely carried out by hereditary aristocratic landowners. A Highland Clearance has been defined as "an enforced simultaneous eviction of all families living in a given area such as an entire glen".[1] The clearances are particularly notorious as a result of the brutality of many evictions at short notice (year-by-year tenants had almost no protection under Scots law), and the abruptness of the change from the traditional clan system, in which reciprocal obligations between the population and their leaders were well-recognized. The cumulative effect of the Clearances devastated the cultural landscape of Scotland in a way that did not happen in other areas of Britain; the effect of the Clearances was to destroy much of the Gaelic culture.[2] The Clearances resulted in significant emigration of Highlanders to the sea coast, the Scottish Lowlands, and further afield to North America and Australasia. In the early 21st century, more descendants of Highlanders are found in these diaspora destinations than in Scotland.[3] The Clearances were a complex series of events occurring over a period of more than a hundred years |
|
04 Sep 14 - 07:03 AM (#3656893) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Stu "The cumulative effect of the Clearances devastated the cultural landscape of Scotland in a way that did not happen in other areas of Britain" The Acts of Enclosure had a similar effect in England, where an entire people were dispossessed of the common wealth that was the land. This was at least responsible for the death of a culture as ancient and valuable as any other culture on our islands. As usual, toffs and businessmen were behind it. C'mon Scotland. Shake off the Norman Yoke that has blighted our island for a millennia. Diggers' Song You noble Diggers all, stand up now, stand up now, You noble Diggers all, stand up now, The waste land to maintain, seeing Cavaliers by name Your digging do distain and your persons all defame Stand up now, Diggers all. Your houses they pull down, stand up now, stand up now, Your houses they pull down, stand up now. Your houses they pull down to fright poor men in town, But the gentry must come down and the poor shall wear the crown. Stand up now, Diggers all. With spades and hoes and ploughs, stand up now, stand up now, With spades and hoes and ploughs, stand up now. Your freedom to uphold, seeing Cavaliers are bold To kill you if they could and rights from you withhold. Stand up now, Diggers all. Their self-will is their law, stand up now, stand up now, Their self-will is their law, stand up now. Since tyranny came in they count it now no sin To make a gaol a gin and to serve poor men therein. Stand up now, Diggers all. The gentry are all round, stand up now, stand up now, The gentry are all round, stand up now. The gentry are all round, on each side they are found, Their wisdom's so profound to cheat us of the ground. Stand up now, Diggers all. The lawyers they conjoin, stand up now, stand up now, The lawyers they conjoin, stand up now, To arrest you they advise, such fury they devise, But the devil in them lies, and hath blinded both their eyes. Stand up now, Diggers all. The clergy they come in, stand up now, stand up now, The clergy they come in, stand up now. The clergy they come in and say it is a sin That we should now begin our freedom for to win. Stand up now, Diggers all. 'Gainst lawyers and 'gainst priests, stand up now, stand up now, 'Gainst lawyers and 'gainst Priests, stand up now. For tyrants are they both even flat against their oath, To grant us they are loath free meat and drink and cloth. Stand up now, Diggers all. The club is all their law, stand up now, stand up now, The club is all their law, stand up now. The club is all their law to keep poor folk in awe, Buth they no vision saw to maintain such a law. Glory now, Diggers all. |
|
04 Sep 14 - 07:16 AM (#3656897) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Stu 'islands' |
|
04 Sep 14 - 07:29 AM (#3656901) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Ed T The real test would not be for the wish, but in the details of what would happen afterwards? |
|
04 Sep 14 - 08:43 AM (#3656926) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Howard Jones After 300 years Scotland retains its distinctive culture and its own legal system. Devolution has already given them a great deal of autonomy. It even has its own banknotes, and although they are not legal tender they are accepted as if they were. Nationalists complain about being ruled by distant London, but Scottish votes have a disproportionate effect on the balance of power in the Westminster parliament. From an English perspective I'd say they were doing pretty well within the UK and would be mad to give it up. In reality an independent Scotland will still remain heavily dependent on the rest of the UK simply because we are their much bigger neighbour, but they will have far less influence. It's hard to guess how it will turn out, with the polls being so close. The "Yes"s certainly appear to be running a more vigorous campaign. Scots have a reputation for canny hard-headedness, especially where money is concerned, but they are also quite romantic about their country. Will head rule the heart? If the referendum goes Salmond's way on the 18th, I'm looking forward to seeing his face on the 19th when Shetland declares independence. The same arguments apply - they have their own culture, as much if not more Scandinavian than Scottish; they are as remote from Edinburgh as it is from London; and they have half the oil. That would put the cat among the pigeons! |
|
04 Sep 14 - 09:02 AM (#3656932) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Ed T Does having a unique culture make a successful country alone? I suspect economic matters are an important, if not a greater, consideration. |
|
04 Sep 14 - 09:30 AM (#3656937) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Rapparee I have a unique culture and would like to become my own country. My culture is positive, my language gibberish, my money...WHAT money? I don't got no money. A positive Wassermann is probably not unique enough. Ah, well.... |
|
04 Sep 14 - 01:06 PM (#3657001) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Jim McLean It comes down to the term Democratic deficiency. It makes no difference how Scotland votes, the Westminster government will be decided by the English majority so independence will redress this. The rest of the UK will have the government it elects and everybody will be happy! And it should be emphasised that this is not ethnic nationalism but civic nationalism, independent of one's nationality, the voters will be those living in Scotland at the time of the referendum. |
|
04 Sep 14 - 01:21 PM (#3657007) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: akenaton Indeed Jim, plus the scandal of weapons of mass destruction on Scottish soil. We are sick of being a dumping ground for nuclear weapons, the Scottish people are firmly against this and we will never make Scotland a "nuke free zone" until we are in a position to determine our own future. Political representation and Nuclear disarmament, two very big positives promoted by the YES campaign. The NO's have no vision for our country, just an eternity of more of the same....two lost generations of young people, an ever widening wealth gap....."Equality in the UK" don't make me laugh...... |
|
04 Sep 14 - 01:23 PM (#3657010) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket Still nationalism, which is becoming irrelevant in these global times. I could make the same argument for huge swathes of England, Wales and NI, who never voted for x party. What makes the Scottish counties so different? You realise if he wins, King Alex I will be unbearable? Mind you, at least SNP mean well, understand compassion and equality and all that. I was rather bemused however to see Akenaton had joined a party that stands for everything he hates. A broad church indeed. I hope for Scotland that should he win, his party knows how to lose support because their "promise the lot" attitude has a shelf life. The rest of The UK getting the government it elects? The UK as it stands always has done, coalitions apart. You must read up on parliamentary democracy Jim before embarrassing yourself. |
|
04 Sep 14 - 01:37 PM (#3657017) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST The Union of Crowns came about in 1603 (don't confuse with the Act of Union) because the Scotish monarchy inherited the English crown. Its time the English threw off the Scottish yoke, sent the Windsors back to Holyrood and declared independence. |
|
04 Sep 14 - 01:40 PM (#3657018) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket Just read an article about the NATO chinwag in Wales today. One subject on the agenda is the strategic position of Scotland and promises made by Salmond that they will wish to remain in NATO. That's clever when you think about it. He can forget his promises to get rid of nuclear subs and say it is a stipulation of NATO membership, so out of his hands. Like I said.. Politician promises eh? |
|
04 Sep 14 - 01:41 PM (#3657019) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST Perhaps I should have put a smiley on that last post, knowing Mudcat some prat will miss the point and take it literally. |
|
04 Sep 14 - 02:58 PM (#3657039) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Jim McLean Musket can't have a proper debate without silly insults ... King Alex etcetera. I'm leaving this thread as Musket is not capable of conducting a sensible, non insulting conversation. |
|
04 Sep 14 - 03:24 PM (#3657044) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: bubblyrat Why not an indedpendent Cornwall ? Isle of Man ? Isle of Wight ? Lundy ? Oxfordshire ? Where will it all end ? And ,PLEASE -stop banging on about the Highland Clearances, and "Flower of Scotland " and so on, ad nauseam ; we English have been invaded by Vikings, Romans,the French et al for centuries but we don't keep MOANING on about like the Scots do about us . In fact, I FORGIVE the Vikings , the Danes,the Normans,the Romans ; it is all HISTORY and we have MOVED ON !! Why the hell can't Scotland move on ? ? ? I hope they DO gain their independence ,to be honest ! |
|
04 Sep 14 - 04:04 PM (#3657054) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: The Sandman bubblyrat, I am English. Why should that stop me pointing out the injustices the Scots have suffered.Scotland is attempting to move on, that is why they are having a referendum |
|
04 Sep 14 - 04:57 PM (#3657067) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket The people at 14 Ratskinner St, Catford have had injustices Dick, but nay bugger offers them independence? Jim McClean has lost the argument and retires ungraciously. I doubt anybody will lose sleep. If independence has so many answers and advantages Jim, why run away? Make me look a cunt instead. |
|
04 Sep 14 - 06:04 PM (#3657083) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: akenaton You are a fool Ian, Mr Salmond is a very adept politician, driven by one very important goal, the achievement of Scottish Independence. Without control of our own affairs we are a ship without a rudder, only after a YES victory and a general election will we see the true complexion of the new Scotland. |
|
04 Sep 14 - 07:42 PM (#3657107) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: McGrath of Harlow I think that the assumption that if Scotland goes for independence that means the Tories will have a political boost because there won't be the Labour votes from Scotland could be a radical misjudgement. If the Scots vote for independence I can see the English political system going into meltdown, and a new political settlement coming out of it - with the Tories not doing too well in it. The psycholigical reality of the realisation that there no longer is a country which can be called "Britain" could be quite dramatic. |
|
04 Sep 14 - 08:51 PM (#3657123) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Peter K (Fionn) Only because Salmond has become a little too plump and cocky, helping to bring the Scottish Parliament down to the same level of puerility as Westminster, I have been leaning towards the No camp. But McGrath raises a tempting prospect. Could it possibly be that in the shake-up that would follow a Yes vote we might ditch the monarchy and the privileged status of the Church of England? GSS: The referendum has got sod all to do with the Clearances. And what makes you think Alistair Darling and the Duke of Westminster (Gerald Grosvenor) are related? |
|
04 Sep 14 - 11:41 PM (#3657139) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST Does Shetland really plan a bid for independence or was that a joke? |
|
04 Sep 14 - 11:46 PM (#3657143) Subject: BS: Scottish independence, what if its a No? From: GUEST If its a No, will this still allow for other moves to be more independent? Does a once only forum mean that the issue can never be raised again? |
|
05 Sep 14 - 12:35 AM (#3657149) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Joe Offer Guest, I moved you over here because there's already a current discussion on Scottish independence. Multiple threads tend to split and confuse the discussion. You pose a good question. It seems to me that there's room for Scotland to make a gradual move toward increasing independence, without fully separating from the United Kingdom. Self-determination has done a lot of good for Scotland already, but there are also many benefits to having an increasingly limited union with the United kingdom. If the referendum passes, when will Scotland become an independent nation? I'm planning to make my second trip to Scotland next June, on Jim and Susie Malcolm's "SkOrkney" tour (Skye & Orkney). If independence passes, it will be interesting to see what's changed in six months. -Joe- |
|
05 Sep 14 - 02:12 AM (#3657159) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Teribus Referendum 18th September 2014. If the result is YES then Independence Day as currently planned will be 24th March 2016. I hope and believe that the result will be NO - a YES for Scotland would be a disaster. GSS you really should read a bit more on the "Clearances" and Stu should read a bit more on the "Enclosures". If both followed that advice GSS would discover that the "Clearances" started in the 17th not 18th century and that they started in the borders of Scotland. He would also discover that the idyll his cut'n'paste described was in fact very different from reality especially in the Highlands, where by the time he was referring to the clan were little more than the chattels of the clan chief and it was that self same clan chief who was kicking "his" people off what he saw as being "his" land. What land HM the Queen actually owns in Scotland was bought by Prince Albert during the reign of Queen Victoria. Stu on the other hand would learn that the land grab made during the enclosures was made not by the aristocracy but by the rich tenant farmers of the aristocracy {Who saw it as a cheap means to acquire land of their own and increase THEIR wealth}. To correct some of the misinformation coming from Akenaton: The "people" of Scotland do not want to get rid of Trident, the SNP and other groups who do not represent a majority by any stretch of the imagination do. The "people" of Scotland have never been asked about the presence of Trident, but those whose livelihoods depend upon Trident definitely want it to stay. I was assured by Akenaton on this forum a few years ago that this referendum would definitely take place by 2010. If that was the case then I would have thought that between 2007 and the autumn of 2009 then the SNP would have all their ducks in a row and be fully capable of answering all questions leveled at them on the matter covering every aspect of what their independent Scotland would be like and how it would be financed by the people of Scotland - yet here we are within two weeks of the vote and they cannot tell us anything apart from - It will be alright on the night and oil will pay for everything - What a pity that their sums just simply do not add up. By the 24th March 2016 newly independent Scotland will find itself: - Out of the EU - Out of NATO - With a "borrowed" currency over which it has absolutely no control - Facing a flight of capital that will be mind boggling as will be the loss of jobs - Facing a potential loss of its best customer {The UK} - With no access to UK Government contracts to build warships for the Royal Navy {Type 26 Frigate - vital work orders for the Clyde} The SNP during the campaign leading up to the vote on the 18th September has been caught out deliberately lying to the electorate and people of Scotland on numerous occasions. If such mark Alex Salmond out as "a very adept politician" Akenaton then I pity what will happen in your independent Scotland when the fools who have stupid enough to swallow his lies, incorrect assumptions and groundless assertions finally realise that independent Scotland in the real world cannot deliver what Jowly Eck and the SNP promised them. Should Scotland renege on shouldering their share of the National Debt - Just watch what interest rates you will have to pay on the money Swinney says that independent Scotland will have to borrow to finance the start up and survive the first five years. Should Scotland renege on shouldering their share of the National Dept - Then there will be no sharing of any assets, all UK Government owned land in Scotland will still remain the property of the UK. Should the Scots simply seize that land then watch any potential foreign investor back away from a regime that has clearly demonstrated that it does not respect the rights of ownership or take responsibility for its debts. |
|
05 Sep 14 - 03:20 AM (#3657172) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,DaveRo "Does Shetland really plan a bid for independence or was that a joke?" I don't think they actually plan to, but it's been mooted. If Scotland can secede from the UK taking 'their' oil, why can't Orkney and Shetland do so, taking 'theirs'? |
|
05 Sep 14 - 04:07 AM (#3657186) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Stu "If its a No, will this still allow for other moves to be more independent? Does a once only forum mean that the issue can never be raised again?" The alternative that was favoured in Scotland was DevoMax, basically making Scotland autonomous within the UK but still sharing things like currency, defence, some economic policies etc, basically the stuff it makes sense to share as we all live on the same island. However, Cameron would't have this on the referendum paper insisting instead on a straight Yes/No choice; usual tory absolutist bullshit. "land grab made during the enclosures was made not by the aristocracy but by the rich tenant farmers of the aristocracy" You're starting an argument for the sake of it Tezza, a minor point with the same result. Interestingly enough a local historian thinks a golf club local to us is probably squatting on common land to this day. |
|
05 Sep 14 - 04:07 AM (#3657187) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Howard Jones That was a joke, but exactly the same arguments the Scottish nationalists are using to justify independence could be used by Shetland, and indeed some other regions. Jim McLean complains about the Westminster parliament being dominated by English MPs. That may be true, but Scottish votes have on many occasions altered the balance of power - an article in today's Times points out that if Scotland had been independent the Tories would have held power uninterrupted between 1964 and 1997. The Midlothian Question is real. That doesn't take account of the number of Scots who have held high office. From an English perspective I could feel aggrieved that Scotland has a influence disproportionate to its size, but that is how democracy works. I'm sure there are communities in Scotland which feel remote from decision-making in the Scottish parliament and feel it is dominated by Central Belt interests. That's inevitable in any political organisation, from the UN and EU down to parish councils. If the Scots decide to go it alone I wish them well and hope it is a success. I have my doubts that it will be, but time will tell. And Scots may prize independence above other factors and regard that as a success regardless of the economic outcomes. |
|
05 Sep 14 - 04:57 AM (#3657206) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: akenaton Stu, bit of thread drift, but I have just been re-reading "Change in the village" by George Bourne, which deals with the effect of the enclosures on the English people. A riveting book with many lessons for the future. Thanks for your input to this thread. |
|
05 Sep 14 - 05:29 AM (#3657214) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket Complexion? |
|
05 Sep 14 - 05:33 AM (#3657216) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: McGrath of Harlow "The "people" of Scotland do not want to get rid of Trident" - actually the evidence from polls is that more of them would like to get rid of it than would wish to continue having it. That might not be the case in the immediate vicinity of Faslane, since there are worries it could cost them jobs and trade - though even that is by no means certain. And the promise that a vote for independence means getting rid of Trident is a significant element in the YES campaign. It's seen as a definite vote winner. As for Shetland and the Orkneys, I'd think it likely that a constitutional arrangement similat to that of the Faroes with Denmark would be likely in an independeny Scotland. If I was a Scot I think I'd be very sceptical about all the talk about how a No vote would be followed by increased devolution. The same kind of stuff was promised when they had the first referendum in 1979, and it didn't happen. |
|
05 Sep 14 - 05:44 AM (#3657221) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Scabby Douglas First off, a declaration of my own position: I am Scottish, living in Scotland. I have a vote, and have a settled intention to vote Yes for independence. It's a mistake to equate the support for independence to unqualified adherence to the Scottish National Party (SNP) or for Alex Salmond. I have had several conversations with "Yes" supporters who declare a dislike for Salmond, but they all know that Scottish Parliament elections will take place in 2016, and they can then vote according to their political preferences. This is often summed up as: "Voting No because you hate the SNP is like not buying your dream house because you don't like the wallpaper". Support for independence is increasingly cross-party, and across the political spectrum. The most recent figures suggest something like 30% of Scottish labour supporters intend to vote Yes, against the expressed position of the Scottish Labour Party. Jim McLean wasn't complaining about the Westminster Parliament being dominated by English MPs. It's obvious that in any country, geographically, some areas or regions will have differing political persuasions from others. So national assemblies reflect that variety. However, Scots for the most part don't see themselves as belonging to a "region", but a separate nation, a distinct country-within-a-country. So the democratic deficit Jim mentions is not just normal regional swings-and-roundabouts, it's something that people see a chance to end. The arguments against independence focus a lot on finance, the economy and security. The underlying theme is - there are so many reasons that this could be difficult, unpleasant, uncomfortable - why would we put ourselves through this? It's easy to conclude that Yes supporters foresee a socialist utopia that Brian McNeill warns against: "We'll all live on the oil/ and the whisky by and by/ Free heavy beer! Pie suppers in the sky!". But actually we don't believe that. It will be massively challenging, of course, but is anyone really telling us that we're too poor, too small, or too stupid to run our own country? The hugely positive aspect of the referendum process has been the way that it has energised political conversation across the whole of the country, in a way that I can't recall. For the most part, away from the televised shouting matches that have been passed off as "debate" between our political representatives, the discourse has been respectful and civilised, and this has allowed undecided voters to be persuaded to a choice, has permitted supporters of "No" to change to "undecided" and then to "Yes" - and there have probably been some who have made the journey the other way. Voting for "No" accepts the status quo of the Union. However that's not a vote for No Change, but a vote for continuing the journey that the UK is already embarked on - continued austerity, privatisation and destruction of the NHS, demonisation of the disadvantaged and those on benefits, xenophobia, withdrawal from the European Union, UKIP, more Middle East adventurism, Cameron/Osborne, and the looming possibility of Boris Johnson as PM, a national Labour party which is virtually indistinguishable in policy from the Con/Dem coalition government. A vote for "Yes"is a vote for hope and possibility, for my children and grandchildren. It is a vote for change, making our own choices, for a different future. |
|
05 Sep 14 - 06:00 AM (#3657229) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Teribus The facts remain the same Mr. Douglas for whoever wins any election in Scotland in 2016 - the problems and the sums still remain the same and they still simply do not add up. By the 24th March 2016 newly independent Scotland will find itself: - Out of the EU - Out of NATO - With a "borrowed" currency over which it has absolutely no control - Facing a flight of capital that will be mind boggling as will be the loss of jobs - Facing a potential loss of its best customer {The UK} - With no access to UK Government contracts to build warships for the Royal Navy {Type 26 Frigate - vital work orders for the Clyde} Should Scotland renege on shouldering their share of the National Debt - Just watch what interest rates you will have to pay on the money Swinney says that independent Scotland will have to borrow to finance the start up and survive the first five years. Should Scotland renege on shouldering their share of the National Dept - Then there will be no sharing of any assets, all UK Government owned land in Scotland will still remain the property of the UK. Should the Scots simply seize that land then watch any potential foreign investor back away from a regime that has clearly demonstrated that it does not respect the rights of ownership or take responsibility for its debts. "Voting for "No" accepts the status quo of the Union. However that's not a vote for No Change, but a vote for continuing the journey that the UK is already embarked on" Fastest recovering economy in the western world? |
|
05 Sep 14 - 06:11 AM (#3657231) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Teribus ""The "people" of Scotland do not want to get rid of Trident" - actually the evidence from polls is that more of them would like to get rid of it than would wish to continue having it." - MGOH NOT according to this poll from May 2013: "More than half of people in Scotland want to see Trident replaced – a new poll has claimed. The surprising research from Lord Ashcroft, which contradicts claims made by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament from earlier this year, showed that 51 per cent of Scots wanted the UK's nuclear deterrent replaced when it comes to the end of its useful life. A total of 43 per cent of those 1,236 people polled thought nuclear weapons should continue to be based in Scotland with 39 per cent against it – although 68 per cent of people who said they were pro-Scottish independence said were against keeping UK nuclear weapons in Scotland. |
|
05 Sep 14 - 06:13 AM (#3657232) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,DaveRo Good post by Scabby. As an Englishman living in England I hope they vote No because I fear the effect on the Rump UK of the loss of a counterweight to London and the Tory south and the reduction in whatever influence we still have in Europe and the world. But let the Scots decide - I don't expect my fears to sway them. If they vote for independence I hope there's a clear majority and I wish them well. I'm sure after the smoke has cleared the two contries will work out a compromise on the currency, the oil, the nuclear bases etc. |
|
05 Sep 14 - 06:29 AM (#3657237) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Stu Thanks for heads up on the book Ake, I'll track it down (my wife's a bookseller!). Kicking trident out would be a real benefit of independence and I hope that if the vote is yes it might cause a rethink south of the border and increase opposition to hanging on to an expensive and essentially useless nuclear 'deterrent'. I agree with McGrath regarding increased devolution after a no vote. I would seriously question the veracity of anything the main party leaders say; we've all learnt the hard way they do what they want in power even without a mandate and contrary to their manifestos. |
|
05 Sep 14 - 06:33 AM (#3657240) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket NATO summit yesterday included the commitment to retaining a presence in Scotland. Obama said that included a nuclear deterrent. Interesting times. Salmond is setting out an SNP agenda in the promises he makes. He states quite clearly that independence means losing Fasslane yet Scotland could vote Yes on that basis but then vote in a Labour government that wishes to remain in NATO. All this bollocks about the referendum not being party political is about as clever as saying you can force foreign countries to play to your tune. Negotiate the pound? Sure. Kept the subs, share oil revenue and let us control defence and you can. (That's what negotiation means as a possible example.) |
|
05 Sep 14 - 06:41 AM (#3657243) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Scabby Douglas Teribus says: " newly independent Scotland will find itself: - Out of the EU - Out of NATO - With a "borrowed" currency over which it has absolutely no control - Facing a flight of capital that will be mind boggling as will be the loss of jobs - Facing a potential loss of its best customer {The UK} - With no access to UK Government contracts to build warships for the Royal Navy {Type 26 Frigate - vital work orders for the Clyde}" OK, so one idea at a time: Out of the EU: To state this as a fact is an outright lie. The UK government has not, and has said that it would not, seek the view of the EU on whether an independent Scotland would remain an EU member. Why haven't they? If they seriously thought the answer would be detrimental to independence, they would alomost certainly have asked, surely? The reality is that many significant, informed authorites have expressed their views that there are no sensible reasons for Scotland's over 5 million citizens, who are already EU members, to be required to leave and then have to wait for readmission. The reality is that there is more danger to Scotland's membership of the EU from Westminster policy than from becoming independent. Out of NATO: Seriously? Why on earth would the rUK want to share a landmass with a country that was not a member of the European defence club? Would it not be in the clear interests of rUK, and by extension NATO, to have Scotland as a member? Iceland has no army, 3 coastguard ships for a navy, Greenland has no military force of its own. Scaremongering. Borrowed Currency: whatever currency arrangements are made, we're pretty sure we'll have a currency. (Yawn) Flight capital: The bigger capital flight risk is from the preparations that some multinational banks are *already* making to withdraw from London to Ireland in the event of an EU withdrawal. If Scotland becomes independent, AND remains in the EU, maybe the capital will fly North and not to Ireland after all. Also, we're bored hearing these threats about flight of capital and loss of jobs - exactly the same threats were made before each of the referendum votes in 1979 and in 1997. Best Customer Loss: Well, if England as a market takes a massive "huff", that may well be a concern, but I'm guessing that cross-border trade between England and Scotland will still be a better bet, and less expensive than cross-channel. We'll see. NO Access to UK Government contracts for shipbuilding: In 1972, there were around 34,000 shipbuilding jobs in Scotland. Now there are around 6,000. How has the Union protected that industry? The current defence contracts are guaranteed. The independence White Paper proposes a "modest" fleet of 20 to 25 surface vessels to supply work to Clyde yards for a long time, and that's not even considering the benefit to the industry as a whole from diversifying into non-naval vessels. Nothing is certain with independence, but many things are possible. |
|
05 Sep 14 - 07:39 AM (#3657262) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket What is certain is that Salmond is offering a party manifesto and calling it reasons for independence. Worse still for those duped by his duplicity, he keeps talking of negotiating with Westminster post referendum. That and that alone makes not a single promise worth the lie that uttered it. Scotland can use whatever currency it wishes. I live in The UK but have dollar and Euro accounts to reflect the source of my incomes. No problem. But what good is a government that has no control over its interest rates? Scabby Douglas says it would remain in NATO. But Salmond says the subs will go, to which NATO reaffirmed yesterday that the subs stay. Again. Why are so many people hanging on the words of an opportunist fool and risking a predicament that nobody, I repeat nobody has set out the advantages for yet? He had the cheek to say he would have a mandate for negotiating sterling union. Yes, why don't we have a referendum in The UK to tell Germany what to do? Unless the people of The UK are asked via a referendum, no Westminster government can negotiate currency union. That was brought in regarding the Euro, but applies equally. Don't get me wrong. If independence is better and UK citizens don't suffer without being asked, go for it. I haven't seen a case made yet though. All I see are unfunded promises by a political party, and what the flying fuck that has to do with nationhood is beyond me... |
|
05 Sep 14 - 08:00 AM (#3657269) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Scabby Douglas Musket: There's two strands to my thought on the NATO position. The first is that NATO will do what NATO thinks makes sense for it. If we think that NATO will behave irrationally, then we should be very, very scared that the UK belongs to it. So if we assume that it won't behave irrationally, then what reason would it have for excluding Scotland? Out of 28 states currently in NATO, only 3 have nuclear weapons. 5 other nations currently host nuclear weapons. But since geographically, stationing the rUK's nuclear arsenal in England would be as militarily effective (or ineffective), why should Scotland be told that it "must" host these weapons? Would any English constituency happily accept that burden? The second thought is that of course NATO could choose to "exclude" Scotland, but in reality, how much of a threat is that? As I said above, anything that's a real military threat to Scotland would be as much of a danger for England and other North Atlantic neighbours, so how could England, and its NATO allies, ignore such a threat? Scotland would not be looking for a free defence solution. It's been stated that Scotland would look for membership of NATO, and contribute its share to the defence of the North Atlantic community of nations. So what makes the most sense? |
|
05 Sep 14 - 09:18 AM (#3657304) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Teribus 1: "Out of the EU: To state this as a fact is an outright lie. " One hell of a lot more thruth in what I said than in what Alex Salmond stated with regard to "legal advice" on the subject. If I am lying then so was the President of the EU, the last President of EU Commission and a few other EU notables. 2: "The reality is that many significant, informed authorities have expressed their views that there are no sensible reasons for Scotland's over 5 million citizens, who are already EU members, to be required to leave and then have to wait for readmission." Since when has it been natural to link "sensible" with the EU? By the bye the 5 million you speak of are EU citizens because they are citizens of an EU member state that state being the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - at present there is no such classification as a "Scottish Citizen" - in the UK we are all British Citizens, at least that is what it says in my Passport. On the 24th March 2016 the United Kingdom will still exist and will still be a EU Member State, the newly independent State of Scotland will not be a member state of the EU and will have to apply for membership, and follow the process as laid down in the Treaty of Lisbon including the criteria governing finance and government institutions. The greatest stumbling block to Scotland becoming a member of the EU is the unanimous acceptance of Scotland's application by the existing member states - EXCLUDING the UK there are six current EU members that will blackball Scotland's application for purely national interest. 3: Why on earth would NATO wish to accept another "freeloader" jumping on the band wagon? Especially one that comes with strings attached. NATO is essentially a "nuclear alliance", something that Jowly & Co say they want no part of. 4: Oh you'll have a currency no doubt, any one you wish, then after a while maybe even one of your own, then you would be faced with adopting the Euro should you push forward with the plan to join the EU - please don't quote UK opt outs or Sweden those doors were slammed shut long ago - any country wishing to join now MUST adopt the Euro. The guy who came up with the idea of a common currency (The Euro) was a German and he stipulated that it would only work as part of full political integration. That never happened and it is becoming increasingly doubtful that it ever will. Without that political union the monetary union will continue to lurch from one crisis to the next. The Euro is a long way from being out of the woods yet. As Jowly says Scotland will use the pound initially {That by the way makes the third change in tack he has made since this fiasco was initiated} but without a formal currency union Scotland will have absolutely no control over that currency. Scotland will have no "Lender Of Last Resort" and off hand I do not know what "native" Bank the Scots will use. 5: What "multinational banks are *already* making to withdraw from London to Ireland in the event of an EU withdrawal." The only banks and financial institutions making contingency plans to move are the ones currently located in Edinburgh. 6: "If Scotland becomes independent, AND remains in the EU, maybe the capital will fly North and not to Ireland after all." And IF my Aunt had balls she'd be my Uncle. If Scotland becomes independent Scotland will not be in the EU see 1 above. 7: The number of civil servants working in Scotland in departments servicing the whole of the UK's 63 million population is over 200,000. Nowhere near that number will be required in Scotland to service a population of only 5 million if the numbers are scaled down than requires something like just over 29,000 tops - that makes one hell of a lot of redundancies. Banks, Pension Funds, Asset Management Houses and Insurance companies will all HAVE to relocate to where the bulk of their business comes from under EU law (Edinburgh based Standard Life for instance has 90% of its business in the South). The Royal Bank of Scotland is 83% owned by the UK Treasury - it will be told by it's largest shareholder where it will operate. 8: 80% of Scotland's trade is with the rest of the UK. The second it finds itself outside of the EU everything coming from Scotland automatically becomes more expensive. What would be Scotland's main port? What Ferry links would be opened to assist trade between the rest of Europe and this huge new market consisting of 5 million people? 9: The contract to build the Type 26 Frigates has been deliberately delayed until after the result of the Referendum is known. The UK will not, nor ever has had ships built for the Royal Navy outwith the UK. Orders for the Type 26 number 18 or 20 in addition to those for the Indian Navy will be built under licence in India. All things are possible Mr. Douglas but if I were you I would look more at what is probable. Back to currency again. At the last televised debate Alex Salmond stated that he sought a clear mandate from the Scottish People {More accurately the electorate of Scotland} to negotiate with the UK for a currency union covering the use by Scotland of the Pound Sterling. Now if you accept this then it becomes a nonsense, if the Pound Sterling within a Union is what is best for Scotland should someone point out to the Fat Prat and the population of Scotland as he calls them that that is precisely what we already have, and if they wish to have that then the one way to guarantee that is to vote NO? At the moment Scotland's pensioners equate to 23% of the total population. Their pensions are being paid by the contributions of the working population of a country of 63 million people. Immediately on independence that 23% will have to paid for by a working population in Scotland of 42% of the population. Fast forward that 15 years and then it deteriorates to a pensionable population of 39% being supported by contributions of workers equating to 40% of the population - hope all you want Mr. Douglas, but the reality is that that is unsustainable. |
|
05 Sep 14 - 09:44 AM (#3657312) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket Not all other countries are in the strategic geographic position of Scotland, that's the NATO interest. Sea ways domination. Nothing more. Nothing less. Referring to other countries isn't referring to the subject. If Scotland wants to be in NATO, the subs have to stay. Or is the promise Salmond making subject to "negotiation" same as every other SNP partisan promise masquerading as a question of independence? Doesn't sound like independence to me if voting yes saddles you with promises of one particular party. That can't afford to deliver anyway. |
|
05 Sep 14 - 10:13 AM (#3657325) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Howard Jones The difficulty with the EU issue is that as well as the legal position there are political issues. From what I gather, the EU treaties don't envisage this situation where a part of an existing member becomes independent. Some, including the President of the European Commission, have said that Scotland would have to reapply just like any new member and would be subject to the same rules as a country joining from outside, which include accepting the Euro. Others disagree. It seems likely to me that there would be considerable political will on all sides to ensure a smooth transition for Scotland - the alternatives are too messy. However there will also be considerable political pressure within the EU to insist on it joining the Euro. There will also be opposition from Spain and other countries nervous about their own rebellious provinces. Perhaps it will all work out but it is by no means clear and Salmond's repeated assurances that everything will be all right seem to ignore reality. Same with the currency - either Scotland has currency union with rUK, in which case much of its 'independence' is a sham, or it joins the Euro (ditto), or it goes it alone and has to support its own currency, which leaves it exposed. If the Scots choose to accept these risks that is up to them, but to pretend they don't exist and to ignore or dismiss unpalatable alternative opinions seems unwise. |
|
05 Sep 14 - 10:20 AM (#3657328) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Scabby Douglas Oh for Goodness' sake, Teribus. I may answer some of these out of sequence as I don't have time to check references right now, but let me pick up a few things: "The greatest stumbling block to Scotland becoming a member of the EU is the unanimous acceptance of Scotland's application by the existing member states - EXCLUDING the UK there are six current EU members that will blackball Scotland's application for purely national interest." Any evidence of that? I am unaware of any member state having said any such thing - in fact the Spanish Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Garcia-Margallo has explicitly said that Scottish independence is a matter between Scotland and Westminster and Spain has nothing to say on the matter, Spain being one of the countries most likely to feature in your supposed list of blackballers, I'd guess. "Scotland's pensioners equate to 23% of the total population" You know, or you should, that is not a problem being faced only by Scotland. Scotland's stats for population ageing are not dramatically different than those for the rest of the UK. So the problem you describe is one that will be faced by ALL of the UK, not just Scotland. in the White Paper however, a partial solution has been proposed - namely to allow immigration to increase by a net amount of around 1400 people a year - the increase in working population would offset the deficit implicit in the ageing increase. And really, I'd love to know what the obsession is with NO-vote supporters in applying personal insults to Alex Salmond. If your points are valid, then don't undermine them by childish and irrational name-calling. Your point 8 falls because I don't accept your premise that Scotland would be outside of the EU. Point 7. Civil Service - According to https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-government-provides-more-than-30-000-civil-service-jobs-in-scotland (do your own blicky, if you like) there are 48,830 Civil Service jobs located in Scotland, or to put it another way, less than one quarter of the number you cite. Of that number they are split about 65% - 35% between servicing UK requirements and Scottish Government needs. It's possible that some reduction in size may be necessary over time, but nothing like the carnage that you suggest. 3. NATO again. (sigh) If you care to look at a map, you will realise that anything that poses any kind of military threat to Scotland would automatically pose a threat to any of... wait a minute I already said this.. (Copy.. Paste) The second thought is that of course NATO could choose to "exclude" Scotland, but in reality, how much of a threat is that? As I said above, anything that's a real military threat to Scotland would be as much of a danger for England and other North Atlantic neighbours, so how could England, and its NATO allies, ignore such a threat? Scotland would not be looking for a free defence solution. It's been stated that Scotland would look for membership of NATO, and contribute its share to the defence of the North Atlantic community of nations. 9. Eh? Can I suggest you re-read this sentence and tell me what you think it means? The UK will not, nor ever has had ships built for the Royal Navy outwith the UK. Orders for the Type 26 number 18 or 20 in addition to those for the Indian Navy will be built under licence in India. I think you have just said : The UK will never ever, nohow, noway place orders for Royal Navy outwith the UK. Ermm, except for these, which will be built in India. Maybe that's not what you meant. I'm sure you'll let me know. Chin chin |
|
05 Sep 14 - 10:25 AM (#3657329) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Stilly River Sage Best Customer Loss: Well, if England as a market takes a massive "huff", that may well be a concern, but I'm guessing that cross-border trade between England and Scotland will still be a better bet, and less expensive than cross-channel. We'll see. Proximity, like inertia, makes a big difference. Huge amounts of trade between the US, Canada, and Mexico just because we're all here side by side. Habit and proximity are natural forces probably nearly as strong as gravity. Don't underestimate them. The UK will not, nor ever has had ships built for the Royal Navy outwith the UK. Orders for the Type 26 number 18 or 20 in addition to those for the Indian Navy will be built under licence in India. Sounds like a crap shoot here. SRS |
|
05 Sep 14 - 11:05 AM (#3657357) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Howard Jones I think it is highly probable that an independent Scotland would be in the EU. The question is on what terms? I think the EU establishment would insist on it joining the Euro, or drive a very hard bargain to stay out. Being in the Euro would have a significant effect on trade with the rest of the UK. The Spanish Foreign Minister's comment is carefully phrased. Of course Spain should not interfere in the question of Scottish independence. The question of an independent Scotland's being allowed to join/remain in the EU is an entirely different one. Same with NATO - I think it highly probable that Scotland will stay in NATO, but on what terms. If Scotland wants to benefit from the UK's and NATO's nuclear umbrella without hosting it, what other contribution will they be expected to make? The problem with these issues isn't the black and white, in or out, but the shades of grey in between. It's very uncertain. Perhaps Scots regard that uncertainty as less important than the mere fact of independence. However no country in today's world can be entirely independent, and it is the nature of these and other relationships which will influence just how independent Scotland would be in reality. |
|
05 Sep 14 - 11:19 AM (#3657361) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Teribus "the Spanish Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Garcia-Margallo has explicitly said that Scottish independence is a matter between Scotland and Westminster and Spain has nothing to say on the matter, Spain being one of the countries most likely to feature in your supposed list of blackballers, I'd guess." Quite right Scabby, Spain has got no say on the matter of Scottish Independence - But it does have some say on whether or not that independent Scotland is ever allowed to join the EU - True? The fact is Scabby that every existing member of the EU has a say as to whether of not Scotland gets to join - that my old son is cast in stone, its one of the EU's rules, irrespective of what Eck and the YESNP crowd say. "You know, or you should, that is not a problem being faced only by Scotland. Scotland's stats for population ageing are not dramatically different than those for the rest of the UK. So the problem you describe is one that will be faced by ALL of the UK, not just Scotland. in the White Paper however, a partial solution has been proposed - namely to allow immigration to increase by a net amount of around 1400 people a year - the increase in working population would offset the deficit implicit in the ageing increase." In Scotland the situation is worse than in the rest of the UK as over the next 15 years more people become pensioners than join the workforce. The situation for the UK as a whole over the next 15 years is nowhere near as bad. Ah yes allowing immigration will ease the problem as promised in that document known as The White Paper which is really the SNP's next election manifesto. All these immigrants to Scotland are going to work where? I take it that those of working age will all have jobs before they arrive and that none of their dependents impose any additional burden with associated costs on independent Scotland's education, health and welfare services? Of course they won't Alex has waved his magic wand hasn't he? What happens as and when these immigrants reach pensionable age? More immigration, or are you relying on accelerated rates of breeding? Why should anything that threatens Scotland necessarily also threaten the UK, or NATO for that matter? Perhaps some Russian oligarch might want to buy it in a few years time? The Chinese might take it over? As a terrorist target you will not have the force or the capability to deal with one of your oil production platforms being taken over, or counter anyone plundering your fisheries. That Scotland's geographic position makes it strategically important is a myth. "Scotland would not be looking for a free defence solution. It's been stated that Scotland would look for membership of NATO, and contribute its share to the defence of the North Atlantic community of nations." What would Scotland contribute? At present it has nothing and its proposals for a Scottish Defence Force are laughable (Total number was something like 15,000 wasn't it with a Reserve of 5,000 - why indeed should Russia tremble). Renege on Scotland's share of the National Debt and you get no share of assets, even if you did your share of those assets would prove to be a millstone round your necks. Couldn't care less whether, or not, you accept what has been stated by many who are experts on the EU. The reality is that Scotland is not currently a member of the EU (The UK is) and it will NOT be an EU member once it declares itself independent. Ah yes but Alex obtained "legal advice" on this didn't he? Only thing was the truth was that he hadn't and spent a fortune trying to cover up his lie to the electorate of Scotland. Perfectly correct Scabby, my error, "There are 48,830 civil servants working in Scotland and 31,690 (65% of the total) work for parts of the UK Government such as the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP), Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC) and the Ministry of Defence (MoD)." So that is only a loss 31,690 jobs out of 48,830. On the Type 26 Frigates: Initial order of 8 leading to 18 for the Royal Navy - these will be built in the UK 8 for the Royal Australian Navy - these would be built in the UK 6 for the Brazilian Navy + Wave Knight Class Tankers and River Class Patrol Vessels - these would be built in the UK Any Type 26 Frigates built for the Indian Navy will be built under licence in India - That make it any clearer? |
|
05 Sep 14 - 12:02 PM (#3657378) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Scabby Douglas Jings, here we go again... Couldn't care less whether, or not, you accept what has been stated by many who are experts on the EU Yes, it doesn't matter who says what, or how expert they are, Teribus will insist that only his version of reality has any value. Lovely. That must be very nice for Teribus. You're basically sticking your fingers in your ears and going "LALALLAALA! Not Listening!" The defence force that Scotland needs would be what was deemed appropriate for defending Scotland. And according to figures from the MOD, at present there are only 14,500-ish MoD personnel based in Scotland, so the 15,000 you scoff at from the White Paper would be more than that. And more than Greenland has, for sure. Off home now, but may return for more later. |
|
05 Sep 14 - 12:34 PM (#3657401) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket Wouldn't it be funny if the yes vote won but Salmond was barred from public office for lying to the Scottish Parliament? The snag is, (and on this I agree broadly with Teribus, as strange as it is to say so,) The UK is a member of The EU. Scotland isn't, or is as part of The UK. Spain doesn't want Catalonia getting ideas and Germany can see a skint Scotland in a few years, and they bear the brunt of bailouts. No. By letting the ugly face of repugnant nationalism have a voice, Salmond and his traitor crew have caused divide, mistrust and hate. Regardless of the outcome, he has divided a country by trying to unite what was already united. Salmond is not putting forward a case for an independent Scotland. He is putting forward a case for his party and what it wants to deliver. Destabilising the country fundamentally in order to be able to offer such things is reckless. That he cannot afford to deliver them and cannot show how it is costed beggars belief. Before anybody casts a vote, they have ask themselves how sure they are that Salmond will not change his tune but Westminster politicians will change theirs? Because that is what he is saying. He is a politician by the way, in case anybody hasn't noticed. |
|
05 Sep 14 - 02:19 PM (#3657457) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: The Sandman norway is not in the eu, and like england has its own cuurency but has treaty arrangements, why is this not a possibilty for scotland? |
|
05 Sep 14 - 02:27 PM (#3657461) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: McGrath of Harlow "The UK" is short foe "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" - and will cease to exist if the Scots go for independence. There will be two successor states, the already existing, but now independent historic country of Scotland, and a totally new country which has never existed before made of the England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. If Scotland has make a fresh application to join NATO, the EU and the United Nations, why is it assumed that won't apply to the United Kingdom of Southern Britain and Northern Ireland? |
|
05 Sep 14 - 02:41 PM (#3657468) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: McGrath of Harlow Sorry there - "and a totally new country which has never existed before made of England, Wales and Northern Ireland". |
|
05 Sep 14 - 02:53 PM (#3657481) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Ed T If this ocvurs, vould other UK segments follow on a similar path? |
|
05 Sep 14 - 03:14 PM (#3657487) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: akenaton Most of this is academic, most people have certainly made up their minds by now and most will vote on gut instinct. Only the YES campaign have a positive vision for Scotland, the negativity of the NOs is rebounding on them big style, the public have sussed the scaremongering we see repeated on these pages. Young people and females are swinging strongly to YES in voting intentions.....only the well heeled over fifties are frightened to rock the boat. Personally, I am far from rich, but am comfortably off after a lifetime of hard manual labour.....but I want to see us start out on a political journey which will give our children and grandchildren a chance of a fulfilling life in the country in which they were born and bred. One doesn't have to be a millionaire to be happy or feel you have contributed to society. At present a huge number of our young folks have been written off, consigned to the scrapheap and an existence on minimal benefits doled out by our masters in the obscenely rich South. Give them a chance to develop some pride in their Nation and themselves. "Now I'm sitting here, before the fire, the empty room, the forest choir The flames that couldn't get any higher well they've withered now they've gone But I'm still thinking my way is clear, And I know what I'll do tomorrow"......VOTE YES FOR FREEDOM!! |
|
05 Sep 14 - 03:14 PM (#3657488) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Howard Jones "couldn't care less whether, or not, you accept what has been stated by many who are experts on the EU ..." The thing is, there are 'experts' on both sides saying completely opposite things, and each side wants to believe only its own experts. The fact is nobody knows - whatever happens will be determined more by politics than legal opinions, not least because there is no legal precedent. It will likely be a fudge - yes independent Scotland probably will stay/be admitted into the EU (but this is by no means a foregone conclusion since it will depend on the political agendas of a lot of different countries and institutions) but we cannot know what they might have to concede to achieve it. There seems to be a lot of uncertainty and risk for the doubtful privilege of exchanging one set of lying bastard politicians for another - even if they will be all your own lying bastards. And if they end up kow-towing to Brussels rather than London, can you say you're independent? |
|
05 Sep 14 - 05:29 PM (#3657531) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: robomatic It seems like a devolution to split up something that works and replace it with something that will create more bureaucracy and be economically and militarily weaker. Putting two frontiers where there is now a border. Robomatic who believes that when it comes to the U K, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. |
|
05 Sep 14 - 06:01 PM (#3657547) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: McGrath of Harlow So I assume you'd be all for merging the various countries in the EU into a single state, robomatic? |
|
05 Sep 14 - 06:22 PM (#3657554) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket McGraw. The United Kingdom exists. It doesn't alter as a result of any referendum on independence by a present part of it. It is still The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This forms part of the legislation allowing the referendum. I'm rather disappointed that you of all people are not noting that fundamental fact. A United Kingdom is not a coterminous geographical declaration. |
|
05 Sep 14 - 07:28 PM (#3657578) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Tattie Bogle Well it's a bit like the 'Mudcat wars" here N of the Border: far too many people heaping 4-letter word derision, vitriol and nastiness on anyone who disagrees with them. The Yes campaign are very vociferous, the No Thanks brigade much less so - afraid of having their windows put in, dog shit through their letter-boxes, etc if they declare their inclinations. They may be the silent majority, tho the polls suggest that the gap is closing fast. The only 2 options are Yes or No: if there had been a 3rd option of "Devo-max" (more devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament, I'm sure a lot of people would have gone for it. This option was blocked by Westminster: they would only agree to the 2 option referendum. If there is a No vote, the aim would be for further devolution to occur, but the Yes campaign are currently using as their slogan - "Vote No for a Tory Government", and saying it will never happen. I have read a lot, watched the TV debates, read thousands of diatribes on Facebook (now hiding most of them, and NOBODY, but NOBODY on either side has really convinced me that they are telling the TRUTH! My vote is already cast by post, and I'm no telling! |
|
05 Sep 14 - 08:08 PM (#3657596) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: McGrath of Harlow True enough, even if there's a referendum victory for YES, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will have a temporary continued existence while the details are negotiated - but the outcome of the negotiations would be settled by the referendum, so far as concerns the matter of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ceasing to exist. |
|
06 Sep 14 - 03:13 AM (#3657659) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Silas Am I the only person who does not give a fuck either way? |
|
06 Sep 14 - 03:28 AM (#3657666) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket No Kevin. Read the enabling legislation. In order for The UK to cease to exist, you need a referendum. This is about a few counties leaving The UK, not ending The UK. The UK exists, even if it is smaller. There will be a UK within Great Britain even if the island of Great Britain has another country within it. Ireland is an island but contains two countries. Great Britain is an island. |
|
06 Sep 14 - 07:33 PM (#3657944) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: akenaton First poll ever to show the "YES" for independence vote in the lead. 51% YES.....49% NO......You Gov Sunday Times. The momentum is certainly with us, keep you're fingers crossed America, we are about to follow you. |
|
06 Sep 14 - 08:32 PM (#3657963) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Ed T It kinda looks like the Quebec, Canada vote for independence in 1995, to which it has been compared. While it was squeekly close, polls putting the separatists in thevlead to theblast moment, the federalists won by very small numbers. The popularity of separation has diminished since that loss, but is always on the horizon. Since that time, many of the leaders of the separatist mivement have commented on the "goings on" inside. It turns out that they were very poorly prepared for what would occur in the aftermath-which could have resulted in disaster afterward, if they won. The other revealing information is that a healthy number of those who voted for separationm were doing so more to put pressure on the Canadian government to offer a better economic deal for continuing to remain in the confederation. There was also an erroronious belief that after separation, they would continue to benefit from the Canadian dollar and economy. While the situation may be different, one can never safely assume that all people have the same understanding, nor patriotic goals, in these matters. . |
|
07 Sep 14 - 02:18 AM (#3658002) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,Allan Conn Tattie Bogle I've got to completely disagree with you there re the campaign nastiness. On the whole the debate is remarkably civilised and completely peaceful. Yes the unionist media rants on about cyber-nats but really the eejits in the net are on both sides. Try going on to a Better Together FB page or the like and giving a different opinon!! The facts are that whatever the subject is people can be abusive on places like Youtube etc and this debate is no different. In the real world people on the whole are fine with opposing arguments and the thing about any nasty incidents is surely that they are so rare? The media went overboard over Jim Murphy having an egg thrown at him but that is hardly the end of civilisation as we know it. Incidents of violence have been very rare and largely ignored, or at least kept in the small print by the media because the most significant have been perpretated by the No side. A political speaker for the Britannica Party in Glasgow knocked a female heckler to the ground and kicked her with reports suggesting she was pregnant though that isn't clear whilst in Edinburgh Yes campaigners were attacked by a mob outside Tynecastle stadium. In truth both of these incidents can't even be laid at the door of the referendum. Violence can happen where there are right wing extremist groups campaigning and outside of football matches. So it'd be unfair to tar the No campaign with the blame - just as it is obviously unfair to blame Yes for one guy throwing an egg or eejits on Braveheart clips on Youtube. The media has been a disgrace though. Had it been Cameron and Darling who'd received death threats rather than Salmond and Sturgeon then it'd have been all over the media. Likewise had police intervention been needed because a tailgater was shadowing Cameron's car rather than Salmond's then it'd be splashed over the front pages. The worry I have is over the forthcoming massive Orange March which is to be held in Edinburgh in support of the union. If there is trouble at that then no doubt the UK media will lay the blame squarely at the door of the referendum debate - when we all know in Scotland that there is a long history of trouble at such events. I think we can on the whole be pretty proud of how the public have held themselves during this referendum. It's the unrelated simmering sectariansim that we still beed to be a bot ashamed about. |
|
07 Sep 14 - 02:38 AM (#3658006) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,Allan Conn The general concensus is that if Scotland leaves what remains of the UK will be the remaining successor state and Scotland will be the new state. No-one of significance in the Yes camp argues other than that so Musket is right on that one. dJust as the UK gvt supposedly has no contingency plans in place for a Yes vote I think it is true that the UK public haven't thought about the aftermath either. Basically it has been head in the sand stuff imagining it simply couldn't happen. Even though it now looks extremely close. The rUK would be the successor state but what would it call itself? I suppose it could leave the name unchanged - though it wouldn't be that logical to do so. When Ireland as a single political entity ceased to exist then the UK changed its name to the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". So if Scotland leaves politically Great Britain will no longer exist. Geographically only a part of GB would be wtihin the UK. It could still be used but it wouldn't be logical to do so! South Britain doesn't have much of a ring to it so I suppose the "United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland" would be the most logical and least confusing for others. What about the flag? Again probably stay as it is but again not very logical. Three crosses on the flag one representing a country that is no longer in the union whilst one of the countries within the union isn't represented on the flag! |
|
07 Sep 14 - 03:51 AM (#3658012) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket In my experience, it's only the repugnant nasty end of nationalism that get excited over flags. Not much point in getting assertive over identity when in England, it hasn't been successfully challenged for almost a thousand years.... |
|
07 Sep 14 - 04:14 AM (#3658018) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: selby As I understand it any new country joining the EU must take on the Euro the EU will not let Scotland get away with keeping the pound as an independent country as it would set a precedent. When told by the major Westminster parties,that he cannot keep the pound the treasury and EU agreeing Mr Salmond sits there and says they don't mean it. On this issue alone that to me would be a worry. I really could not care less whether Scotland goes or not I do care that once they have made their bed they lie on it for either good or bad. Keith |
|
07 Sep 14 - 04:44 AM (#3658025) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket I still say there is a possible case for losing a Westminster perspective but this referendum has not explored it. This has been about putting forward the manifesto of one party and saying if vote yes, you are committing yourself constitutionally to some of their policies. By saying independence means education this, NHS that and nuclear the other, that is what people are being hamstrung with, regardless of governing party after the first elections. It says something when Salmond is gaining in popularity despite lying to Parliament and saying Westminster politicians will change their minds but he won't change his. This is a leader and his party that can promote and deliver gay equality and marriage whilst recruiting the likes of Akenaton to their cause. Fucking frightening..... |
|
07 Sep 14 - 04:49 AM (#3658027) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: akenaton UK government having smelt the coffee, are now resorting to simple blackmail to avert defeat. If Scotland votes no, we may be "given" new powers, including tax raising powers. One question if these powers are available and in the interests of all, why are they not in place NOW? Don't believe the lying bastards, vote NO and Scotland will be crushed, we will be given the same status as Wales, who's public services are being decimated and unemployment runs at rates above the national average. Young people in Scotland are no longer prepared to be treated as second class citizens by a government which does not represent them. They still have enough pride in themselves to take responsibility for their own future. We are a small trading nation with the ability to pay our way, with a bit left over to train our young folks, and provide decent public services......We don't need unregulated immigration, we don't want to rule the world, or be part of global corporatism. Salmond is a great leader who has performed wonders in influencing public opinion, and conducting the Scottish Government. IF we win the vote it will be a testament to the guts of the Scottish people.....and the man himself! |
|
07 Sep 14 - 05:00 AM (#3658031) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: akenaton Ian, you obviously have no understanding of politics. |
|
07 Sep 14 - 06:41 AM (#3658057) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: selby Young people in Scotland are no longer prepared to be treated as second class citizens by a government which does not represent them. Sorry akenaton your statement above is incorrect ALL young people in this country are being treated like second class citizens and a lot have an enormous amount of debt already in their lives. Young people in Scotland even with a Westminster Parliment have had a better deal than English kids Keith |
|
07 Sep 14 - 06:58 AM (#3658059) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: akenaton Selby, the fact that Scotland has one Tory MP and is ruled by a Tory led government, amounts to lack of political representation. We are a nation, not a region. |
|
07 Sep 14 - 07:33 AM (#3658068) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Stu C'mon Scotland. Do it, for all our sakes. |
|
07 Sep 14 - 09:29 AM (#3658101) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,Rahere Ake, the consequence of doing it is therefore a huge loss to Labour: Cameron is not going to do too much to stop them leaving, and the crash will be epic, as Scotland's too small to either stand alone or dictate its terms. The alternative to not having the Pound and not having the Euro might just be not having any currency at all, which would mean a bankrupt government and barter. It may be that if Scotland is a member of nothing its only option will be to take the pirate route, becoming a home for every tax policy in the book. That at least was the implication of Salmond's recent comment that if Luxemburg could do it, so could Scotland, conveniently forgetting that Scotland has a hundred times larger population that Luxemburg: to achieve a comparable standard of living would mean them becoming the biggest hole in the economy in the world, virtually selling out to the Russian mafia. Good luck, lads. |
|
07 Sep 14 - 09:31 AM (#3658102) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,Rahere In passing, did nobody notice the Yes campaign was using Kate Tickell's NSPs in its advertising? |
|
07 Sep 14 - 10:12 AM (#3658114) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: akenaton Scaremongering abounds. I have no reason to suppose that the new Scotland and the remainder of the old UK, will not do what is in their own interests; and that will mean a shared currency and comparative parity in exchange rates. We will be a huge trading partner of the UK. Additionally, if Osbourne is serious about "giving" us massively more powers and benefits after a NO vote, how does he expect the rest of the UK to react? It is a panic reaction, a pack of lies that could never be put into practice.......due to the inevitable and perfectly understandable reaction by the ordinary people of England and Wales. The only way we can possibly achieve control of Scottish affairs is by a YES vote in the coming referendum. |
|
07 Sep 14 - 10:13 AM (#3658116) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket Akenaton just did something that made me smile, possibly for the first time ever in his case. He said I don't understand politics. This from a man who uses the word "liberal" as a sneering insult yet claims to be a member of a liberal political party. Salmond, for all his dangerous actions has a very liberal socialist agenda, with social equality, universal education and equitable access to health and social cate at the very heart of what he wishes. Yet Akenaton joins SNP. His hatred of his own nation, The UK, seems to be a higher agenda item than hating gay people after all.. Obviously hasn't realised that post war social policy enables ignoramuses to be in a position to be ungrateful in the first place. Back to reality. Is King Alex I going to use his celtic tiger axis with Ireland and Iceland to pay for it all? {chortle.}. |
|
07 Sep 14 - 10:14 AM (#3658117) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Stu "Cameron is not going to do too much to stop them leaving" But for the union to fracture on the tories watch is disastrous for them; they are the unionist part of the UK, it's even in the name of the party. One only hopes the party implodes in the most spectacular fashion possible. |
|
07 Sep 14 - 10:35 AM (#3658123) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: selby I am afraid akenaton you missed the point about young people they have all been shafted and it started with tuition fees brought in by a Labour government. All parties have been happy to do it. No where in my previous statement did i mention Scotland as a region. But in the spirit regions Home rule for Yorkshire. Keith |
|
07 Sep 14 - 11:35 AM (#3658142) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,Rahere I thought the Homes were Scottish nobility? Or do they intend stopping at Peterborough again? As oft times commemorated by the Rail Notwork... |
|
08 Sep 14 - 03:48 AM (#3658311) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Teribus "I have no reason to suppose that the new Scotland and the remainder of the old UK, will not do what is in their own interests; and that will mean a shared currency and comparative parity in exchange rates. We will be a huge trading partner of the UK." Post referendum the UK WILL DO what is in it's own interest - and so far all the leaders of the main political Parties in the UK have said that there will be no Currency Union with an Independent Scotland as it WOULD NOT BE in the UK's interest to enter into such an agreement with a foreign country. Don't know about you Ake but I believe them, there will be a General Election in the UK before 10th May 2015 and any UK mainstream Political party that advocates a currency union with independent Scotland will be committing political suicide, they will be slaughtered at the polling stations across the UK. 80% of Scotland's trade is with the rest of the UK. While the rest of the UK is a vital market for Scotland, Scotland with it's 5 million population is not and can never be a vital market for the UK - simply a matter of scale. On gaining independence Scotland WILL find itself OUT of the EU and as such the UK will find itself penalised by the EU for any trade between the UK as a member state and Scotland a non-member state. GSS asked above how Norway manages: "norway is not in the eu, and like england has its own cuurency but has treaty arrangements, why is this not a possibilty for scotland?" Norway is a member of EFTA, it pays into the EU and has to comply with "most" EU rules - it can do that because it can afford to do that - newly independent Scotland will not be able to do that, and at the moment it does not look as though an independent Scotland will have a currency over which it will have any control over. |
|
08 Sep 14 - 04:05 AM (#3658324) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Bonzo3legs Condition of staying should either be compulsory loss of Scottish accent or compulsory sub-title screens to be worn by all Scots - particularly Dick Gaughan!!! |
|
08 Sep 14 - 04:19 AM (#3658330) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket Norway is a good example. I have family out there and whilst the country is rich and their high taxes promise them one hell of a good state pension etc, there is a problem.. The problem is that to survive economically, they have to trade with The EU whilst due to xenophobia at referendum time, cannot be members. The result? Being bound by the dictats with no say in them whatsoever. That is the situation an independent Scotland could find itself in. Using sterling would mean being bound by the interest rates and fiscal policy of The UK. At present, Scottish people can influence that. But they can't after any independence... Monetary union? The law requires a referendum. No party can take us into fiscal union without a referendum, as those advocating the Euro (myself amongst them incidentally) have found. If Scotland doesn't take its share of debt, it could never dictate anything to anyone, as The IMF would put it in a peer group with Somalia. If it does take on its share of debt, it will be interesting to see what parties can promise to provide in the first elections... The most galling bit about this is The UK government bending over backwards to appease voters in Scotland. The message should be clear. How many Salmond promises will he negotiate away once he wins? What single promise can you rely on? More importantly, how can you be sure the promises don't make his party policies a constitutional obligation if he argues, rightly, that they form part of the independence criteria? |
|
08 Sep 14 - 04:54 AM (#3658334) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: akenaton "The most galling bit about this is The UK government bending over backwards to appease voters in Scotland." Why do you think they are even bothering to lie? They know the wealth and wealth creation potential that Scotland has. If Scotland was the economic basket case that you imply, England would be delighted to get rid of us, rather than bribing us to stay. |
|
08 Sep 14 - 05:17 AM (#3658343) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket They, like you would be if you understood what you type, are driven by dogma and put philosophy before pragmatism. Considering the chancellor is a member of The Conservative and Unionist Party, you can answer your own question. zzz |
|
08 Sep 14 - 05:50 AM (#3658348) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: The Sandman "As I understand it any new country joining the EU must take on the Euro the EU will not let Scotland get away with keeping the pound as an independent country as it would set a preceden" this could produce a similiar situation to ireland , where a whole black market exists, based around smuggling and trading across an economic border, what also happens is that people living close to the border, cross over to do shopping on the other side when the two currencies go up or down. |
|
08 Sep 14 - 06:48 AM (#3658364) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,Rahere The question is still one of the Scottish tail wagging the English dog, it's all of a piece, Scottish arrogance - when in reality, it was Scottish political and economic incompetence which caused the last recession, and to a great extent the one before that, the consistent downside of my entire working life. This is a nation which allows corruption around it's one significant production plant, and wants independence when the costs and terms are undefined, which is quite sufficient proof of its economic incompetence in and of itself. Illegal immigrants will get the vote, it seems, whereas English citizens aren't being allowed a say if we want to keep you or not. It does make our own political masters much more loved either, for that matter. Belgium is adequate proof that you need a population of about 20 million to be autonomous - it only survives because NATO and the EU put a sizeable cash injection into the economy. London has carried Scotland for far too long, so if you want to stand on your own two feet, good luck to you, we'll be the better off for it. Belgium has 40% more population and is in a far more temperate zone to produce food in, with far better arable land. So awa' wi' ye and good riddance. |
|
08 Sep 14 - 07:37 AM (#3658373) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Teribus "Couldn't care less whether, or not, you accept what has been stated by many who are experts on the EU" - Teribus "Yes, it doesn't matter who says what, or how expert they are, Teribus will insist that only his version of reality has any value." Not my version Scabby - the President of the EU's and the immediate past-President of the EU Commission's - I rather suspect that they do know what they are talking about By the way Scabby do you still actually believe that Eck got legal advice on the subject of Scotland's continuing membership of the EU? If so you must be the only person in Scotland that believes that proven lie by Jowly on the TV. It would appear that it is you who is - "basically sticking your fingers in your ears and going "LALALLAALA! Not Listening!" "The defence force that Scotland needs would be what was deemed appropriate for defending Scotland. And according to figures from the MOD, at present there are only 14,500-ish MoD personnel based in Scotland, so the 15,000 you scoff at from the White Paper would be more than that." Ehmmm Scabby while there may only be 14,500 personnel based in Scotland there are a further 191,350 regulars backed by another 181,720 reservists available should they be needed. Put into perspective the Police Scotland manpower for StrathClyde would be bigger than your army. |
|
08 Sep 14 - 07:39 AM (#3658374) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Teribus 100 up By the way what expert in the EU has stated that Scotland would automatically be a member state on declaring independence? For the life of me I cannot find a single one. |
|
08 Sep 14 - 08:10 AM (#3658384) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Ed T If Scotish citizens were to vote to separate, how would its citizens share the UK government debt (£1,377 billion in 2013)? How, and when, would this be determined and paid (or transferred)? Has the potential new interim governing body (or the "yes, lets separate" proponents) put forward a strategy to deal with the potential economic impact of starting a new government and economy - while starting out with a debt and likely significant deficit? While I realize personal debt is different from government debt. However, there are some similarities. |
|
08 Sep 14 - 08:41 AM (#3658390) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,Dazbo at Work I find it very annoying when the Scots bleat about not being represented. Ok they may only have one tory MP at the moment but in recent years they've had two Scottish prime ministers, a Jockocracy of senior cabinet members and English laws being voted on by Scottish MPs (and supplying the majority to allow them to pass) on matters that English MPs cannot vote on for Scotland. Sounds very much like a spoiled brat saying "I'm not playing anymore" when they don't win a game and go off in a huff. How often in the last hundred years or so has England not got the government it voted for because of the way the Scottish vote went? |
|
08 Sep 14 - 10:16 AM (#3658415) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Howard Jones It seems very shortsighted to throw away the status quo because you don't like the Tories, who may very well be out of power by the time independence comes. There is a strong body of opinion which says that independent Scotland will face severe economic problems, won't be able to join the EU on the terms Salmond claims and won't be able to use the currency as he claims. Even if some of this turns out to be wrong, it suggests a high degree of uncertainty which the "Yes"es prefer to ignore. Salmond also expects the rUK to roll over and give Scotland everything it wants as if it were its right. Sorry, if you choose to leave the game you don't get to keep the ball. English, Welsh and NI voters will expect our politicians to negotiate hard in rUK's interest (just as Scottish politicians will be doing) and not give Scotland an easy ride. And if it ends in tears, which I hope it won't but is a real possibility, don't come to us for a baleout - we did that 300 years ago and what thanks did we get? I'd rather Scotland stayed and very much hope it will, but if you choose to go then I wish you good luck, but you're on your own. |
|
08 Sep 14 - 11:09 AM (#3658430) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket But they are not "on their own." If anybody hadn't noticed, the thought that King Eck could get his way has had the money markets worried and the pound has fallen already this morning. No. Cause and effect is greater than with those who bleat that it is their affair and nobody else's. The very thought of it standing a chance of happening has, according to one market analyst in the FT today, caused £30 million less available for the Scottish budget for next year than was forecast last week. And that's before people vote to trust a lying chancer.... |
|
08 Sep 14 - 11:26 AM (#3658436) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,Dazbo at Work Even if Scotland stays in the UK will the Scottish fishing fleet be decimated as they currently land more than their share of the UK's quota? Haven't seen much written about this. Also, it seems (but I may be wrong) that the SNP seem to assume their area of the North Sea starts from a line due east of where the border meet the sea north of Berwick. Apparently, this is not the case as normally it follows at the same angle (north eastish in this case?) as the border when it meets the sea. |
|
08 Sep 14 - 11:53 AM (#3658448) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,DaveRo GUEST,Dazbo at Work: [The maritime border]... normally ... follows at the same angle (north eastish in this case?) as the border when it meets the sea. It's more complicated than that, and depends on a concept called 'the baseline' - which is shown on maritime charts. Territorial Waters |
|
08 Sep 14 - 01:27 PM (#3658491) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,Rahere Anyway, it only goes out 12 miles and there's naff all in that. Beyond that, it's carved up by International Treaty Scotland's not party to, and the markets are not open to them. And the new powers plan is being presented by the Broonie. My Sainted Aunt. Where's Gove when you need him? ROFL. |
|
09 Sep 14 - 03:30 AM (#3658625) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: akenaton As somebody used to say....."Get used to it!!" :0) |
|
09 Sep 14 - 05:20 AM (#3658651) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket Look on the bright side. The 0.0001% of like minded Scottish idiots that Akenaton speaks up for will be their problem not ours if enough gullible fools believe The SNP. It might be worth it just to see what happens when SNP don't need to appeal to bigots to get power any more l. I wouldn't bother buying a leather card holder for your membership card if I were you Alex... Salmond is about as liberal as you can get. The rest of us are far more interested in the real occasion of this month. The launch of the new iPhone. Hopefully an iWatch too if we are lucky. Something for Santa to put in my stocking. |
|
09 Sep 14 - 07:36 AM (#3658677) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST There are various things the NO campaign are doing that I find a bid odd. Yesterday, they made a huge song-and-dance about the pound falling, and indeed it has fallen again so far today - by 0.06%. It may continue to fall. But if it rallies at all in the next ten days or so, it will look like yet another attempt to frighten the YES voters that is unfounded. It may not rally, of course, but if it does ... Then there's all these undecided voters. Very often, in a vote like this, the undecided tend to vote for no change. But the NO compaign, in an attempt to win back the yes voters, is emphasising 'no change' is not an option. That could easily do them more harm than good. |
|
09 Sep 14 - 08:06 AM (#3658682) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket It isn't that the pound falls and rises. That's with the tides. It was the specific huge fall as a reaction to the possibility that Scotland may do something disastrous after all... The markets don't like it. Politicians deliver promises subject to markets allowing. Rather ironic considering the reputation for prudence coming from Scitland, the home of Adam Smith, that SNP are beginning to buck such a reputation and start marking ther citizens for recklessness. Mind you, the no campaign needs a good spanking for giving the yes campaign ammunition. The yes side are starting to actually believe what Salmond is telling them! |
|
09 Sep 14 - 08:09 AM (#3658684) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: selby Don,t panic we are sending Cpt Mainwaring Cpl Jones and Pike to sort it all out tommorow. Frazier was heard to say we all Doooooomed Keith |
|
09 Sep 14 - 08:51 AM (#3658699) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: akenaton The NO group consists of well heeled pensioners, early retired pen pushers, and Westminster politicians trying to save their jobs and their investment. Personally I care more about providing a viable future for our young people, by providing proper jobs to do, and training to do them. Scotland is one of the most prosperous countries in the world, but under Westminster rule our wealth goes to waste. Jobs created at taxpayers expense to keep obsolete weapons of mass destruction on our soil. Social security payments to keep our youth in poverty instead of providing training or any sort of inspiration. An obscene wealth gap between rich and poor, which should be narrowed dramatically( hint Ian, that's what REAL equality is about, but I never hear YOU pushing it.) I think I know Alex Salmond a little better than you Ian, having met and talked with him several times, away from a political setting. He is a supreme politician who knows what to say and when to say it to achieve his political objective....which is Independence for Scotland. He has worked wonders to turn a twenty point negative into a 1 point positive in one month. The new Scotland will have no time for smokescreens. |
|
09 Sep 14 - 11:33 AM (#3658744) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket Did you meet a bloke called Alex Salmond or the politician who championed gay marriage through the Scottish Parliament and wrote a manifesto based on equality, opportunity and using trade and wealth creation to provide social justice? Just asking, because over the last few months, they are the things you say you hold in contempt... Instead of talking about narrowing the gap, I was too busy creating new sustainable jobs for many years, including 35 new expanding business jobs in Airdre and Cumbernauld back in the '90s, not to mention a few thousand worldwide. The consortium who bought me out still do in fact. Don't lecture in areas you don't understand. I accept you might believe his ideas on how to create wealth, but he is a politician and oil industry economist. Neither being too well suited to explaining how an independent Scotland works. Even if you take his well meaning wish for social justice as a positive, which it is, and even if you agree with him that only an independent Scotland cam deliver it, which is pushing the bounds of fantasy but let's give him the benefit of the doubt... One simple statement says it all. When pushed on the subject of currency union, he said that the UK government would have to negotiate with him because he would have a mandate from the Scottish people for them to have to. If the leader of The SNP doesn't understand what independence means, we can't expect the little people to comprehend it. So I shan't shout you down Alex, not on this, because it is not nice to blame people for not understanding. |
|
09 Sep 14 - 12:14 PM (#3658761) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Mrrzy But back to the flag - the Union Jack is composed of the crosses of Sts. George (England), Andrew (Scotland) and Patrick (Ireland). If they take out St. Andrew, which stripes, exactly, disappear? |
|
09 Sep 14 - 01:17 PM (#3658778) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: akenaton Desperation has set in :0). Cameron, Milliband and the Liberal wally, are coming to Scotland tomorrow as a team to fight Alex Salmond. As a fucking team!!! Millibands job is to fight the Tories not the Scots. Just shows what a hypocritical bunch of arsehole we have in Westminster. Hope they get chased for their fucking lives. |
|
09 Sep 14 - 01:35 PM (#3658783) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket I rest my case. Instead of this being about a nation, it is, in the minds of the yes campaign, about party politics. Or the art of putting a gun in your ear to kill the flea lodged within it. The leaders are going together to show that this is not about party politics but about defining the boundaries which parties can operate within. Sheesh... |
|
09 Sep 14 - 01:48 PM (#3658787) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: akenaton On the subject of Alex Salmond, how naive you must be if you think Alex gives a toss for homosexual "marriage" :0) Alex long ago learned that it is much more productive to USE the media, than be used by them. I would explain the strategy to you Ian, which involves the sacrifice of some votes for a larger number mustered by the media, but you are obviously too much of a political simpleton. Alex has been focused on this moment for most of his life and it looks like he has carried it off ....against all the odds. Even to come close would be a victory. |
|
09 Sep 14 - 01:48 PM (#3658788) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,Sol It's ALWAYS been about politics. If there was a 'true' Labour party ready and able to win the next election, the referendum result would a dawdle to predict. |
|
10 Sep 14 - 02:46 AM (#3658911) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Teribus Musket - Date: 09 Sep 14 - 01:35 PM Absolutely, perfectly, 100% correct Apart from which Akenaton: 1: "Cameron, Milliband and the Liberal wally, are coming to Scotland tomorrow as a team to fight Alex Salmond. As a fucking team!!!" They are not coming to Scotland to fight Alex Salmond - they are coming to Scotland to argue the case for retaining the Union as it would be in Scotland and the rest of the UK's best interest to do that irrespective of what brand of political party is in power - That by the way Akenaton is what the fucking team bit is about. 2: "Millibands job is to fight the Tories not the Scots." Ehmmmm NO Akenaton, as the appointed Right Honourable Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition, Milliband's job is to oppose the elected Government. |
|
10 Sep 14 - 02:59 AM (#3658913) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Backwoodsman It seems to this writer that, with the intervention of 'Smiler' Brown, the issue has taken a rather sinister turn and moved beyond the question of independence for Scotland to a deconstruction of the Union and a federal reconstruction, without consulting anyone in England, Wales or NI. He's probably got a very good point... What's Going On? |
|
10 Sep 14 - 03:13 AM (#3658914) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: akenaton Forget your pension Teribus, a glittering career in "New UK" politics beckons! :0) Just to set you on the right track, the "sort of" elected government ARE the Tories in concert with the assorted weasels and arse lickers who call themselves Liberals. But as you obviously know, in UK politics there IS no opposition. Sorry about the language BTW, but I do get angry occasionally. Every media outlet has opposed Independence overtly and covertly, yet Mr Salmond has motivated and marshalled his supporters, bringing a huge voting deficit to parity, just as he did the last time you and I crossed swords on the issue of SNP gaining a majority in the Scottish parliament. Even you must agree that the SNP have done a good job in government ...even with their hands tied by Westminster. |
|
10 Sep 14 - 03:35 AM (#3658919) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: selby Controversial possibly, but has it crossed anyone's mind that the plan might be to ditch Scotland for a stronger economy. Just a thought!!!! Keith |
|
10 Sep 14 - 04:32 AM (#3658928) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket I especially like the bit where he said that Salmond doesn't give a toss about legislation he put through because he is just using the media. So you reckon he is more aligned to your bigoted stupidity Alex? You deluded old fool. Regardless of the question of nationhood, The SNP for all their faults stand for everything you have sneered at and lied about to convince people of your snivelling hatred filled views. You know, regardless of the outcome, you are the one who will be most disappointed. And that's kind of funny. If you can make jokes out of sick views that is. I can. One of my faults. |
|
10 Sep 14 - 04:53 AM (#3658936) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Joe Offer In California, we're facing a referendum that has similarities. There's a referendum pending that wants to split California into six separate states. I suspect that two of those states will have Democratic majorities, and the rest will be Republican - instead of having one huge state with an undefeatable Democratic Majority. The area where I live, would become the Sovereign State of Jefferson, and we Democrats would never, ever be able to elect a Democrat as our representative. It appears that the electorate in Scotland is far more progressive than in England. That would ensure a progressive state in Scotland - but what would it do to what remains of Great Britain? -Joe- |
|
10 Sep 14 - 05:29 AM (#3658947) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,Scabby Douglas Joe :It appears that the electorate in Scotland is far more progressive than in England. That would ensure a progressive state in Scotland - but what would it do to what remains of Great Britain? Joe, opinions differ. If, as is relentlessly asserted by commentators opposed to independence, Scotland is a net drain upon the UK, then removing that sinkhole should improve the financial outlook for the remaining United Kingdom (rUK). If the rUK is obliged by the newly-formed Scottish government to proceed with plans to remove nuclear weapons from the base(s) in Scotland, then there are concerns over the rUK's ability to find suitable alternative locations elsewhere, with the possibility that rUK may have to give up its nuclear capability. (I say "if" because many opponents of independence are convinced that Alex Salmond is bluffing in his assertion that nuclear missiles must go, and think he's using it only as a negotiating counter.) From another perspective, many commentators argue that the healthy revenue/cashflow from oil in Scottish territorial waters is supporting/bolstering market confidence in the UK's borrowing, and that it could be a serious blow if that were to be lost. There's an unknown aspect to this - and that's the psychological and political fallout in the rUK. It could reinforce the swing away from traditional political parties to fringe groups like UKIP (think Tea Party, but given to posing in English pubs with pints of beer). It could bring a resurgence in traditional parties - maybe reinvigorating Labour, who at the present seem to be floundering, with no clue how they differ from the Conservatives. Maybe it will make no difference at all. I could not begin to predict it. |
|
10 Sep 14 - 05:39 AM (#3658949) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket Are you sure about that Joe? A member of the Scottish National Party has said on this very thread that Salmond lies in order to manipulate the media and he doesn't give a damn about those for whom he says he cares for. If this were true, which of course it isn't, I doubt anyone could call Scotland progressive. Still, I have just emailed The SNP communications people with a link to this thread and Akenaton's real name and location, asking if SNP agrees with comments by its members? If I don't get a reply, I might ask it via The Scotsman. Regarding California. I don't know your area too well but I have spent considerable time in both Monterey and Paso Robles. I often wondered how the laid back attitude of many (even in Clint's Carmel!) could produce such a republican stronghold. |
|
10 Sep 14 - 05:54 AM (#3658953) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Teribus "It appears that the electorate in Scotland is far more progressive than in England" I would be very interested in hearing what your basis for that is Joe, as the political "map" of an independent Scotland is as predictable as the current political "map" for California, and I would venture for precisely the same reason - centres of population. If out of the six proposed there are only two that would be "Democrat" and therefore four that would be "Republican", yet California as currently configured normally votes and returns a Democrat (2012 Election of the 18,245,970 registered voters in California 43.7% were Democrat; 29.4% Republican; 6% Other parties & 20.9% unaffiliated) then the Democrats must live in two fairly substantial solid clumps. 70% of the Scottish Electorate are concentrated in the Dundee-Edinburgh-Glasgow Belt and are solidly socialist -and post-YES vote Referendum that will dictate and colour the politics of Scotland. |
|
10 Sep 14 - 05:57 AM (#3658955) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket Hey Scabby Douglas! A member of The SNP, Akenaton, has just said Alex Salmond lies about his intentions in order to manipulate the media. He says that once Scotland is independent, it will be very different to the promises Salmond is making now. He also says this to be true because he has met him. It kind of makes everything you say to be bollocks. Unless you think Salmond does actually believe what he says? Is Akenaton describing the Scotland you want? Is Salmond drawing up a list of proposed second class citizens? |
|
10 Sep 14 - 06:34 AM (#3658963) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,Scabby Douglas I dont't know (and am not much interested in) what Akenaton's views are on this matter, no offence, Ake, just that I'm not voting for Akenaton on Thursday. I haven't met Alex Salmond, but I do believe that Alex Salmond is capable of espousing causes or policies that he doesn't personally care that much about if it should be expedient, which is another way of saying: he's a politician. For what it's worth - not worth much, as it's purely my opinion - the SNP administration went to a lot of effort to demonstrate their support of, for example, same-sex marriage. They won't now rescind or dilute that, even if some individuals were opposed to the policy. It's in law. And so much of the discussion and rhetoric in this campaign has been about a "fairer" Scotland, there's a massive groundswell of support based on that aspiration. How much of that will come to fruition, I don't know. I do know that any measures which were seen to diminish that or to backslide from even the current position would be met with hostility and anger. And as for "second-class" citizens, the Yes campaign is demonstrably supported at agenuine grass-roots level across all cultural and ethnic groupings. There's a commitment to accepting and welcoming immigration - and that would be impossible to square with the kind of volte-face that is being suggested here. Independence would not grant the SNP government free rein to do whatever they like immediately afterward - There's a Scottish election planned for 2016. So I expect some commitments to be able to be delivered soon after independence, some to take years to be delivered, some maybe decades, and some will fall by the wayside as circumstances change. That's how life is. But it would be for the electorate in Scotland to choose the government that best reflects the direction we want to take. Independence is not the end of the journey. It's not a destination - in fact it's just the first step on the journey. As I said, I'm not voting for Akenaton's vision of Scotland, or even for Alex Salmond's. I'm voting for the chance to change how things are done. I don't mean any disrespect to Akenaton, everyone is entitled to their views, no matter what I or anyone else may think of them. But if I thought there was a hint, a whiff, of wild promises being casually made now that would be swept away or reneged on later, I would not be voting "Yes". And to some extent, the arrogance of the Better Together campaign supported by a biased media, lazy and complacent journalism has fed into this decision as well. The Scottish members of the anti-independence campaign should know this, it's not a new characteristic of Scots. We don't like being lectured to, dislike being told what to do, hate being told what's good for us. We resent it to the point of going out and doing the opposite. It's not a pretty trait, I'll grant you. The Scots word is "thrawn". So, 8 days to go. We'll see what happens. |
|
10 Sep 14 - 06:39 AM (#3658965) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: akenaton Hee Hee !! Ian, how simple can you get, don't you realise that ALL politicians try to manipulate the media? Most end up being manipulated, but not oor Alex. Also I don't believe anybody but idiot activists like yourself care a toss about homosexual "marriage"....it is simply a handy tool to be used for or against......"get used to it!!" |
|
10 Sep 14 - 06:51 AM (#3658972) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: akenaton Doug, I think we have the same vision for Scotland, my opposition to the Homosexual "marriage" legislation, is purely personal and of no importance in the fight for independence. I have never discussed this legislation with Mr Salmond, but I do know what is IMPORTANT to him. Ian(Musket) is a stalker, many of who's posts have been deleted by admin. |
|
10 Sep 14 - 06:56 AM (#3658973) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,Scabby Douglas Akenaton, I don't think there's any need to turn this thread into a rammy between two Yes voters, but I have to disagree with your last statement. Same-sex marriage is an important principle of equality, and a significant step. I'm proud that it was enacted in Scotland under an SNP administration. If you're labouring under the misapprehension that it might be rescinded or abolished in iScotland, you're going to be disappointed, in my opinion. |
|
10 Sep 14 - 07:04 AM (#3658976) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,Scabby Douglas And to Akenaton, I just wanted to say that our last two posts overlapped in posting. Regards Steven |
|
10 Sep 14 - 07:11 AM (#3658978) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,Rahere If Scotland departs, remove the blue and the offcentre white X. Replace them with the Welsh White and Green, and perhaps the Cornish/Manx Black. BTW, Cameron, the rest of the UK will NOT be desperately sad if Scotland departs. I'll be cheering at the loss of a hhuge economic drag. It comes to something when you have to go to that utter waster Brown to make your case, and says a lot about the utter incompetence of the political system. |
|
10 Sep 14 - 07:30 AM (#3658981) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Teribus 1: "If, as is relentlessly asserted by commentators opposed to independence, Scotland is a net drain upon the UK, then removing that sinkhole should improve the financial outlook for the remaining United Kingdom (rUK)." Classic example of SNP Spin there Scabby. So far I have not heard one single proponent of the Better Together side state that. What they have said and stated quite correctly is that the SNP's sums just simply do not add up - But no matter Scabby once we've all voted YES and are independent then we will get to pick up the tab for an independent Scotland and that is when we will all find out that we cannot pay for it unless services, including the NHS, and benefits will have to be cut, and that taxes will have to be raised right across the board (Remembering that the rich can always afford to move and that those left will have to pick up the slack). 2: "If the rUK is obliged by the newly-formed Scottish government to proceed with plans to remove nuclear weapons from the base(s) in Scotland, then there are concerns over the rUK's ability to find suitable alternative locations elsewhere, with the possibility that rUK may have to give up its nuclear capability. (I say "if" because many opponents of independence are convinced that Alex Salmond is bluffing in his assertion that nuclear missiles must go, and think he's using it only as a negotiating counter.) Well Scabby as the removal of Trident from Scotland is only an SNP condition (There never has been a referendum on that issue in Scotland) we will have to wait and see what the first elected Scottish Government will do. All comes down to this tiny point about Scotland shouldering it's share of the National Debt. Apparently Jowly has said Scotland will not honour this obligation so there will be no shared assets. Property owned in Scotland, even the newly independent Scotland, will remain the property of the Government of the United Kingdom. Having reneged on their share of the UK's National Debt that will send a very bad signal to international lenders and will cost the new Scottish Government dearly - How many millions did Swinney predict that the newly independent Scottish Government would have to borrow each year for the first five years of independence? So Faslane, Coulport, Dreghorn Barracks, Lossiemouth, Leuchars, etc, etc, all existing MoD property will remain MoD property and all the buildings currently owned by other UK Government Departments will still be owned by the UK Government unless of course the newly independent Scottish Government just seizes them. That too would send a very bad signal to any foreign investor wishing to invest in Scotland. Relocation of Trident South Scabby? That does not pose any intractable problem, I dare say that prospective sites would welcome the employment it would create, just as parts of a newly independent Scotland would mourn the loss of it. The UK will retain it's nuclear deterrent irrespective of the result of the referendum. 3: On market confidence in the UK's borrowing I think they base that on GDP and ratio of GDP:Debt. Now just to put things into perspective Scotland including it's oil accounts for slightly less than 10% of the UK's GDP while the City of London alone contributes 22%, while the UK might momentarily have to sustain that 10% loss the 58.3 million people and their economy will soon recover, while Scotland could be faced with losing 80% of its trade should the UK decide to look elsewhere, now that would pose some fairly steep challenges particularly for a Government that has no control whatsoever of the exchange, and interest rates of the currency it has unilaterally decided to use without benefit of political or financial union, or guaranteed "lender of last resort". 4: On psychological and political fallout it would not only be in the UK that that would have to be assessed. But at least between the Referendum next week and Scotland's date for Independence (24th March 2016) there will be a General Election in which the separation negotiations will feature large. This General Election will take place in May 2015 and if Labour win there will then be another General election on or shortly after the 24th March 2016 when all the Scottish Westminster MPs disappear and Labour lose their majority in the House of Commons. No Party in the 2015 election will dare to be seen as being overly generous to the newly independent Scots, as that would be political suicide. I think that with the flight of capital, the abandonment of Scotland's financial and banking sectors and the loss of jobs that the Northern part of the UK might well benefit greatly. But one thing on which you are very much in error on is your statement: " Maybe it will make no difference at all." Irrespective of the result of the Referendum on the 18th September this year things will never be the same in the British Isles ever again. As for your: "I could not begin to predict it." Then maybe, just maybe, every single person intending to vote YES should have given that a bit of thought - you should never tear anything down before you know for certain that what you will put back in its place is something that will stand and something that will be better - the SNP has signally failed to do that with shouts of "scaremonger", but have no fear Scabby all those "scare stories" and predictions will come home to roost, each and every one of them with huge costs, costs that will have to be borne by 5.3 million Scots and them alone. They say that the result of the Referendum will be close and that would be the worst possible outcome even for a YES result as South of your border there will be a United Kingdom while North of their border in Scotland will be a land bitterly divided facing decades of forced austerity simply because your "leaders" preferred to lie to the electorate of Scotland and to the Scottish people, instead of being open and honest and doing their homework and getting their sums right. By the way when do you think the Shetlanders will demand their referendum? What will Jowly's excuses be for denying them it? My guess will be it will be before 24th March 2016. |
|
10 Sep 14 - 07:56 AM (#3658985) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,Scabby Douglas You know, Teribus, for someone who does not know, any more than anyone else does, what's actually going to happen, you have an unremittingly negative view on so many possible outcomes. You seem so angry all the time. I worry about you. Not a lot. But a bit. Just for a moment, instead of predicting that the sky will fall in, and nine headed beasts devouring the first and second born across all the land after independence, could you describe the positive benefits to continuing in the Union? How are we better together? What's so great about Great Britain? |
|
10 Sep 14 - 07:57 AM (#3658986) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: akenaton Thanks Doug, I too believe removing the huge gap between the obscenely rich and the obscenely poor. We can never have "equality" under our present economic syteem, but I want a government that will at least try to level up the playing field, get rid of WMDs and start giving our hopeless young people a life. There are a few things I would like to see put into practice in time, like removing ourselves from NATO and the EU, but these are also personal views......after Independence I will probably return, to hopefully, a Scottish Socialist Party. Providing it retains a sense of reality. |
|
10 Sep 14 - 07:59 AM (#3658987) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Ed T ""I...Scotland is a net drain upon the UK, then removing that sinkhole should improve the financial outlook for the remaining United Kingdom (rUK)." While this seems to make sense on first look, there are factors to consider that makes it less so, especially over the short term-such as: Firstly, outside forces, like bond companies, lenders, trading partners and other outside financial players prefer stability to unpredictability and sudden change. Over the short term, I suspect the financial outlook would reflect the uncertainities of the impacts of separation.This could be the biggest related impact, likely bigger than the current fall of the currancy. However, over the longer term, this uncertanity would be likely be reduced, through increased stability, as would the financial impact. Secondly, like with a divorce, the initial costs of two parties "going out on their own" can be greater than the costs to a single pairing. Each government would likely see new costs (such as consultants,and reorganization) to adjust, as governments tend to do. It is likely that these costs would reduce over the longer term.Sometimes there are efficiencies over delivering services to a greater number, sometimes there are efficiencies related to being smaller. |
|
10 Sep 14 - 08:00 AM (#3658988) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: akenaton Teribus is a lost cause I'm afraid, I've invited him to the party if we win.......but he refused, he's waiting in hope for the "catastrophe" |
|
10 Sep 14 - 08:59 AM (#3658998) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Howard Jones If the Scots choose to separate that is obviously their decision. I am saddened that my country may be torn apart, and angry that Cameron got the tactics of the referendum so wrong. The United Kingdom was once a world leader, and still a significant power in the world. A smaller UK will be diminished, and a separate Scotland will I'm afraid be fairly insignificant in global terms. I think Scotland is on the brink of a great leap into the unknown. Brave or foolhardy? I am not sure what real benefits it expects from independence - it already has devolved powers over many of the things that matter, and can expect more. No country in the modern world is truly independent, but what voice can independent Scotland expect to have in the wider world? Look at similar size countries - Norway, Singapore, Turkmenistan - and consider how much attention anyone gives them. In terms of GDP Scotland will be below the likes of Nigeria, South Africa, Iran, Thailand and the Philippines. Most countries are seeking to combine together rather than separate, but even if Scotland is able to join the EU it will be one small country among many rather than a major player, which it is as part of the UK. In the short term I suspect Scotland will prosper while a Scottish government spends money it hasn't got to make everyone feel good. In the long term I am less sure - most economic commentators, including those without an axe to grind, are warning of problems ahead. One question I haven't seen answered is what about those people living in Scotland who don't want to give up their British citizenship? This could be a quite a large number given the percentage of "No"s. There seems to be a lot of risk for very little benefit. |
|
10 Sep 14 - 10:16 AM (#3659020) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Teribus British Citizens will remain British Citizens, as will their children, their grandchildren however will not be. |
|
10 Sep 14 - 10:25 AM (#3659022) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Teribus "could you describe the positive benefits to continuing in the Union? How are we better together? What's so great about Great Britain?" You mean compared to the SNP's vision of cloud-cuckooland? Currency for one thing - everyone in Scotland today has got what Jowly says he wants a mandate to go and negotiate for because having Sterling within a currency union is in Scotland's best interest. Economically we (The Scots) are better together as part of the UK as a trading block. Within the Union we can if we chose to do so can afford to defend ourselves - Independent Scotland will have no Scottish Defence Force we simply will not be able to afford one. What is so great about Great Britain - simple it's Great. |
|
10 Sep 14 - 10:29 AM (#3659023) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Teribus "In the short term I suspect Scotland will prosper while a Scottish government spends money it hasn't got to make everyone feel good. In the long term I am less sure - most economic commentators, including those without an axe to grind, are warning of problems ahead." Nice to see someone else paying attention. |
|
10 Sep 14 - 01:24 PM (#3659068) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: akenaton Been working all day and just caught a bit of Cameron on BBC news. You couldn't make it up! All we needed was for "Flashman" to burst into tears :0) About how he loves the Scots more than his Party....Snap David! we love our country more than your Party as well!! He loves us so much that he's going to make our lives a misery if we don't do what he wants!.....Aye Right David, away an fuck yersell! The gall of him, the guy who refused to allow Devo-Max on the ballot paper when he thought the NO crowd were gaunae pish it. Now he offers it up as a bribe after the postal votes are in, because he thinks he's gaunae get shafted. Ye jist couldnae make it up...it's a pantomime...or a tragedy for "team Westminster" |
|
10 Sep 14 - 01:27 PM (#3659070) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Bill D It's fascinating to see a topic where, although I have many Scottish ancestors, I have absolutely no opinion about the outcome. I still wish everyone well and hope that nothing horrible happens, either way. |
|
10 Sep 14 - 01:43 PM (#3659075) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: akenaton If you lived here you would be interested Bill. I've never seen the Scots so animated over a vote, everyone is talking about it or involved in canvassing....I am truly amazed, they are expecting a turnout of over 80% which is virtually unheard of. Must be a good thing no matter who wins, people are getting interested asking questions.....realising that they CAN make a difference, discovering people power works even against the "Westminster elite" |
|
10 Sep 14 - 01:45 PM (#3659078) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,Dazbo at home Supposing the Nos win by a vote the Yes campaign will push for a referendum in a few years. So if the yes win by a few votes will they let the no campaign another vote? I doubt it. This would seem to be a very one sided democratic process. Independence for Shetland I say |
|
10 Sep 14 - 01:50 PM (#3659080) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket Black is the new white Holyrood would become the new Westminster. Give it ten years and Aberdeenshire will want independence from those bastards in Edinburgh etc etc... |
|
10 Sep 14 - 02:18 PM (#3659089) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,Sol If there is a No vote I hope this 'rumbling of the ground' created by the referendum will energise the rest of the UK to do something about the type of people that run all major parties in Westminster. Russell Brand was right when he said we should rip it up and start again. |
|
10 Sep 14 - 02:24 PM (#3659092) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Bill D (I am not uninterested, Ake.. just not knowledgeable enough to comment on the details. I'd love to visit some day and trace some of my roots. ) |
|
10 Sep 14 - 02:30 PM (#3659094) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket Be careful Bill. Imagine finding you were related to.... |
|
10 Sep 14 - 05:09 PM (#3659126) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,weerover The main plank of the No campaign appears to be that there are too many "unknowns" about a post-Yes vote and to a certain extent it's difficult to disagree. However, when you look at the "knowns" I think it's a no-brainer - a resounding "Yes" from me. |
|
10 Sep 14 - 05:50 PM (#3659139) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,Rahere Well, in substantiation of my thinking that Scotland may be reduced to barter, we now know that both BOS/Lloyds and RBOS/Natwest will be voting with their feet and fleeing the country, alongside other finance institutions, in the case of a No. In which case, is there a bank left in Scotland to handle the Nation's financing? And then there's the roughly 20 000 soldiery being reduced to around 3000, with just Shannon the Cannon having any functional use at all. 6 fighters, perhaps (anyone ask the MOD?). Aye, a well-run country. |
|
11 Sep 14 - 01:47 AM (#3659210) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Teribus In the event of a YES vote Guest Rahere the flight of capital and jobs will be massive. The post-Referendum negotiating position that Alex Salmond has talked himself into believing that he has will prove to be a house of cards. He can shout, bluster, threaten and demand all he wants, but if it is not in the best interests of the United Kingdom it won't happen. RBS was a "no-brainer" as it is 83% owned by the Treasury, the others by EU law have to be based where their main client base is (Standard Life 90% of their business is in England). The businesses that wanted to warn of the consequences of a YES vote who the YeSNP silenced by intimidation will vote with their feet and relocate - Good news for the North of England, as that is logically where many could relocate to rapidly and cheaply. No RBS and no Bank of Scotland, which only leaves Australian owned Clydesdale, wonder what they will do? Wonder where the Weirs have their millions parked? |
|
11 Sep 14 - 04:40 AM (#3659240) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket Weerover. I ask this in all seriousness. What do you consider to be the "knowns" you base your decision on? |
|
11 Sep 14 - 06:01 AM (#3659256) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket That land on the Northumbrian coast BP bought last year. We'll soon see whether it will go back on the market or lots of new jobs for Geordies. Also, BP have been relocating many of their executive staff to London (Sudbury I think but could be slightly wrong there. That might be where our friends are going to be living..) Latest poll is a surge for the no vote. It would make gripping stuff to keep interest going if it weren't so fundamentally important either way. I had a thank you email from The Scotsman by the way regarding an SNP member on these threads saying Salmond told him he doesn't actually agree with gay marriage and he is manipulating the media with views he doesn't actually hold. It might make a story yet. SNP just sent an automated reply. |
|
11 Sep 14 - 06:18 AM (#3659259) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: akenaton The bank scare stories have been exposed on BBC radio this morning as lies and disinformation. Mr Salmond quoted from a letter which he had just received from RBS, which stated any movement would be purely for legal reasons there would be no upheavals, no movement of staff or services to bank customers and no job losses. The Offices of Lloyds are already in London and any movements are also for legal reasons if Independence is achieved. Desperate tactics from a scared and stupid "Team Westminster" At 5 o'clock this morning BBC were saying that RBS and Lloyds were moving their whole operation to England........Don't believe the lying bastards, the whole media including the BBC have been mustered to stop Scotland achieving self determination. Vote AYE. |
|
11 Sep 14 - 06:28 AM (#3659261) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: akenaton The latest poll is NOT a surge for the no vote, it was commissioned by a virulently anti-independence newspaper and contains exactly the same result as the last poll they published. The momentum is firmly in the YES camp, especially amongst young people and females. |
|
11 Sep 14 - 06:39 AM (#3659265) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Ed T In the link below, Paul Krugman, New York Times Columist and Scots, What The Heck? - NYTimes. |
|
11 Sep 14 - 06:49 AM (#3659268) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Ed T Oops, sent last post before completing. Here is the brief information on that link: Paul Krugman (his bio in the link below) gave his perspective in a NY Times Op Ed on the risks of a potentially independent Scotland keeping the Pound. Paul Krugman |
|
11 Sep 14 - 08:06 AM (#3659279) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: DMcG An an Englishman, I am really glad I don't have to make this decision: it is a really complex trade off of short term and long term effects, attitudes, relationships, principles like what exactly do you mean by democracy ... the list goes on and as I say it is a relief I am not being called on to make it. What does bother me, though is the closeness of the votes. The number of people who have thought long and hard and come to the decision to vote no appears to be almost exactly the same as the number who have thought equally long and hard and come to the opposite conclusion. Which means it will actually be decided by people who are voting on no rational basis whatever. One person I heard interviewed last night said part of her decision was based on the news of a new royal pregnancy which was 'nice'. The idea that such a momentous decision will end up in the hands of such frippery is pretty scary. |
|
11 Sep 14 - 09:10 AM (#3659309) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Ed T DMcG I recall a humourous quote by a now deceased friend and co-worker: " If someone asks me to jump off a cliff, my first question would likely be-is the tide in or out" (Romeo LeBlanc). I suspect many, but likely not all, Scottish citizens have asked themselves many important questions before deciding on which "side of the divide" their future rests. |
|
11 Sep 14 - 09:25 AM (#3659313) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST Rahere: "And then there's the roughly 20 000 soldiery being reduced to around 3000, with just Shannon the Cannon having any functional use at all. 6 fighters, perhaps (anyone ask the MOD?). Aye, a well-run country." Rahere, Don't know where you got those numbers from - it's already been discussed *in this thread* that the planned numbers (15,000) for an iScotland National Defence force would be more than the number of MoD personnel that's presently stationed/based in Scotland. |
|
11 Sep 14 - 09:26 AM (#3659315) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Scabby Douglas The "Guest" above was a cookieless me |
|
11 Sep 14 - 10:42 AM (#3659339) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket I'm in Southwold at present. Adnams brewery around the corner have recently released their single malt. Rather good. Got a few bottles to take back. You don't need to be in Och Aye the Noo Land to get a decent dram of single malt eh ? Just think. If McSweens buy some grazing land for their haggis herds in Cumbria, Irn Bru will be the major export commodity for Scotland. Hey worm! Let's see now.. BBC are lying, the latest opinion polls are lies yet Salmond is telling the truth! Despite you saying he lies for a good cause. Look at it this way. Whatever the outcome, nobody is building a Scotland to fit your dreams. That is the most positive bit about the referendum. |
|
11 Sep 14 - 11:29 AM (#3659360) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: DMcG Ed T said I suspect many, but likely not all, Scottish citizens have asked themselves many important questions before deciding on which "side of the divide" their future rests Indeed so, and I am glad of it. But in a way that's my point. After all that thinking it looks possible we may end up with a difference in numbers so small that the balance of power is effectively held by those who for example, are voting as they do because that's what some celeb says, or similar irrelevancy. |
|
11 Sep 14 - 11:56 AM (#3659367) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket Look up the thread. One is voting because he thinks SNP really mean the exact opposite of everything they stand for! |
|
11 Sep 14 - 12:08 PM (#3659374) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Mrrzy Wonder what the Catalan will do... |
|
11 Sep 14 - 12:55 PM (#3659388) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,Jim Knowledge I `ad that Rab MacTavish in my cab yesterday. I picked `im up outside "The Flying Scotsman" pub near `olborn. `e was waving a bloody great saltire on a stick and singing "I Belong to Glasgie". I said, "You O.K. Jimmy? Where to then?" `e said, "Kings Cross station please Jim. I gottie get `ame tae vote in the referendum and I gottie take driving lessons as soon as poss." I said, "gawd `elp us Rab. With your track record on the juice you`ll be death on wheels." `e said, "Dinna fass yesel aboot that Jim. I`ll be a different mon. Alec says when we get independence we`ll all get a BMW and I cannie miss oot on that!!" Whaddam I Like??? |
|
11 Sep 14 - 12:56 PM (#3659389) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket The Catalan will do nothing. Mainly because Spain has said that whilst it will not interfere in a referendum in another country and is neutral on the aspirations of the UK residents in the Scottish counties, it will however protect its interest regarding setting a precedent for EU entry of breakaways from existing EU states. Although of course , Salmond reckons that with a mandate from Scottish voters, he can dictate to foreign leaders and for some reason, they have to listen! (See his comments re the pound.) |
|
11 Sep 14 - 01:02 PM (#3659390) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: akenaton DMcG....what you say could well be true, but if we are to have a "democratic" voting system that is always a possibility. The alternative would be perhaps a sixty/forty vote in favour of the status quo, but just think of the problems that would cause. The whole issue could have been solved to your satisfaction, had Cameron allowed Devo-Max on the ballot paper, a good majority could well have accepted that, but only when it became clear that he could lose the YES/NO vote, did he bring forward the promise of increased powers as a bribe. I vote in the 1970s referendum, and the same promises and divisive language(ripping Scotland out of the UK etc), were used. The country voted NO and nothing materialised in the way of new powers, what we did get was eighteen years of Mrs Thatcher and plenty of unemployment. Don't believe the lies of "Team Westminster", if we vote NO we will be punished, if we vote AYE we can hold our heads high. Isn't it lovely to have ones own personal stalker.....:0) |
|
11 Sep 14 - 01:22 PM (#3659393) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: akenaton Jim Knowledge....you're wan eh of the things aboot England that ah'll really miss! :0) Bring yer taxi uptae Glesca park it outside the SSEC an' get up on the stage......ye wid make yer fortune.......Thanks fur aw the laughs. |
|
11 Sep 14 - 01:31 PM (#3659395) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Ed T Who says there is a common language in the UK of today? :) |
|
11 Sep 14 - 01:35 PM (#3659398) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: DMcG DMcG....what you say could well be true, but if we are to have a "democratic" voting system that is always a possibility. I agree, and certainly going 60/40 split wouldn't really help, even ignoring the problems. But on this point the 'no' campaign is right, even if you disagree on everything else they say: it isn't like a normal election. If the same situation arises in a vote for Westminster, whoever was elected would be supported by more or less half the people, so a 'random choice' is not so unreasonable, and it is in any case eventually reversible. Here, whoever wins it is unlikely to be reversible for a hundred years or so. Don't expect me to come up with an answer - I'm not sure there is one. (JS Mill had some ideas, but I doubt they could ever have been applied ...) |
|
11 Sep 14 - 01:56 PM (#3659405) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: akenaton I don't see how your perfectly proper argument makes the NO side right DMcG. The No's could win by a few votes from The Orange Order who have a sectarian agenda.....that would be worse than a pair o' silly Scotsmen? :0) |
|
11 Sep 14 - 02:44 PM (#3659413) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,DMcG It's not my vote so I don't feel I should argue for either side. I apologise if my phrasing misled anyone |
|
11 Sep 14 - 03:18 PM (#3659424) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,weerover "Knowns": governments we didn't vote for; Trident; foodbanks; bedroom tax; erosion of the NHS; governments hell-bent on getting everyone (even those in dire need) off benefits; a mindset of still being one of the world's super powers; Boris Johnson; UKIP... |
|
11 Sep 14 - 05:06 PM (#3659460) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket Trident? What has that to do with an independent Scotland ? Sounds like the manifesto of a political party to me? If Labour get in at a first Scottish election, they have said they support keeping it. So... Other than listing English parties and personalities, please say what makes an independent Scotland different? If you cannot differentiate between a concept of nationhood and the aims of one particular political party, do democracy a favour and don't bother voting in a referendum you clearly don't understand. |
|
11 Sep 14 - 05:13 PM (#3659466) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Ed T What is a bedroom tax? |
|
11 Sep 14 - 06:21 PM (#3659479) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: akenaton I very much doubt that a Scottish Labour Party would support the retention of weapons of mass destruction(Trident), or any of the other "knowns" that wee rover has mentioned. |
|
11 Sep 14 - 07:33 PM (#3659489) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: michaelr Interesting analysis from one of the US' foremost economists here. |
|
11 Sep 14 - 07:51 PM (#3659497) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Ed T Is your link the same link material that I posted earlier today, Michaelr? |
|
12 Sep 14 - 02:26 AM (#3659546) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Teribus ""Knowns": governments we didn't vote for; Trident; foodbanks; bedroom tax; erosion of the NHS; governments hell-bent on getting everyone (even those in dire need) off benefits; a mindset of still being one of the world's super powers; Boris Johnson; UKIP..." - Guest weerover 1: "governments we didn't vote for" If this indeed is a reason for splitting a political entity then stand by for further splits in your newly independent Scotland - After all you are setting the precedent. In your newly independent Scotland the political shade of every Government that will be elected will decided by those living in the Dundee-Edinburgh-Glasgow belt - predominantly "socialist" - those in Shetland, Orkney, the Western Isles, the North East, Highlands and the Borders - will never get the governments they vote for - it is called democracy the will of the people - all the people - live with it. 2: "Trident" The majority of people in Scotland see the need for the country (The UK) having a nuclear deterrent and actually support the replacement of Trident according to polls on the subject. The banishing of WMD from Scotland is an SNP matter not a Scottish one. 3: "foodbanks" These exist in one form or another in practically every country in the world. The Scottish Parliament since 1999 has had the the power to raise taxes in Scotland by 3% - now would the money that could have been raised using that measure gone anyway towards alleviating the problem? If it would then can you explain why the predominantly socialist governments that have been in power continuously in Scotland since 1999 have not done this? And once independent what measures has Jowly suggested to see the end of "foodbanks" in Scotland? 4: "Bedroom Tax" Ah this one is my favourite - Tell me "weerover" how much bedroom tax do you pay? - Myself I have spare bedrooms yet I pay nothing - care to tell us how that comes about if there is such a thing as a "Bedroom Tax"? 5: "erosion of the NHS" What erosion of the NHS? None as far as I can see, although Musket would be able to supply information on this point in greater detail. The NHS is funded in Scotland as in the rest of the UK by money from central Government. They are given a budget which they are free to spend as they see fit to provide the service and care required. The Scottish Government has been in total control of the NHS in Scotland since 1999 and the NHS in Scotland has been independent of the NHS in the rest of the UK since it was formed. 6: "governments hell-bent on getting everyone (even those in dire need) off benefits" Hysterical, emotive, claptrap. Every Government in the world today seeks to reduce costs right across the board - Vote YES on the 18th September 2014 and the first Government of an independent Scotland on the 24th March 2016 will do everything in its power to reduce the amount it spends on benefits - If you think or believe anything different from that then you must be deluded - But as you have swallowed all Jowly & Co's BS you probably are deluded anyway. 7: "a mindset of still being one of the world's super powers" The UK is a permanent member of the Security Council of the United Nations, It is the keystone of the second largest international organisation in the world after the United Nations, it has the sixth largest economy on the planet, its trade is world-wide - Nothing to do with "mindset" weerover - those are FACTS 8: "Boris Johnson" Well unlike Alex Salmond or John Swinney, as far as I am aware Boris Johnson has never deliberately and knowingly told the electorate of London blatant lies to fool and mislead them. 9: UKIP Just couldn't believe that you included this one. Let me see now UKIP a separatist party anxious to take the country they care about out of what they perceive as being a damaging Union that they believe acts in a way that is counter to the best interests of that country and its people. Now tell us what the SNP and the YES campaign are all about weerover? |
|
12 Sep 14 - 02:53 AM (#3659552) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket Salmond seems to be shouting about taking legal action against the treasury. A bit desperate, but there again, so is the roadshow him and his No.2 are embarking on, reiterating the SNP manifesto as being the benefit of an independent Scotland... Meanwhile back at the ranch.. The no vote seems to be getting stronger in the polls and The Scotsman newspaper is saying in its editorials that nobody has made a case for an independent Scotland and that for all its bluster, the SNP led parliament hasn't even used the tax raising powers it has been given, preferring austerity you can blame on others. Quite.. |
|
12 Sep 14 - 03:58 AM (#3659561) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,Rahere GUEST 11 Sep 14 - 09:25 AM That's because 1. Your figures are not up to date: I used the latest figures. But then again, no figures can be relied on when there's no coherent State financing plan - it nearly sank Belgium when they were at this stage, only saved by someone who had the cash, owing 30% of the country, to pay the first month's bills, which Scotland lacks. 2. Many soldiers are still overseas. |
|
12 Sep 14 - 04:37 AM (#3659571) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Teribus Thought that this from Matt in todays Telegraph was hilarious: "The Flying Scotsman" |
|
12 Sep 14 - 06:51 AM (#3659601) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Howard Jones Whilst the banks' move south would be legal rather than physical, it is more than symbolic. The banks want to be assured that they will be protected by the Bank of England and will work within a recognised regulatory framework. After independence, if they remain they would have to hold considerably higher cash reserves, as they could not rely on the Scottish government to bail them out. There are also uncertainties over tax. They are also anticipating a flight of capital south of the border as Scots take steps to safeguard their savings and pensions. |
|
12 Sep 14 - 06:55 AM (#3659602) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Stu For crying out loud Scotland, don't balls this up. If you vote no you'll only have yourself to blame, no shifting it down south. |
|
12 Sep 14 - 07:57 AM (#3659605) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,Grishka 1: "governments we didn't vote for"An important point. There are two unquestionable notions of "we": a) my family, b) mankind. Anything else is an alliance for a purpose, and thus subject to abuse by rhetorically talented leaders. Democracy can never be perfect, but can always become better. Units of democracy between family and mankind need a clear definition and well-tailored responsibilities. It turns our that the roles of ethnicity and historical units are grossly overestimated nowadays. (At other times and places, religion and dynasties were and are considered paramount - equally inadequately.) Therefore, we - mankind - must demand a new political system that takes account of that. It would be unreasonable to hope that those currently in power collectively abandon their privileges by their own will. Ordinary people must demand it, after thorough discussion. The referendum, however the outcome, may bring about a chance to think about new constitutions, not just oil and currencies and other things "we" may have. |
|
12 Sep 14 - 08:41 AM (#3659617) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Scabby Douglas @Rahere... I was maybe a bit too elliptical when I said:"Rahere, Don't know where you got those numbers from ..." What I meant to ask was : Where the hell did you get those figures from? Latest... from where? All the best, Steven |
|
12 Sep 14 - 09:17 AM (#3659627) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Ed T ""To transform passion and anger into institutional and finally political change requires the founding of institutions, of political parties, of news organizations, of local and neighborhood associations, of economic clubs and discussion groups that think about the interests of the nation, not of a single group or faction."" IMO, the real litmus test of successful political change is in what happens after a vote occurs. I suspect, like with many change movements, there are many different interests, with different expectations, joined together now- hoping for a nation building change. If a successful "yes" vote occurs, divisions will likely begin, with each group expecting their interest and vision to be the new focus and priority. Unfortunately, as reality comes into play, politicians normally face similar challenges and issues (some not within their control)- and quite often, over the longer term, they tend to resemble the political system and politicans they have replaced. I recall a statement from a local politician, who few likely know here:"" I was elected mainly because I was not another politician, and eventually I will be replaced by a politician, who will likely be elected because he is not me"" |
|
12 Sep 14 - 09:18 AM (#3659628) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Jim Carroll IRISH COMMENT ON SCOTS INDEPENDANCE Jim Carroll |
|
12 Sep 14 - 10:39 AM (#3659654) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Rumncoke The bedroom tax is not exactly a tax but the reduction in housing benefit which results if a claimant is living in a property where there are more bedrooms than are thought necessary. Unfortunately this has resulted in situation such as a disabled person living in a rented flat carefully adapted for their requirements with storage for their mobility scooter etc. is unable to afford to go on living there when a child leaves home to go to university. |
|
12 Sep 14 - 11:52 AM (#3659669) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket But why does an independent Scotland mean no "bedroom tax"? It isn't that SNP are cynically confusing independence with the aspirational policies of their particular party, it's that many people fall for it that gets me. When Salmond says no this, free that, better the other, he also speaks of negotiating terms with The UK. Rather convenient then to say The UK played hardball so we can't afford this that and tue other. And it's all the fault of Westminster, not the err.. Independent Scotland. In reply to the NHS point earlier, I can confirm that NHS is based on central funding on a per capita basis, adjusted for local need. Scotland has been funded and indeed governed by and for Scotland from the outset. Health legislation is Scottish in origin and whilst the basic concept is similar, the rationale has always been how Scotland has organised it. The money goes straight to Scotland. The Dept of Health only doles it out to England. Wales and NI agree funding via their assemblies, hence having their own health ministers too. In fact, with rural access to services meaning some NHS services being provided in rural areas where for most of England they would be more centralised, and the high levels of health inequalities and co morbidity in many urban areas, Scotland as a whole receives more NHS funding than England, per person, just. However, Scotland also sees slightly less of that spent on direct clinical costs, having to provide some expensive services to low population numbers. Put simply, improving NHS services in any part of The UK is not easily delivered by political promise, because nowhere in The UK has all the specialist staff they need, as a combination of poor long term training planning and tightening of immigration and work visas means we are all suffering from staff shortages, especially consultants. Hence politicians can promise seven day hospitals all they wish, and The NHS agrees with the idea for many services, but where you are going to get 40% more specialists from when we can't fill existing posts is beyond me... A thought. An independent Scotland could have a more relaxed approach to immigration and fill more doctor posts? Lots of ifs there, but they could steal a competitive edge, assuming they could afford it. Meanwhile, Mrs Musket, a fellow of The Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh got a letter the other day saying they have opened an office in Birmingham... |
|
12 Sep 14 - 12:42 PM (#3659685) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Gutcher RE Mr Camerons meetings with latge companies---Asda, John Lewis etc. in an effort to have them pursue the No campaigns "project fear" [ the No campaigns self given title] Most of these companies work on a profit margin of 8 to 9% so it is little wonder that their market share has been falling steadily quarter by quarter following the vast expansion of at least two Continental supermarkets, who I understand sell at a profit margin of 2%, this is the problem these businesses should be addressing not the threat of increased prices as their customers will continue to desert them in ever increasing numbers no matter what the outcome of the vote on 18th. September. Anent self interest. Sir Ian Woods sudden reversal of his recently published agreement with the oil experts estimated figures of the amount of oil reserves----would this much published change have anything to do with his recent aquisition of Fracking rights/technology from America. His children and grandchildren certainly stand to lose billions in the event of a Yes vote and if a Scottish Parliament resinds the law at present being pushed through Westminster to allow fracking to take place under YOUR HOUSE WITHOUT YOUR AGREEMENT |
|
12 Sep 14 - 02:20 PM (#3659721) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: akenaton Yes Gutcher...agree 100%. This is turning in to a re-run of the last referendum in 1979, all the lies, misinformation and threats are coming out as polling nears. Even the language is similar, and the false promises.....more powers my arse, the Westminster Parties are nowhere near agreement on which powers are to be falsely promised. Make no mistake this is developing into a battle between the "have nots" and the "we're holding on to what we've got" factions Right from the start, the NOs have had no vision for a better Scotland, just unremittingly.....more of the same We simply must get our young people back into meaningful employment, even if jobs have to be created and subsidised by the bonus of oil revenues.....there are thousands of homes required, hundreds of projects which need to be started and the young folk, during this campaign have shown willingness to be politically involved...they have taken inspiration from the chance to renew their "ain country." I was personally inspired years ago by Communist ideals. I am humbled to see again a spirit I once thought dead. A life on benefits will not do and our youth will, after the vote, never accept it. The selfish well off will not triumph in the long term even if they steal another referendum, the project of building a new different kind of society could start right here.....Vote Aye! The way is clear. |
|
12 Sep 14 - 02:25 PM (#3659724) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Jack Campin The NO supporters who've been most in the news in the last few days: Fred the Shred's bank The company that brought you Deepwater Horizon 20,000 (they hope) Orange marchers These are the people you want running a country? |
|
12 Sep 14 - 03:19 PM (#3659737) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,Howard Jones Unfortunately, the chances are that you don't own the mineral rights underneath your house, so if consent is needed to frack it probably won't be you who gives it. Also a Scottish government dependent on oil revenues isn't going to stand in the way of something that will bring in cash. Whatever politicians may say now, they will have to face harsh reality once in power. |
|
13 Sep 14 - 02:33 AM (#3659803) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket It does seem a pity that it takes till now for the consequences of following a nationalistic dream to be hammered home. One lesson for all here is that interdependence in commerce, banking and ability to carry out social programmes means there is no independent western state, not even USA. Independence seems to be another word for losing influence in what affects you most. Whereas union is another word for risk pool. |
|
13 Sep 14 - 02:46 AM (#3659806) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST Watching Jim Sillers on Sky News sums up the Scottish error: anyone who disagrees with him, even the interviewer, is rude and ill-mannered. He is entirely egotistical and thinks the sun shines out of his arsehole. When his time ran out, he was sarcastic, thinking he had a divine right to spout nonsense until the cows came home. He utterly failed to realise that it's a two-way street, that a company has as much right to say no, I won't deal with you, as he has to choose to walk away himself. It's the Scotish problem writ small. Scotland doesn't have the couraage to issue its own currency, so tells England it wants to keep on sponging off it despite being told by the Chancellor and Governor of the Bank, NO. It tells the EU it is going to continue being a member, when it isn't and doesn't qualify because it isn't prepared to take on the Euro/ It tells NATO the same, when it doesn't have ther income to qualify. Where's the money going to come from when all the business leaves? Wake up and smell the coffee, once again you're in the hands of another Sir William Paterson, an ill-advised fool leading the Scottish nation over the edge of the cliff in the Darien Scheme, all promises and no effective ways of making them happen. With no business, where's all the taxes, the money you need to have coming in to be able to spend it on the pensions for starters, going to come from? Or the wages, or - well, the list is long. Once again, you've fallen into the hands of insane mountebanks. |
|
13 Sep 14 - 03:07 AM (#3659808) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket NATO says fine. But you keep the strategically placed nuclear subs. I can understand the idea of simple folk who like to blame everybody else for their own failures seeing that from their perspective, you may as well vote yes because the only way is up when you are at the bottom. But the same people don't have any concept of how far from the bottom they really are. You just have to see Mudcat's resident homophobe in bed, as it were , with the political champion of gay rights to see how surreal the yes camp are in their reasoning. They push the ideals of one particular party and say this is what independence would look like? Independent from what? |
|
13 Sep 14 - 04:48 AM (#3659822) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: JHW I'm all for letting the Scots vote how they wish. No pressure, no scares, no this will or won't happen or work. Just let them decide and live with it. And no wingeing or 'told you so' after, whichever way it goes. |
|
13 Sep 14 - 06:14 AM (#3659839) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Howard Jones It appears to me that this is principally about mational pride and a sense of nationhood, both of which the Scots already have in spades. In terms of government, they already control most matters, including the NHS which Salmond claims is under such threat from Westminster. The impression is being given that this is simply a re-badging exercise, with nothing much changing except Scotland's legal status, everything else will be business as usual. However that's not true. Separation will tear down all the structures which currently underpin Scottish prosperity. They will have to be built up from scratch, and more importantly paid for. Scotland will inevitably remain economically tied to its larger neighbour, but will have lost all influence over it. If it succeeds in joining the EU (still a big if) it will cede much control to Brussels. Is that independence? I understand the emotional case. I describe myself as 'British' but I feel 'English', and I understand why Scots have such a sense of their own identity. However whenever I visit Scotland I am left in no doubt of that. Would independence increase that sense of identity? Scotland already runs 90% of its own affairs. What is so important about the remaining few matters which aren't already devolved? Could an independent Scottish government actually deliver on these? It strikes me odd that a supposedly socialist country doesn't understand that 'unity is strength'. It's an emotional argument against a logical one, so they're never going to come together. The 'Yes' responses to the logical claims are either 'we don't believe you' or 'we don't care'. Perhaps that's enough to build a new state with. If the vote is "Yes", I sincerely hope it is. |
|
13 Sep 14 - 06:23 AM (#3659844) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket Willing to live with it? Fine if it didn't affect you. But already, even before any outcome, the markets are down, investors are looking elsewhere and the largest single source of UK GDP is very concerned that this lunacy might just go ahead. Anyone booking their holidays for next year abroad will find prices have gone up over the last two weeks as the pound loses value (and influence.). Anyone living on state benefits will soon learn where the treasury will look to make the required savings.. Don't worry. The government can always cut pensions, cut benefits and let inflation creep up to make up the deficit. (Tory led government, remember?) It's alright shouting eat the rich and investors can go to hell but don't scratch your head too much when the government (both North and South) cannot afford social infrastructure at the level people are accustomed to. Now some home truths are at last materialising, we can see that this affects The UK, not just the 10% voting in it. If Salmond seriously thinks the period of negotiation means him getting half what he promises, the other 90% will have to be asked if they are willing to have their lives affected so. You could fund The NHS for ten years with what the price of rearranging absolutely everything from currency to assets will cost. Ed Milliband got it right for once when he said no UK minister can negotiate away the legitimate interest of the people in favour of foreign interest. It isn't a vote to affect you for the next four years, it is a once only deal and only delivers uncertainty. Meanwhile, Salmond is quietly tying the SNP day to day policies into the vote so he can say that whoever governs Scotland, some SNP policies are enshrined in constitutional law. Fucking scary if you ask me. Not to mention undemocratic. |
|
13 Sep 14 - 09:37 AM (#3659861) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Jack Campin Scotland already runs 90% of its own affairs. What is so important about the remaining few matters which aren't already devolved? Taxation, military spending, social security, foreign policy. I'd say that was a bit more than 10%. The Bedroom Tax alone shows what the Cameron/Clegg/Farage/Miliband clique want to do to Scotland if they get the chance. Question for the NO-sayers. Would you advocate abolishing the UK Parliament and having everything it currently decides put in the hands of the EU? If not, what is the difference? The only relevant difference I can see that the UK government is likely to be run on behalf of the US by a bunch of loony overprivileged right-wing sectarians for the foreseeable future, so it's obvious why a loony right-wing pro-American xenophobe would see a difference. For the rest of us it's equally obvious that having no vote at all and having everything decided by a colonial administration in Paris or Berlin would be an improvement on the status quo. The most convincing piece of propaganda I've seen from the YES side is a sticker saying "Vote Yes and end Tory rule forever". There'll be a lot of folks the other side of the border wishing they had a way to sign up to that. |
|
13 Sep 14 - 04:19 PM (#3659949) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,Over the bar WHat is ENland going to do about the cannon fodder?, if SCotland says yes. |
|
13 Sep 14 - 05:32 PM (#3659967) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,h In all wars the politicans should be forced to take to the front line with their families in close support---how many illegal wars would we have then Mr Blair? and you too Mr Cameron, who has, today, stated that he cannot rule out going to war in Syria/Iraq. Is it little wonder thinking people wish to be quit of a regime which has opened up such a can of worms with their illegal acts. At least a YES vote would give us the opportunity to oppose, with more chance of success, such people. It is of course the people who are sovereign in Scotland unlike England where the Crown stll reigns supreme backing the landed/wealth interest to the hilt. |
|
13 Sep 14 - 05:37 PM (#3659969) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket Just watching Last Night of the Proms... In fact, got a few friends round for it and having a cracking good night. Cameras cut to those watching and listening on big screens in Belfast and Swansea. Nothing in Och Aye the Noo Land though. Are you really going to swop Pomp & Circumstance and Jerusalem for Donald Where's Your Troosers? |
|
13 Sep 14 - 05:55 PM (#3659978) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Big Al Whittle pity we've lost the Ian Paisley thread on the very day the orangemen are parading through Edinburgh..... |
|
13 Sep 14 - 06:03 PM (#3659983) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket I once saw a wonderful cartoon of the pied piper playing his flute, being faithfully followed around by old bastards in orange sashes... |
|
13 Sep 14 - 07:49 PM (#3660001) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,Troubadour "Has the potential new interim governing body (or the "yes, lets separate" proponents) put forward a strategy to deal with the potential economic impact of starting a new government and economy - while starting out with a debt and likely significant deficit?" It would seem that they have not! There is online an analysis of Scotland's options absent Salmond's claimed currency union with rUK. It suggests, based on the countries with population and GDP closest to Scotland, that the best case scenario is that Scotland would have to float a debt burden of more than 50% of GDP to support its independent currency alone, while that would increase significantly if start up costs were factored in. The Scots economy would of necessity have to borrow massively, or be in a position where a run on its currency would mean bankruptcy. And of course, if Salmond's plan to hold Scotland's share of UK debt to ransom in an attempt to force currency union ends in repudiation of the debt, this will be regarded worldwide as defaulting on commitment. What price borrowing then? |
|
13 Sep 14 - 07:55 PM (#3660004) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,Scabby Douglas I was at the Glasgow Proms In The Park concert. None of the Pomp and Circumstance section was shown on the big screens on Glasgow Green. The BBC learned a fair few years ago not to cut to Glasgow (or any place in Scotland for any of "Jerusalem". Similarly, I think "Rule Britannia" could have been tricky.... The stuff we got instead was very enjoyable.... |
|
13 Sep 14 - 08:08 PM (#3660010) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: LadyJean One of the things I find really annoying about the British is that they seem to have decided that English men and women from the home counties are the only people who matter and everyone else is a joke. I'm not surprised a few of the everyone else are getting fed up. |
|
14 Sep 14 - 04:16 AM (#3660054) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket Are you sure about that LadyJean? You see "the British " describes 68 million people, 10% of whom are in Scotland and the majority of the rest have little in common with the Home Counties as you put it. Even a huge number of those who live there. Sweeping condemnation of people who don't fit your particular bill is neither helpful nor accurate. Leave that nonsense to Salmond and his personal mission to screw up a country that is trying to recover from err.. following idealistic dreams of low intelligence politicians. |
|
14 Sep 14 - 05:06 AM (#3660063) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: selby Why does Mr Salmond never give robust replies to the issues being raised. Surely he cannot continue to kid people that it is all a plot and personal against Scotland. There is also the issue of Scotish Elections does he think that the SNP is elected for life or is that something that will be made law if the Yes vote win. My Father used to say when elections came and the Party he wanted to win lost "empty heads voted them in but empty stomachs will vote them out"seems to me to be relevant at this point. We where in Edinburgh last year to witness a young man in a kilt with the flag painted on his face shouting at someone you can take my country but you cannot take my soul methinks to many of them have been watching a Hollywood film made and starring a Australian actor and have lost the plot. All the north has suffered while the south has flourished I suspect the south west and wales will say the same a lot of young people from these areas with degrees can only get work in London investment in the north is nil but Scotland gets more titbits from the London table than the north does. My only hope is that whatever happens the Scots People will be happy with the Majority want as there is no going back in four years time this is for life and their children's children Keith |
|
14 Sep 14 - 05:40 AM (#3660066) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Big Al Whittle ladyjean has a point. the governance of Britain has always been a bloody mess. Scottish independence got its biggest push by the Thatcher government - so many callous decisions. but it didn't stop there, and that's why if they're wise Scotland will take over their own affairs -whatever the immediate problems. the tory government has all its support in the south east and most of the marginal seats are there - so that's labour fucked - and there lies the problem Musket. sadly i can't agree with you. whether independence is the answer - i don't know. but it will be a reaction born out of the realisation of many Scottish people of how desperate the situation is. |
|
14 Sep 14 - 06:36 AM (#3660074) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,Sol That's more or less spot on, Al. Tony Blair made Labour 'Tory light' leaving Scotland with no choice but turn to the SNP |
|
14 Sep 14 - 09:28 AM (#3660107) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket Whereas a smaller Scotland with less oil assets than many third world countries and uncertainty as to currency and banks could make a better go of it? The devolution Max would be the best solution as nationalism is just another word for bigotry whereas pragmatism might just put food on the table. Cameron refused to offer that though as he felt he could keep the union. The third way would have been best all round and would have got a resounding majority. You can't blame the blue rinse brigade Al. Labour offers them fuck all in the same way Conservative don't understand an idealised "Oop North." |
|
14 Sep 14 - 11:36 AM (#3660130) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,Rahere Oh, they've already cornered the market in curling stones. Somebody forgot to tell Salmond that women use tongs. |
|
15 Sep 14 - 03:28 AM (#3660310) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Teribus "The Bedroom Tax alone shows what the Cameron/Clegg/Farage/Miliband clique want to do to Scotland if they get the chance." -Jack Campin What "Bedroom Tax" are you talking about Jack? Could you please explain it to me - I ask because I have unoccupied spare bedrooms and I am not paying a penny on any of them. |
|
15 Sep 14 - 04:04 AM (#3660314) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Stu Now Brenda's getting involved. She really ought to keep her overprivileged mouth shut on political issues. The parcel of rogues lining up to endorse the union is enough to make the most hardened voter want to vote yes I imagine. If I had people like Farage, Cameron, Clegg, Campbell etc telling me we're better together I'd be off like a shot. Can't they see they're part of the problem? The fact they can't make a coherent, passionate case for the union says it all; the union was fine for managing empire, but it's caved under pressure from stateless multinationals (see the TTIP deal that's about to erode our sovereignty further) and now is not fit for purpose. If we had a federation of home nations, each nation having devolved powers and it's own First Minister (with the English parliament situate outside London's reality distortion field) then that would be progress. C'mon Scotland. Vote yes. |
|
15 Sep 14 - 08:37 AM (#3660390) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Howard Jones Considering how high passions are running, and how many people both inside and outside Scotland are engaged in the debate, the reluctance of both sides to engage with the difficult issues is disappointing. The "Yes" side has seemed reluctant to admit that independence means separation - not just from Westminster but from everything else. In many cases that will have significant effects and significant costs. The "Yes"es response has been to accuse anyone who points this out as either liars or bullies. It may be possible to mitigate these effects if both sides can negotiate ways of dealing with them, but the assurance that everyone will simply accept whatever Scotland demands, on the pound and EU membership for example, when those who will decide have said categorically they will not, is simply delusional. The "No" campaign has been dire. The Union is probably not going to set Scottish pulses racing the way Scotland the Brave and Braveheart can, but the "No"'s message seems to come from Hilaire Belloc: "Always keep a-hold of Nurse, for fear of finding something worse". Even that has been appallingly managed. As an Englishman, I find it disorienting to discover that the country I have lived in for 60 years isn't what I thought. It seems that half the Scots don't want to remain with us, and the other half will stay only if granted special terms and special privileges. Whatever the outcome, things won't be the same. I sense there will be a hardening of attitudes towards Scotland, with less willingness to be generous in negotiating separation terms if the "Yes"es win than I'd expected when this process started. If the vote is "No" and Scotland gets even more devolved powers, I think the expectation will be that you will have to pay for them all yourselves. |
|
15 Sep 14 - 08:59 AM (#3660402) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST You're absolutely right, Howard, Scotland thinks it only has to sulk and it'll get its way. They're putting themselves in a position where they'll be dependent on goodwill from RUK to get anything, goodwill which will be in remarkably short supply. Two lovely black eyes, two lovely black eyes, only for telling DC he was wrong, two lovely mince pies. Thankfully they've already got a cage in Glsgow zoo for the laddie, with them he'll look like a panda, perhaps they'll be able to claim he's the offspring and charge to see him, it's about the only way he'll make a significant contribnution to the economy. |
|
15 Sep 14 - 09:14 AM (#3660407) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: akenaton The NO case is just not viable....if we are one family(UK), why should one part of that family(Scotland) be "promised" special privileges, why should we continue to have free education for our children, free care for the elderly, free prescriptions, council tax freeze etc, when the rest of the family do not? If I was English or Welsh, I would be protesting vigorously. Does it not make you think that Westminster must have a bloody good reason for holding on to the country that they like to present as a basket case, a country that is unable to run its own affairs, that cant be trusted with a shared currency, a country from which the leaders of industry cant wait to escape? Its all fucking lies....Scotland is wealthy and we have not yet had every ounce of national pride kicked out of us......Aye we are a hard lot, but we love our ain country, its songs, its poetry, the guts and determination of Scots folk. We love the English to..... the nation they were before dilution and their rulers starved bullied and brainwashed them! Take Stu's advice, grow some balls, stand on your own feet, a federation of nation states would work, co-operating on currency, and must other "issues" Vote AYE and hold yer heid up high! |
|
15 Sep 14 - 09:54 AM (#3660429) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Howard Jones "a federation of nation states would work, co-operating on currency" Like the Eurozone, you mean? Good luck with that. |
|
15 Sep 14 - 09:54 AM (#3660431) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket Governments have to juggle priorities from the pot. The bigger the pot, the better the risk pool. Howard's point about hardening of attitudes is interesting. Assuming naivety is in abundance and there is independence, I notice that Salmond has said The Uk will have to negotiate currency union because he will have a mandate to do so from Scotland so they must. Notwithstanding that no government has to give quarter to foreign politicians, I wonder how popular Salmond will be when a year in he says to the Scottish people; 1. To remain in NATO, the nuclear subs have to stay. Sorry, I tried. 2. We can't get currency union so The Uk will be setting our bank interest rates without discussing it with us first. Sorry I tried. 3. The exodus of finance, banks and large multinationals means we can't afford the free education, social infrastructure or anything else we promised. Sorry, I tried. 4. As an independent Scotland, we rely on the rest of the UK, but no longer have any control or influence over it. Sorry, I tried. 5. Oh, and they won't have us back. Sorry, I tried. |
|
15 Sep 14 - 10:00 AM (#3660434) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Teribus "It seems that half the Scots don't want to remain with us, and the other half will stay only if granted special terms and special privileges." - Howard Jones Now I really would like you to explain how on earth you reached that point of view Howard knowing full well that there are those for, those against and those who are as yet undecided. 1: "It seems that half the Scots don't want to remain with us" That is the "nationalist", or "separatist" view and they do not represent half by any stretch of the imagination. 2: "the other half will stay only if granted special terms and special privileges" Utter nonsense among those who are happy with Union, who have always intended to vote NO, you will find the majority want no additional powers, special terms or privileges whatsoever - there are even quite an number would be only too pleased to see the idiotic Scottish Parliament disbanded as an utter waste of space, time, resources and money. Hell's teeth the useless bast**ds in Holyrood have clearly demonstrated over the past 15 years that they can't even be bothered to rouse themselves off their big, fat, useless backsides to use the powers they have let alone use any additional "powers". The "Devo-Max" deal being offered is to try and seduce the more faint hearted "separatists" and the "undecideds" who might be leaning towards a YES vote. I agree with you entirely when you say that irrespective of the outcome things will never be the same. Irrespective of the outcome England, Wales and Northern Ireland will still be a "united" United Kingdom, Scotland whether in or out of it come next Friday morning will be a nation riven apart, split into two camps sulking and waiting for the next round. |
|
15 Sep 14 - 10:13 AM (#3660442) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Howard Jones When this all started, I didn't sense a great deal of interest down here. The view I came across most was "we'll be sorry to see you go but it is for the Scots to decide", and an expectation of an amicable and fairly pain-free divorce in the event of a "Yes". The "Yes" campaign may have gone down well in Scotland but down here it has often come across as arrogant, nasty and based on misinformation. It may claim to be anti-Westminster rather than anti-English, but it doesn't feel like it. Salmond's sense of entitlement that we must give him whatever he asks for is not going down well this side of the border, especially as it begins to sink in that it's going to be expensive for us as well as for you, and that the ramifications are far wider than most of us had first assumed. Scotland will quite rightly expect its representatives to negotiate hard for the best terms they can get. We will expect ours to do the same. It will not be pretty. |
|
15 Sep 14 - 10:30 AM (#3660447) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Stu The currency issue is a problem. I tackled my (tory) MP about it and he started foaming at the mouth, adamant there would be no currency union. But why should there be? The key word here is 'union' or 'shared'; it'll be a sodding huge whole in Scottish sovereignty if the BofE still dictates some economic policy. Have some balls Scotland and start afresh with a new currency. A currency union would have to go to a referendum in rUK, and given Salmond's threat to lumber the poor of rUK with Scotland's share of the national debt (as it will be the poor who pay as usual) it's likely the vote would go against; the Scots are going to have a devil of a job persuading the ordinary working folk of rUK to underwrite their sovereign debt, the debut of a foreign country. On the subject of oil, it's sad how quickly the kerching! of hydrocarbon dollars induces myopia in otherwise intelligent people. If Scotland is intend on wringing the North Sea of every drop of oil then we can kiss goodbye to any chance of preventing the worst consequences of global warning. Of course the Scots aren't alone in wallowing in the carbon mire with all the other troughers whilst the planet is tortured to death; they're about to frack the fuck out of England, but it exposes the lie in Scotland being any more progressive and forward-thinking than the rest of us. Never mind, our grandchildren can all suffer as one people. Still, I'm massively in favour of independence. The Scots will be in charge of their own destiny, will no longer be "colonised by wankers" and will have to look inward to address their own failings or risk looking like mewling, petulant brats. The English have been doing that for years and look where we've ended up; a tilt to the right and the loss of our tending towards radicalism and social justice and equanimity. And you don't want to go there! |
|
15 Sep 14 - 10:44 AM (#3660454) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket Good name for a band.. Pseudo Jock and the Chippy Whingers. |
|
15 Sep 14 - 12:10 PM (#3660490) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Ed T "a federation of nation states would work, co-operating on currency" It seems odd that a central nation would accept to have a currency without strong influence or control of the economic factors (which are broader than financial matters) that directly influence it. Using a currency to assist with trade and to base a currency on, such as some use the USA dollar, would likely be a different matter. |
|
15 Sep 14 - 12:19 PM (#3660497) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Bill D As one who has a large Scottish ancestry, but no opinion on this decision, I really worry about the tendency toward a closely split vote. No matter what happens, many people are going to be angry/frustrated. I really wonder about 'how' most are deciding. a metaphor using a Scottish icon |
|
15 Sep 14 - 12:33 PM (#3660506) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Big Al Whittle the first thing they ought to do is remove that tax on whisky. then everybody would go up there and stock up. |
|
15 Sep 14 - 12:48 PM (#3660510) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: The Sandman i am english. i live in the republic of ireland, i would like to see an independent scotland. |
|
15 Sep 14 - 01:58 PM (#3660529) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: akenaton Bill...."I really wonder about 'how' most are deciding." Well I can tell you how most of the NOs are deciding Bill. Most come from the well off semi retired, early retired demographic, or simply settled into a comfortable lifestyle and not wishing to rock the boat. It is a purely selfish mindset, There are huge areas of deprivation in Scotland, youth unemployment is rife, and those who are employed are on short term, short hours, dead end jobs. They have no future just measly benefits that would hardly keep a young man or woman. We need control of the wealth we produce, to train our young folk, inspire them out of their torpor. National pride may be anathema to some here but its all we have left to change our young people from hopeless cases into contributing, fulfilled citizens of the new Scotland. Out of NATO, ban WDMs, get back to being a proud trading nation. We have the BRAND, all we need is the will and the guts. Vote AYE to make Scotland great. |
|
15 Sep 14 - 02:25 PM (#3660548) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket It isn't selfish. It just means they got on with making a success of their lives instead of being a bitter hate filled failure. |
|
15 Sep 14 - 02:32 PM (#3660551) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Big Al Whittle i always wanted to be a bitter hate filled failure.....but godammit! musket - you're just so loveable...! |
|
15 Sep 14 - 02:45 PM (#3660563) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Howard Jones Akenaton, you say "We need control of the wealth we produce, to train our young folk, inspire them out of their torpor." But aren't education and training, and economic development, already devolved? What would independence add that would make a difference? This is a genuine question. So much of the discussion seems to have been about things which Scotland already controls, including the NHS. I'm puzzled by what difference independence is supposed to make, besides national pride (which I've never noticed any shortage of) |
|
15 Sep 14 - 04:00 PM (#3660586) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: akenaton The answer Howard is money. Training programmes on a scale which Scotland requires need adequate finance. The Barnet formula only give back to Scotland, a part of what Scotland contributes to the UK exchequer The money has to be spread thinly over a huge range of social policies it is not infinite. With control over our finances, we can bring forward policies that would never see the light of day under a Tory controlled government. That is what we have to look forward to in the UK family....another 20 years of right wing rule....from ALL the UK parties. |
|
15 Sep 14 - 04:02 PM (#3660587) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket You're not a failure Al. I bet lots of people want your autograph! A failure requires blaming others. The details might include, for instance, saying that those who vote differently to you don't deserve a vote because they are comfortable. Assuming anybody would be comfortable by anything an independent Scotland would offer them, presumably it would be their fault that Akenaton still gets upset by success, gay men, travellers, Scottish residents who weren't born there and anybody who doesn't share his corrupt outlook. The little shit brings out the worst in me, that's all. |
|
15 Sep 14 - 07:06 PM (#3660642) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: akenaton Just a point for any mods who may wander this way, I am getting rather sick of being stalked by this sad person. A few days ago on this thread he announced that he had access to my name and home address...how he obtained these I know not, as we appear to live at opposite ends of the UK. However I think we could do without any of the abuse which appears to be his trade mark. |
|
15 Sep 14 - 07:17 PM (#3660647) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Howard Jones If it's about money, the Scottish government already has had the power to vary tax rates, which it hasn't exercised, and more powers are already coming in. Why haven't the Scottish people been insisting their government raise their taxes? |
|
15 Sep 14 - 07:33 PM (#3660651) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: akenaton If Scotland had complete independence, all revenues would go directly to the Scottish exchequer, there would be no need to raise ADDITIONAL taxes from the Scottish people. A large part of these revenues at present are retained by the Westminster govt to fund High Speed Railways in England, and foreign Wars in Iraq, Libya, and soon, Syria. |
|
15 Sep 14 - 08:21 PM (#3660659) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,Guest Posting another song, Wolftone's version, to sort of go along with Stu's Diggers song: (My Ancestry: Irish-Scots-Welsh-English, one American Indian) Where is the flag of England? Go North, South, East or West. Wherever there's wealth to plunder or land to be possessed. Wherever there's feeble races to frighten, coerce or scare. You'll find the butcher's apron, the English flag is there! It waits upon blazing hovels where African victims died, to be shot the explosive bullets or wretchedly starve and die, and where the pirate hammers the isles of southern seas, at the peak of the hellish vessel the English flag is free! The Maori often cursed it with his bitterness dying breath, and the Arab hath hissed his hatred as he spat at its folds in death, and the helpless Hindu feared it, and the Kenyan did the same, and the Irish blood hath stained it, with a deep indelible stain. Where is the flag of England? Go North, South, East or West. Wherever there's wealth to plunder or land to be possessed. Wherever there's feeble races to frighten, coerce or scare. You'll find the butcher's apron, the English flag is there! It is floated on scenes of pillage, it is flaunted on deeds of shame. It has waved o'er fell marauders, as they ravished with sword and flame, it has looked upon on ruthless slaughter, and massacred dire and grim, and has heard the shrieks of victims drowning the jingo hymn. Where is the flag of England? Seek lands where the natives rot. Where decay, and assured extinction must soon be a people's lot. Go search for once glad islands where death and disease are rife, and the greed of colossal commerce now fattens on human life. Where is the flag of England? Go North, South, East or West. Wherever there's wealth to plunder or land to be possessed. Wherever there's feeble races to frighten, coerce or scare. You'll find the butcher's apron, the English flag is there! Where is the flag of England? Go sail where rich boats come. With shoddy and loaded cottons, and beer and Bibles and guns. Go where brute forces triumphed, and hypocrisy makes its lair. In your question you'll find the answer, it was and still is there! Where is the flag of England? Go North, South, East or West. Wherever there's wealth to plunder or land to be possessed. Wherever there's feeble races to frighten, coerce or scare. You'll find the butcher's apron, the English flag is there. |
|
15 Sep 14 - 09:24 PM (#3660665) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,.garglyle How long will it take for the counting of absentee ballots? Sincerely, Gargoyle The five Scott's I know are ex-pats living in three different countries. |
|
16 Sep 14 - 02:54 AM (#3660693) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Teribus 1: " I can tell you how most of the NOs are deciding Bill. Most come from the well off semi retired, early retired demographic, or simply settled into a comfortable lifestyle and not wishing to rock the boat. It is a purely selfish mindset," Ehmmmmm No Akenaton, you are wrong both in describing the group you refer to as the "NOs" and in attributing a motive for them being "No" voters. The YES camp is based in emotion and fairy stories, on a number of occasions during the campaign senior SNP figures have been caught out telling lie after lie, lies in fact that were so blatant that they did not even stand up to even cursory examination. Thus marks the stamp of those you wish to see lead and govern our country - you might trust in the word of Jowly Eck & Co I certainly do not. So NO voters do not wish to rock the boat eh? I think that those you describe will the ones asked to pay through the nose to fund Scotland's little "Marxist" Utopia, if you doubt that then I think that you should check up on the number of Scottish Tax payers who are net contributors to the Exchequer (~40%, if indeed that high) - and the prospect of funding this doomed project is what makes them NO voters. 2: "There are huge areas of deprivation in Scotland, youth unemployment is rife, and those who are employed are on short term, short hours, dead end jobs. They have no future just measly benefits that would hardly keep a young man or woman. We need control of the wealth we produce, to train our young folk, inspire them out of their torpor." Who have the electorate in all these areas of utter deprivation voted for since Keir Hardy was a bairn Akenaton? Since the end of the Second World War that Party has been in power as the National Government for as long as their political opponents, while in civic government they have had a clear run almost for that entire time - Tell me what good has it done those who voted for them? Who do you think they are going to vote for now? Something different or will they go for the "same old" - if the latter they can expect the same result whether that is in a Scottish Parliament or one based in Westminster. Pin a red rosette on a donkey in Glasgow and it will get elected, that is the political nouse and understanding of the voter. The Scottish Parliament "socialist" in nature since 1999 has had the power to raise tax in Scotland by 3%, a power granted under devolution, yet not once has it been used - care to tell me why this source of revenue was not used at the insistence of Scottish Members of Parliament to alleviate all this deprivation Akenaton? These of course will be same MPs that will be standing for election to any Parliament of an independent Scotland won't they? Your argument that if Scotland had control of its entire income things would be different are a bit hollow - the wankers in the SNP haven't even costed out what independence will cost let alone worked out what they would view as how their promises to the electorate will be funded. As Members of the Scottish Parliament they were I presume elected to do whatever was necessary to look after the best interests of both the people and the nation of Scotland - Since 1999 they have failed miserably - I do not see any prospect of, or have any confidence in, them improving that track record. 3: Your empty phrases such as: "We need control of the wealth we produce, to train our young folk, inspire them out of their torpor." AND "National pride may be anathema to some here but its all we have left to change our young people from hopeless cases into contributing, fulfilled citizens of the new Scotland." Are a complete and utter joke, they can't be bothered to get out of bed to look for even the most basic of jobs, which they would do if either they or their parents had any sort of "work ethic", but there again why should they, they can get more on benefits than they can working. So rather than rattle out empty phrases Akenaton give us some details as to how it would be done, how much it would cost, who would pay for it. But like a true "socialist" it is all too easy just to sit back and blame others - well as that is what you are doing then blame the right people - those you have elected to the Scottish Parliament at Holyrood since 1999 - they have had the power since that date and they have consistently failed to use it. 4: "Out of NATO, ban WDMs, get back to being a proud trading nation." After getting out of NATO and banishing WDMs [sic] Who is it that you are going to trade with? 80% of Scotland's trade is with the rest of the UK who you will just have pissed off mightily. For Scotland's former customers in the rest of the UK trade with Scotland, being a non-EU member, will instantly become more expensive. So it will be in the best interest of those companies to find alternative suppliers either in the UK itself or elsewhere within the EU, that they will do in the interim period between the 19th September 2014 and the 24th March 2016. In that interim period should a YES vote be returned on Friday all five of Scotland's Banks will shift their registered offices South and they will then shift their operations South as well, they will not leave thousands of personnel up in an independent Scotland where they will have to pay tax, in the best interests of the UK Treasury those jobs and that tax revenue will be brought South - doubt that then take a good look at who is RBS's biggest shareholder - The Treasury will call the shots and RBS will do as it is told. Standard Life (90% of its business is in England) they will do the same, as will the likes of Aegon and Brewin Dolphin - Scotland's financial sector will be destroyed. Scotland's GDP estimated at US$269 billion for this year will shrink dramatically in the interim as the flight of jobs, capital and people make itself felt. Musket is perfectly correct Jowly's mantra on every pre-referendum promise will be - Sorry but I tried Predictions by experts are that the economies of both independent Scotland and the UK will take a hit if the Union is dissolved. In the first five years both economies will decline the UK's much less than Scotland', in the following five the UK's economy will have recovered but Scotland's will continue to decline. Prats like Jim Sillars threatening businesses with a "day of reckoning" don't help the independence cause one iota. |
|
16 Sep 14 - 03:44 AM (#3660698) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: akenaton Not much point in refuting all that Teribus, most of it is simply your take on things. Since the start of the campaign, I have been shocked by the numbers of intelligent young people who simply have no chance of a well paid job. The only jobs available are short hours and low pay, with no prospects of advancement. One young chap had written dozens of job applications, finally went to America on an exchange scheme, loved it, but had to return in 3 months under the scheme rules, now back on benefits which do not support him and living with his parents. This young man is highly intelligent, but says there are hundreds in his position....he is voting yes, not to protect his wealth, but to get a life. As they say Mr T, ..."yer tea's oot!!".....On Friday we will know if the future is in the hands of our youth of this country, or the wealthy pensioners, bankers, and industrialists, who contributed so much to the failure of our economy. |
|
16 Sep 14 - 04:06 AM (#3660700) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Howard Jones Guest, it's not the English flag that song refers to but the British one. Scotland profited from the British Empire just as much, perhaps more, than other parts of Britain, and to this day Scottish engineering can be found in the remotest corners of the globe. Scots were at the forefront of developing and ruling the Empire. So don't try to claim some kind of moral superiority for Scotland, you were as culpable as we were for its excesses and mistakes. |
|
16 Sep 14 - 04:20 AM (#3660702) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Howard Jones Akenaton, my own sons here in England are in a similar position. It may have escaped your notice, but we are coming through a global recession. Have you thought how much worse it would have been had Scotland already been independent and could not turn to the British Government to bail out RBS and the other failed Scottish financial institutions? Self-determination is an illusion in a global economy. Even the UK does not have full self-determination, it is constrained by formal political relationships and informal global and economic pressures. However as a larger entity it is in a stronger position. Scotland seems to think it can turn in on itself and be unaffected by outside factors. In particular, Scotland cannot avoid being affected by the RUK economy but will have given up any say in it. |
|
16 Sep 14 - 04:49 AM (#3660710) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: selby I did not realise reading some of these posts that England was a colonial power in Scotland. I thought the whole UK through thick and thin stuck it out for good or bad together. With a Scotish Grandmother I have always had a strong affinity with Scotland but listening to some of the petulant spoiled child statements been made I feel nothing but sadness that a proud and well respect family member is behaving this way and now feel, go as you as a independent country and your elected representatives bring nothing to the table. This is not about party politics this is about your future and I am afraid some of you do not get it, you give the impression that when it turns bad for you the rest of the UK will go oh come back we still love you unfortunately we wont. Sadly I feel that your Yes parties behavior makes many people in the rest of the UK not wish to be a good friend to Scotland. You seem to forget there is a whole country indeed the whole world look at you and your leadership does not present Scotland in a positive light. Keith |
|
16 Sep 14 - 04:53 AM (#3660711) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket Alex. You have given your name and location on these threads many times. I have asked The SNP if they support your claim that their party leader doesn't give a damn about equality and is manipulating the press whilst having an agenda far more in tune with your own odious views. You said that on this thread and as you claim to know Mr Salmond and be a member of his party it is quite legitimate to ask if they wish to disown your comments. The link to this thread I gave to The Scotsman newspaper was in the same manner. For all your crap about being stalked, you are the one who upsets gay Mudcat members with your criminal homophobia and lies. Payback time, sick puppy. |
|
16 Sep 14 - 05:44 AM (#3660735) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Teribus Akenaton a word of advice for your young friend: No matter how well qualified you think you are if there is a job then take take it - a job is a job and work experience is work experience - It is far better for you to work than sit at home and sponge off your parents and the State - It is called having a "Work Ethic" Akenaton, something that is apparently a "foreign concept". Pray tell us how voting YES will deliver a new life to this young man? |
|
16 Sep 14 - 06:16 AM (#3660746) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Stu "I did not realise reading some of these posts that England was a colonial power in Scotland" There's a fair bit of revisionist thinking going on at present on both sides. It seems insane that our current politics are defined by the actions of Norman-descended aristocracy in the middle ages. The imposition of the Hanoverians and current incumbents Saxe-Coburg and Gotha wrankles as much as the rule of the Normans and Plantagents, but then it does across these islands, including England, where we're still under the Yoke as well. Everyone on these islands have been fucked over by our the toffs for a thousand years. The Scots were willing and vital participants in empire (Edinburgh is the most imperial city I've ever been in, even more so than London in some ways), with all the good and bad that role brings with it. The Scots were a huge part of the enlightenment and were an intellectual powerhouse that stood alongside England and Wales as they made their presence felt across the globe. The real struggle here is the ordinary, working people of these islands who have lost their lands in clearances, plantation and enclosure, who have organised to secure their rights only to see them destroyed by the piggies with their snouts in the trough and their political shills, who stood side by side and suffered the horrors of war started by over privileged royal scumballs, fascistic madmen or the oil-obsessed, lying poltroons that are modern politicians of all countries and creed. Expect history to be re-written again and again during the coming years, especially if after the result either way recriminations and blame instead of progress become the new way. |
|
16 Sep 14 - 06:35 AM (#3660753) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket Well, I suppose that after David Beckham gave a view it was only a matter of time before the sage advice of naval cooks got everybody to stop and think. Greasy food. The effects of which make the cost of health and social care in Scotland almost untenable. |
|
16 Sep 14 - 08:10 AM (#3660763) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Teribus So the Scottish NHS is safe in the hands of the YeSNP is it? Vote YES to protect the Scottish NHS Jowly & Co spouted: NHS Scotland SNP Generated Funding Gap £450 million |
|
16 Sep 14 - 08:45 AM (#3660772) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket The problem is, and no political posturing or even money is going to alter these two basic facts; The health inequalities of Scotland are far greater than the rest of The UK. Whilst you can look at a council ward in say, New Town of Edinburgh and compare it to Tower Hamlets or Middlesborough favourably, the overall health in Scotland is lower than the the overall health in England. Wales and NI are between the two. Whilst policy and practice can help overcome this long term, it is a generational issue. The other huge cost for much of Scotland is rurality. There are high cost small patient number services based out of Elgin as an example that a district general hospital in England with three times the served population wouldn't be viable to provide. The Royal Colleges are concerned that some consultants do not see enough cases to keep up to date with practice. The NHS is a bit of a red herring here in this debate because the Scottish system is organised, run and governed under Scottish law and always has been. There are huge differences between how each country within The UK provide NHS care. An independent Scotland would be subject to the same Royal College guidelines, NICE and accreditation. Regulatory bodies such as GMC, NMC etc would remain as they are in an independent Scotland, as no doctor would wish to train where their training and experience was not recognised. This has been acknowledged by the Scottish government. I was at a Royal Medical Society dinner in Edinburgh recently and there is huge concern that continuity is not enough. The universities are concerned they might not attract medical students as they do hitherto and consultants are considering how peer group and clinical networks will be affected, making the lack of doctors even more acute. At present, the spending per head in Scotland is higher than the UK average, and the call on that is also higher. There are legitimate concerns over NHS Scotland regardless of the vote, and neither camp is in a position to make the problems go away. |
|
16 Sep 14 - 06:51 PM (#3660938) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,Rahere And now we see the worst and lowest form of brownshirt menace being wheeled out by the Yes campagne. Is it any wonder the English are fast coming around to my way of thinking, that we should be given a vote whether we want Scotland? |
|
17 Sep 14 - 04:05 AM (#3661034) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket I wonder how many have ignored the political nonsense and found the facts for themselves. ONS and treasury figures concur that grouping all public spending, Scotland spends just over £1,200 per head of population than the combined rest of The UK. It isn't hard. Verifiable audited accounts. You can google them and with five mins and a pocket calculator see it for yourself. So, if more is spent on social infrastructure, where is it going? SNP have control of spending it, so what are they doing with it, and what difference would the other 2% make if they controlled the lot? By following nationalistic dreams, the idiots have divided a nation. The UK will feel divided regardless of the outcome. Scotland will feel divided regardless of the outcome. Well done Salmond. I assume your grandfather fought against repugnant nationalism in the same war my father did? |
|
17 Sep 14 - 06:54 AM (#3661118) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,Wolfgang About 10,000 Germans living in Scotland will have the right to vote for or against Scottish independence. That's why we can read in our press how they will vote and, more interesting, why they will vote with yes or no. Two opinions: One woman with a small export oriented business will vote with YES because she thinks Scottish independence makes it more likely that Scotland will stay in the EU and that will help her business. One young man (could be tongue in cheek, but that was difficult to say from just reading his words): In the few years I am living here I got so fed up with the Scottish always moaning and whining that everything that's bad is the fault of the English that I am voting YES just not to be forced to listen to that complaint any longer. Wolfgang (more than just a bit puzzled that Germans and other foreigners have the right to vote in that decision) |
|
17 Sep 14 - 07:11 AM (#3661121) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Stu "more than just a bit puzzled that Germans and other foreigners have the right to vote in that decision" It's nothing to do with ethnicity, it's whether you're resident in the country that counts. |
|
17 Sep 14 - 07:20 AM (#3661123) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Howard Jones The comment about remaining in the EU is surprising, as everyone apart from Salmond is saying Scotland will automatically leave the EU and will have to reapply. This would take years. The Spanish PM has repeated his opposition, and a survey has shown that most European businesses aren't bothered whether or not Scotland leaves, which suggests they won't be pushing for it to be readmitted. As for foreigners having a vote, I suspect Salmond's strategy is that residents in Scotland with no British allegiance are more likely to vote for independence. |
|
17 Sep 14 - 08:13 AM (#3661154) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Scabby Douglas It's astounding that we're still rehashing this question of who should have the vote. It's perfectly simple and fair. If people have moved away from Scotland - to the extent of no longer being resgistered to vote in Scottish elections - then they don't get a vote. If people, wherever they are from, are registered to vote in Scotland, then they get a vote. And bear in mind the biggest group of non-Scottish-born voters eligible to vote in the referendum are actually *English* - about 370,000. How could being born in Scotland entitle anyone to a vote? It's nothing to do with gerrymandering of the electorate, as Howard Jones implies. It's about steering the fairest possible way through a problematic process. |
|
17 Sep 14 - 08:39 AM (#3661160) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket I agree with that, Scabby Douglas. |
|
17 Sep 14 - 08:44 AM (#3661162) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Howard Jones I'm not suggesting its not simple and fair. It's admirably simple, and it would have been impossible to decide who outside Scotland would be eligible. It would also be difficult, if not unlawful, to exclude Scottish residents who were not 'Scottish'. So no gripes about that. However it is naive to believe that Salmond didn't think very carefully before agreeing who and who should not be franchised. He's a very wily and skillful politician. From Salmond's point of view the 'foreign' vote is low-risk. I also doubt he would have allowed 16 year olds to vote if we wasn't confident most of them would vote Yes. |
|
17 Sep 14 - 08:49 AM (#3661165) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket But if you are not careful, you end up with the Irish national football team when Jack Charlton was manager. Full of English and Welsh players, on the basis your Grandma owned an Irish Wolfhound. Of course Salmond was gerrymandering when carving up the criteria. He can't get a yes from the good people of Scotland without lying, cheating and threatening, so for an idealist like him, the end justifies the means. A bit like when Yasser Arafat was caught lying and he said it is OK to lie in order to achieve your aims. Achieving your aims is your focus. |
|
17 Sep 14 - 09:13 AM (#3661172) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: The Sandman yes, but i as an englishman living in ireland am not allowed to vote on irsh referendums or whether ireland should have agreed to the lisbon treaty or on matters of the irish constitution or abortion, following this logic germans or other europeans resident in scotland should not be allowed to vote, so much for democracy. |
|
17 Sep 14 - 09:15 AM (#3661173) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Scabby Douglas Wait, Musket, wait. You're saying that Alex Salmond can't win without "lying, cheating and threatening". You've defined, in your own mind, that it's the only understandable way for independence to be achieved. Therefore, if there is a Yes vote tomorrow, then you already know how it will have been achieved: lying, cheating and threats. Lovely circular reasoning. There are plenty of lies being told, much threatening, and attempts to cheat. But most of them are emanating from the No campaign. |
|
17 Sep 14 - 09:27 AM (#3661179) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Scabby Douglas Schweik, I'm afraid there's nothing much anybody here can do to help you on what rights you have in Ireland. Those are Irish rules. If it helps, if you had moved to Scotland early enough to register, you could have voted in the Scottish referendum. |
|
17 Sep 14 - 11:06 AM (#3661218) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,Dazbo at Work Wolfgang - I don't think he spoke tongue in cheek as that's the way many of us English feel. Being blamed for things that aren't our fault or within our control and then whinging about not being represented when they have more MPs per head of poputlation than anywhere else in the UK and a disproportionate presence in senior government and civil service posts. Not for nothing was the last labour government called a Jockocracy. Bear in mind that since devolution Scottish MPs in Westminster have voted on matters that affect England that English MPs can't vote on when it affects Scotland; even on occasion ensuring unpopular English legislation was passed only with the help of the votes from the Scottish labour MPs. The Scots have come across for the last forty five years that I can remember as spoiled brats who blame all their ills on the English yet ignore all the privileges they have been granted and jobs preserved. Why, for example, are the major UK navy dockyards located in Scotland and the English ones all closed down or downsized? Akenaton is whinging about the unemployed youths in Scotland. He doesn't mention that it costs a Scottish student a lot less to get a degree than an English Student (bear in mind also that a Student from an EU country also pays less in a Scottish university than an English student at the same Scottish university on the same degree course). England is the only country in the UK that has to pay prescription charges. etc etc etc. Basically the Yesers want their cake and eat it and grab as much of the English cake they can get their hands on and still claim we are cheating them. |
|
17 Sep 14 - 12:00 PM (#3661239) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Scabby Douglas Dazbo, with all due respect, you are missing the point. "Yesers", as you call them, are actively seeking to step away from this relationship that causes you to feel so aggrieved and put-upon. We're not voting Yes to gain new concessions, or to get a better kind of devolution. We want to be responsible for our own governance, our own future. Precisely because we've had enough of being seen as spongers, whiners, freeloaders. (And this is where you come back and pour scorn on the very idea that Scotland can do it, where you tell us that we'll be crawling back in a few years, once we're broke, etc, etc. ) |
|
17 Sep 14 - 12:07 PM (#3661243) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket Not sure of your point Scabby Douglas? Well, considering Salmond has told some corkers where I either know the facts by virtue of what I do or the facts are there for anybody to get their hands on, either my point stands or he is misinformed. Either is somewhat scary... Of course, the real culprit here is Cameron who was so cocksure nobody would vote yes, he agreed to a process that affects The UK without 90% of The UK getting a say in it. Pandora's box is well and truly open. I don't get to vote of course, but if it is a yes, I get to vote in the next general election where parties will be looking for mandates to negotiate, and I don't see much chance of anybody getting elected on a pro Scotland ticket any more than a pro Europe one. Listen to your man Salmond properly. He promises the benefits, then says he then has to negotiate said benefits with The UK. He has his excuses lined up ready. He sounds like the German finance minister who, when they were preparing for The Euro, said The UK will have to drop the pound and take on The Euro. Their denial is just political posturing... Saltire? Satire more like... |
|
17 Sep 14 - 02:29 PM (#3661282) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Howard Jones Go or stay, I don't think this has done Anglo-Scottish relations many favours. The case for independence seems to be, "we're not just distinct from you, we're different from you". The anti-English feeling which is never far below the surface has been evident. That's not a good basis for a future relationship, whether as neighbours or within the Union. I think there may be an English backlash which will make it harder for Scotland to get the terms it wants. |
|
17 Sep 14 - 02:43 PM (#3661287) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: akenaton You put the position very well Doug, we just want to take responsibility for our own affairs. The UK has been granting independence to ex colonies for years, time this particular "colony" stood up for its young people, who are the future of Scotland, not the wealthy pensioners, the crooked bankers, absentee landlords, or the pen pushers who turned our National Health Service into a business and almost destroyed it in the process. I have been out canvassing, and have spoken to hundreds of customers and locals.....I am amazed at the numbers who were unsure but are now moving to YES....I have yet to encounter one person who has moved from YES to NO. AS I said at the beginning, the final vote will be decided on gut instinct, National pride, and personal responsibility. "Freedom come all ye" Roch the wind in the clear day's dawin Blaws the cloods heelster-gowdie ow'r the bay, But there's mair nor a roch wind blawin Through the great glen o' the warld the day. It's a thocht that will gar oor rottans – A' they rogues that gang gallus, fresh and gay – Tak the road, and seek ither loanins For their ill ploys, tae sport and play Nae mair will the bonnie callants Mairch tae war when oor braggarts crousely craw, Nor wee weans frae pit-heid and clachan Mourn the ships sailin' doon the Broomielaw. Broken faimlies in lands we've herriet, Will curse Scotland the Brave nae mair, nae mair; Black and white, ane til ither mairriet, Mak the vile barracks o' their maisters bare. |
|
17 Sep 14 - 06:28 PM (#3661331) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: selby Whatever the result tomorrow its goodbye United Kingdom the union has been shattered by the attitude of the YES voters. Keith |
|
17 Sep 14 - 07:38 PM (#3661340) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: olddude if i may render a guess i think maybe Wales will be next what do you folks in the uk think |
|
18 Sep 14 - 03:59 AM (#3661417) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Stu The issue with Wales is one of economics and is very different to that of Scotland. independence would have to look quite different for Wales as the countries are so different, and Wales is much more closely tied to England in an economic sense. I think some sort of devo-max for Wales could work and I for one (having a Welsh parent) would love to see Wales stand up for herself more; she's a wonderful country with wonderful people and although her traditions are not as well-known the Scottish ones, they are deep and ancient. "time this particular "colony" stood up for its young people" Oh Lordy Ake, Scotland isn't and never has been a colony. It's a tad disrespectful to those countries that were colonies to include yourself alongside them as victims. The Scots were equal and eager partners in Empire and like it or not you were the coloniser alongside the English and Welsh, not the victim. |
|
18 Sep 14 - 04:10 AM (#3661420) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket Be fair Stu. They weren't very good at it when they tried it on their own in Central America. They needed to be part of something bigger in order to successfully colonise. Methinks Akenaton would do well to get someone to read out some Scottish history books to him. For someone so in love with a vision that doesn't exist, his lack of understanding of Scotland is breathtaking. |
|
18 Sep 14 - 06:38 AM (#3661455) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: gnu URGENT REFERENDUM UPDATE: Electoral Commission have decided that due to expect large turn out that they are splitting polling day over two... important that if you are voting Yes do so on Thursday 18th and if No voter go to polling stations on Friday 19th. Please spread as wide as possible to avoid delays. |
|
18 Sep 14 - 07:02 AM (#3661458) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST Why are you lying, gnu? |
|
18 Sep 14 - 07:14 AM (#3661460) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket Don't laugh. Polls suggest enough poor buggers up there are gullible enough to fall for it. |
|
18 Sep 14 - 07:52 AM (#3661469) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Ed T Robo-gnu? ;) |
|
18 Sep 14 - 08:46 AM (#3661483) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: The Sandman i think it will be a surprise yes vote about 52 per cent |
|
18 Sep 14 - 08:59 AM (#3661487) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Stu I hope so. |
|
18 Sep 14 - 09:06 AM (#3661490) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST Only residents will be able to vote in the referendum, however, expats and Scottish-Americans alike are discussing the issues on both sides. |
|
18 Sep 14 - 09:08 AM (#3661492) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: DMcG There is a nice little scenario if the Yes side wins. Suppose the Scotland does then join the EU, as the 'yes' side always claimed. But there is already a promise of an rUK vote for an EU in-or-out referendum in certain circumstances. What exactly happens if that occurs and rUK votes to leave, presumably leaving Scotland still in the EU. The ramifications are interesting ... |
|
18 Sep 14 - 11:00 AM (#3661517) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,Dazbo at Work Seems like the SNP have told the Shetlanders that they can't have a referendum to leave Scotland and become an independent crown colony. Seems like's what good for the gander isn't good for the goose - especially one that's got a huge oily egg. |
|
18 Sep 14 - 11:25 AM (#3661523) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: gnu So, when will we know (or start to know?) the outcome? Is it by paper or electronic ballot? When do the polls close? Will haggis be served? |
|
18 Sep 14 - 11:29 AM (#3661525) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: gnu BBC... "Votes will be cast at 5,579 polling stations until 22:00 on Thursday. The result is expected on Friday morning." |
|
18 Sep 14 - 12:28 PM (#3661539) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: skarpi I heard that Iceland is supporting Scotland independence :) Go Scotland say Yes .... Don´t listen to that Mr, Brown the Elite is afraid ....take change .. be independence . , Stop the Elite ..say YES ... all the best Skarpi Iceland . |
|
18 Sep 14 - 01:27 PM (#3661554) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket Hows the bank balance Mr Iceland? Remember when Salmond wanted to emulate your economy? |
|
18 Sep 14 - 02:42 PM (#3661579) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Thompson Scots' main reason for considering independence is that the regime in the UK in the last 20 or 30 years has been increasingly foreign to Scottish values. They don't like the growing distance between classes, the 'austerity' values, the lack of egalitarianism. If Scots vote to become an independent country, it is unlikely that any of the scenarios envisaged here will take place. * Currency: a country can peg its currency to any other currency it wishes, and trade it at that value. Ireland pegged its currency to the British pound for a long time, and then to the EMU and then the euro, before joining the euro. * EU membership: the EU would be only gumming to have Scotland - with a major chunk of the world's oil reserves, and rich fishing grounds, plus a vibrant financial service sector - as a member. * Non-EU: however, Scotland could make an alliance with countries like the similarly oil- and fish-rich Norway, which has thrived outside the EU, while for instance Ireland's once rich fishing grounds have been fished out to barrenness by being opened to all EU fishing vessels. (The EU's clumsy quota system means that fishermen throw back millions of tons of dead and dying fish into the sea because they're not acceptable within their catch quota. The EU's farm payments system has deformed farming and ruined small farmers, while chucking money and advantage at the ranchers who farm on an industrial scale. And the EU which was born with such noble promises that small and large countries would have equal advantage has become a Reich of bullying big countries.) |
|
18 Sep 14 - 02:54 PM (#3661583) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket Would that be the same Norway that complains that in order to trade, it is stuck with EU rules without influencing them or having a say? Would that be an independent Scotland that would be saddled with its share of the debt without said debt featuring in any SNP promises or forecasts? Would that be an independent Scotland so independent that it could not set its own interest rates? Would that be the same welcoming EU that includes Spain? What gets me is that when reality pops in for a sandwich, it is seen as part of a no campaign rather than a demonstration of the risks Salmond and his cronies has already subjected the whole of The Uk to purely to feed a nationalistic dream borne of bigotry and blaming others for the state of the country he has been governing for a while now. It'd be funny if it wasn't so potentially tragic. |
|
18 Sep 14 - 03:02 PM (#3661586) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Thompson Spain is likely to have its own questions to deal with as Catalonia moves towards independence. |
|
18 Sep 14 - 03:23 PM (#3661593) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Bonzo3legs If yes - I dare anyone to ask Dick Gaughan how he likes being a foreigner!!!!! |
|
18 Sep 14 - 03:41 PM (#3661597) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Jack Blandiver 300 years is one hell of step backwards! Here's what Neil Oliver has to say: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/11102155/Now-is-not-the-time-for-Scots-to-think-small.html |
|
18 Sep 14 - 07:59 PM (#3661657) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: robomatic I don't know anything about Neil Oliver, but I hope they listen to him. This should be a time of unions, not partitions. |
|
18 Sep 14 - 10:16 PM (#3661684) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Bill D As I head to bed, the early returns from The Hebrides and the Orkneys are all 'no'. Lots more to go, but they expected more yes votes. |
|
19 Sep 14 - 12:55 AM (#3661696) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: PHJim Sounds like the "Nos" have it, but Edinburgh's not in yet. |
|
19 Sep 14 - 01:15 AM (#3661698) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,Sol And finally, Fife says No. Alas, it appears the fat lady has stopped singing. |
|
19 Sep 14 - 02:03 AM (#3661700) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket 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. |
|
19 Sep 14 - 02:18 AM (#3661703) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,Sol I'll give credit where credit is due, Mr M. You are the best wind-up merchant on Mudcat. |
|
19 Sep 14 - 02:28 AM (#3661705) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket 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 😜 |
|
19 Sep 14 - 02:43 AM (#3661706) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,Rahere 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. |
|
19 Sep 14 - 02:56 AM (#3661709) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Backwoodsman 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. |
|
19 Sep 14 - 02:57 AM (#3661710) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: selby 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 |
|
19 Sep 14 - 02:59 AM (#3661711) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,Sol "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. |
|
19 Sep 14 - 03:06 AM (#3661712) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,Sol Eh???? The Residents of Scotland will have to work to gain your respect again? Aye right, pal. |
|
19 Sep 14 - 03:22 AM (#3661714) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,Sol 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. |
|
19 Sep 14 - 04:04 AM (#3661720) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Jack Blandiver Yay! |
|
19 Sep 14 - 04:10 AM (#3661724) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket 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. |
|
19 Sep 14 - 04:46 AM (#3661732) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Howard Jones 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. |
|
19 Sep 14 - 05:09 AM (#3661741) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,Rahere 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, |
|
19 Sep 14 - 05:34 AM (#3661746) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST 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. |
|
19 Sep 14 - 06:37 AM (#3661760) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Ed T 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. |
|
19 Sep 14 - 06:41 AM (#3661762) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Thompson Women and the rich voted against independence - these were the swing vote, while overwhelming yes votes were registered in poor areas. |
|
19 Sep 14 - 06:58 AM (#3661768) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,Dazbo at Work 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 :- ) |
|
19 Sep 14 - 07:03 AM (#3661769) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST 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. |
|
19 Sep 14 - 08:22 AM (#3661795) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,Dazbo at Work 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. |
|
19 Sep 14 - 08:23 AM (#3661796) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Ed T ""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. :) |
|
19 Sep 14 - 08:38 AM (#3661801) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Ed T 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. |
|
19 Sep 14 - 08:42 AM (#3661804) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket 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. 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧 |
|
19 Sep 14 - 09:33 AM (#3661821) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST 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. |
|
19 Sep 14 - 09:47 AM (#3661827) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,Rahere 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? |
|
19 Sep 14 - 10:07 AM (#3661833) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,sciencegeek 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...? |
|
19 Sep 14 - 10:31 AM (#3661836) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,Rahere 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. |
|
19 Sep 14 - 11:14 AM (#3661843) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,Rahere 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. |
|
19 Sep 14 - 11:17 AM (#3661846) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Mrrzy Apparently the cartoon is Mel Gibson in full Braveheart regalia, with the caption NEVER MIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINDDDDDDDDD! |
|
19 Sep 14 - 11:21 AM (#3661850) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST 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. |
|
19 Sep 14 - 11:23 AM (#3661852) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,gutcher 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 |
|
19 Sep 14 - 11:49 AM (#3661866) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Backwoodsman Bloody hell, she's done it again! |
|
19 Sep 14 - 11:54 AM (#3661868) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,Ed What, roughly, were you trying you say Backwoodsman? (in words that 'she' won't find offensive) |
|
19 Sep 14 - 12:06 PM (#3661873) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket 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... 🏡 |
|
19 Sep 14 - 12:53 PM (#3661896) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: The Sandman "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. |
|
19 Sep 14 - 01:02 PM (#3661900) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,gutcher 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. |
|
19 Sep 14 - 01:18 PM (#3661908) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,Rahere 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. |
|
19 Sep 14 - 01:58 PM (#3661923) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Thompson 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. |
|
19 Sep 14 - 03:18 PM (#3661948) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket 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. |
|
19 Sep 14 - 05:21 PM (#3661992) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: akenaton 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. |
|
19 Sep 14 - 05:46 PM (#3662000) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Ed T ""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). ;) |
|
19 Sep 14 - 05:47 PM (#3662001) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Ed T ""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). ;) |
|
19 Sep 14 - 06:23 PM (#3662007) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,Troubadour 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! |
|
19 Sep 14 - 07:03 PM (#3662019) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,Rahere 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... |
|
20 Sep 14 - 03:13 AM (#3662076) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket 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.) |
|
20 Sep 14 - 03:31 AM (#3662080) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,achmelvich 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. |
|
20 Sep 14 - 05:00 AM (#3662090) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,achmelvich 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. |
|
20 Sep 14 - 05:19 AM (#3662093) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Thompson This report by British newspaper The Independent sounds as if the Unionists were out for trouble. |
|
20 Sep 14 - 05:23 AM (#3662096) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket 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. |
|
20 Sep 14 - 06:40 AM (#3662111) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,MikeL2 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 |
|
20 Sep 14 - 07:55 AM (#3662120) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket 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. |
|
20 Sep 14 - 07:56 AM (#3662121) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,gutcher Some time between 6.30pm and 8.30pm yesterday evening a Sky News reporter showing pictures of GEORGE SQUARE, GLASGOW. stated the following:---"At 6pm this evening 2000 loyal unionist supporters entered George Square from the West side and proceded to harass and itimidate anyone wearing a yes badge or saltire, they have now {sorry I cannot give you an exact time as I do not own a watch and have no clock in this area] cleared all these people through rhe South East corner of the square in full view of the police who are here in not incosiderable numbers." All you clever chaps who post here can no doubt retrieve this report on your gadgets and check the veracity of my report. PS--One other reporter stated that the unionist mob were predominantly orange lodge members and that they, the press, had prior warning that this organized display of naked agression would take place no matter what the outcome of the vote. PPS-- How did the reporters know they were all loyal unionest supporters? The were certainly dressed for the part and as mentioned above prior notice seems to have been given to the press. |
|
20 Sep 14 - 08:11 AM (#3662126) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Thompson According to a Channel 4 reporter, Alex, Thomas, quoted in The Independent, people were chanting "Rule Britannia" and "God Save the Queen", while making Nazi-style salutes. These would presumably be in favour of a No vote. I haven't seen any Orange sashes in pictures of the riots, not that I've looked at many. |
|
20 Sep 14 - 08:37 AM (#3662131) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: akenaton Sectarianism is a curse in Scotland, it is cynically used by UK politicians.....it is a huge power block, and when allied to selfish wealthy pensioners, English "carpetbaggers" etc, our young people have NO chance. Salmond was a giant amongst pygmies, we have no one left with the guts to challenge the status quo....I don't blame him for finally throwing in the towel, those who did best out of the SNP Scottish government have voted against him and FOR their selfish interests. What now for Scotland? Twenty years of UKIP TORY coalition government ....and the punishment!! There are no votes here for the government which will be elected.....our weapons have been spiked by those who voted NO......We have no viable leader. Get ready to suffer......or get ready to resist! |
|
20 Sep 14 - 10:17 AM (#3662139) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,gutcher A contact in the newspaper industry informs me that the TV reports of extreme unionist groups attempts to stir up riots in Glasgow are confirmed by a two page article in the Sun newspaper. He also tells me that the authorities are trying to keep an attempt by these vile people to set fire to the Herald newspaper building under raps. The Sunday Herald being the only paper to have openly supported the YES side. The Scotsman Newspaper is of course owned by those friends of the people the Barclay brothers. |
|
20 Sep 14 - 11:24 AM (#3662157) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,Stim Find it entertaining that there have been concurrent independence movements in Caledonia and Catalonia. |
|
20 Sep 14 - 11:46 AM (#3662163) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Ed T Interesting interviews, that may be related to the OP: Interestingly, the Canadian Prime Minister during the Quebec independence vote says he was consulted on his experience prior to the Scottish vote. The former Priemier of Quebec, (following the Quebec vote to remain in Canada) also provides his post vote experience. He predicts another Scottish vote within 10 years. He indicates that after the Quebec vote, the separatists refered to those who saw things differently as scared of tge consequences or did not understanding the vote itself. There was also attempts to the say that the other side used dirty tricks to scare the voters into remaining in the union. Oddly, he says those wishing to remain now say "fuck off, separatists, we undederstood what we voted for, we are nit stupid, were not scared of any threats- and, we want to remain in the union and merely see things differently than the separatists do". On The post Quebec vote |
|
20 Sep 14 - 01:18 PM (#3662190) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,gutcher Ed T. In this case, from what has been taking place so far, it is the winners who are trying to stir up riots etc. for their own ends. These people never got over the fact that when in recent years they staged riots in the South East of England and other parts of that land their efforts to export these to these parts were treated with the contempt they deserved, they should have learned the lesson given to the English football hooligans shown them by the good conduct of their Scottish neighbours who in foreign parts made a coscious effort to be good ambassadors for their country. |
|
20 Sep 14 - 01:35 PM (#3662194) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Backwoodsman "In this case, from what has been taking place so far, it is the winners who are trying to stir up riots etc. for their own ends." No. It is an extremely tiny number of mindless thugs using the result of the Referendum as an excuse to indulge their thuggery. The vast majority of 'No' voters want no part in it. |
|
20 Sep 14 - 02:54 PM (#3662219) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,MikeL2 Hi Guest Gutcher <" good conduct of their Scottish neighbours who in foreign parts made a coscious effort to be good ambassadors for their country."> Maybe recently in foreign countries but here in England we have witnessed mindless violence. I live near Manchester and remember the hooligans that ran riot in the City in 2008. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_UEFA_Cup_Final_riots. No doubt many of these voted YES on Thursday. Cheers MikeL2 |
|
20 Sep 14 - 03:10 PM (#3662227) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,Sol "No doubt many of these voted YES on Thursday." I sincerely hope you are being sarcastic, MikeL2. If not, (and I assume you are referring to Rangers riotous visit to Manchester),you are totally oblivious to the well-documented referendum leanings of their support. |
|
20 Sep 14 - 03:10 PM (#3662228) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket Akenaton just said "get ready to resist." Obviously the will of the Scottish people isn't to his liking. He could always leave of course if Scotland and Scottish values aren't good enough for him. He would just get in the way of those living there and those of us investing in Scotland. Resist? Enough criminals roaming around Glasgow without him pretending to join in. This is what SNP caused. I hope the divided society they encourage is to their pathetic liking. Luckily the violence is playing to the crowd by thugs with nationalistic ideas for excuses for violence on both sides. By Monday the press egging them on will have found a better story for the pack to follow. People wanting a better society will be starting to see how it will work out by Monday now this silly independence distraction is out of the way. |
|
20 Sep 14 - 03:39 PM (#3662239) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Ed T Gutcher, I dont think Quebec's Cherest was refering to the few radicals/troublemakers on either sude. What he refered to was the political movement. His experience (from what I gathered) was that the Quebec separatists viewed a close loss as a win, choosing to look down on the intelligence of those who wanted to continue to be part of a union, and seeing all those voting for separation as intelligent, (and knowing what they voted for). While this is an odd and unreasonable viewpoint-sometimes followers on the extreme edge of a movement have extreme tunnel vision. |
|
20 Sep 14 - 03:42 PM (#3662241) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,gutcher How right you are Sol. One has only to check out the bedfellows of RFC---the LOL who certainly were involved in the disgracefull scenes in Glasgow on Friday evening. All news programs on TV with the exception of the BBC made it clear who were the aggresors, the BBC showed pictures on their site which were taken from their archives of the riots in the South, these show policemen in body armour, no Scottish policeman was equiped with body armour at this incident. Check out the many images recorded by other outlets. |
|
20 Sep 14 - 07:42 PM (#3662294) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket That's on a level with moon landings in Arizona and Prince Philip arranging Di's car crash. As I said. The Scottish people voted no by a clear majority so stop linking them with one half of a few thugs putting on a sealed knot style punch up for the cameras and linking it to a conspiracy. Sounds like a normal night in Glasgow but without the sectarian excuse for once. |
|
21 Sep 14 - 08:30 AM (#3662395) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,MikeL2 Hi Gutcher <" I sincerely hope you are being sarcastic, MikeL2."> No I was not being sarcastic. I was there on that terrible night and saw for myself the trouble both before, during and after the fans were repulsed by the police. I cannot believe that the hundreds I saw involved have now completely changed character. Cheers MikeL2 |
|
21 Sep 14 - 11:34 AM (#3662416) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,gutcher The events recorded on Friday evening in Glasgow show just who are the real and vile "nationalists" The press and media cover since then, with the exception of our beloved BBC, always keeping in mind that no section of the media were in favour of a yes vote, have come out strongly with the facts that a well organized gang of thugs numbering up to 2000 with prominent union and other insignia proclaiming them to be of the NO persuation proceded to terrorised and intimidate a small[ in relation to their numbers] number of mainly young people who had been in the square for some time having a peaceful singaround. This gives us a glimpse of the damage to our national reputation by organisations whose proclaimed loyalties are shared by only a small part of our population. Indeed I understand that the supporters of Glasgow Rangers Football Club are known colloqually as "huns" this showing the average Scotsmans contempt for them. My journalist friend informs me that the TV company Al Jazeera in showing these images of union jack wrapped thugs to the world implied that the imperial/colonial mindset still prevails in this country. Sneer as much as you like but a prayer to whatever gods you believe in would not go amiss as the ticking timebomb, especially in the Southern part of this Island, may at any time be ignited. |
|
21 Sep 14 - 02:15 PM (#3662433) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket If you think any of the violence is pro anything you obviously think at the same level as the thugs and yobbos. Not to mention it takes two to tango. Meanwhile Salmond shows his true colours by lying about Westminster commitments before parliament has even debated. If anybody is wanting violence it is the traitor who can't get what he wants from the ballot box so stirs up trouble instead. You don't have any mates at any TV station so stop showing off and pretending you are impressive. Most here are intelligent. You aren't in the pub now you know. Scotland has spoken. Move on |
|
21 Sep 14 - 03:28 PM (#3662442) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,achmelvich i'm sure there is no real political link between the people causing trouble the other night and any of the mainstream political parties - other than far-right / fascist groups of course. i hope that when the government fail to deliver on their promises made to secure a 'no' vote that the 'yes' group will prove to be far from defeated. it just takes some of us (and particularly us english) a bit longer than others to understand the true nature of the establishment beast. they are just incapable of delivering any kind of 'Vow' to make things better for any but their own friends. i'm greatly encouraged by the enthusiastic atmosphere of my most recent trip to glasgow - we can all do better than what we have become used to - stay hopeful, comrades! |
|
21 Sep 14 - 05:27 PM (#3662459) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: akenaton Cant agree with you there Achmelvich, to link between sectarianism and Unionism was always going to be an impediment to independence. I've lived on the West coast all my life, and there are many of the older generation who were been brought up on sectarianism. The UK parties used it shamelessly in local politics. I have been talking to people who were in George Square and who were attacked by thousands of Unionist thugs, including a couple of hundred EDL supporters from England. Compared to the optimism and positivity of the pro independence young folks, Unionism has a really nasty stink and the youth of Scotland didn't like it Alex Salmond is right to protest the tactics of the NO campaign, making promises which they have no intention of fulfilling. There was never any way that the other countries would countenance more powers for Scotland, so now Cameron is trying to link Powers for Scotland, to powers for the regions......lying arseholes. I have no doubt the lies fooled many into voting NO. Interesting talk in political circles of Scotland going for UDI if the UK leaves the EU.....or does not follow up on its promise of "Devo-max" |
|
21 Sep 14 - 08:38 PM (#3662481) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,Rahere What did amuse me was Salmond quoting from Scott's Bonnie Dundee as his future course. You can just see him on a warhorse galloping out of the West Gate on the way to the Airport... That's the problem with quoting from the Victorian romantics, they miss some important bits out - like John Graham being not just the first Jacobite leader, but also and foremost a firm and unbudging Tory. The song refers to an incident of 18th March 1689, which was soon followed by letters from him protesting that he was living peaceably at home and not in revolt. The rest of Claverhouse' tale was being chased around Scotland until he was able to face the Orange troops at Killiekrankie, where he met his end, within the year. So if that's Salmond's expectations, well then, Cameron will be well satisfied, I would think. |
|
22 Sep 14 - 02:11 AM (#3662504) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Teribus Akenaton - "Get ready to resist" Akenaton - "Scotland going for UDI if the UK leaves the EU" So much for your respect for the democratically demonstrated voice of the electorate of Scotland Ake - remember the ones who voted and who you said on this thread you'd listen to and abide by their decision? - They voted NO to independence - live with it. Scotland settles it's differences quietly and peacefully - there are some here who would apparently love to fan the flames and see things played out as they are elsewhere with terrorist attacks and bombs - ain't going to happen. |
|
22 Sep 14 - 02:46 AM (#3662509) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket The true voice of a nation is, by definition the majority of those living in it. The United Kingdom owns the Saltaire, some of our less savoury contributors seem to have replaced it with satire. Two million unionist thugs eh? Ooh dearie me. They'll have you wearing a tartan star on your coat next eh? |
|
22 Sep 14 - 03:09 AM (#3662513) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: akenaton Come on Teribus, who said any thing about flames and bombs? There are many quiet and peaceful ways of "resisting". I am sure you agree that the promise of what amounts to devo-max, influenced many to vote NO late in the day......If Cameron is about to backtrack on this promise, it could bring the way the result was achieved into dispute. I am personally against membership of the present EU, and don't think it coincides with real independence, but if the UK decides to leave next year, against the wishes of the majority of Scottish voters, that would certainly open up constitutional problems. Regarding Unionist thugs, there is a layer of "Unionism" in Scotland which is extremely unhealthy.....The Queen and the "flag" have always been the insignia of a large anti Catholic, Unionist minority. There is where you must look for your "flames and bombs" Mr T....and I will be right beside you to stamp them out. |
|
22 Sep 14 - 03:45 AM (#3662520) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket If a clear majority of The UK votes anything, there is nothing constitutionally difficult. Scotland has made it perfectly clear that it is a brick in the UK wall. That said, the clear message that small is not the way forward will possibly send a message in itself to the eurosceptics. I sincerely hope so. Just the possibility of the few counties in the extreme north of our country buggering off caused markets to fall so the thought of leaving our major trading partners could do irreparable harm. Scotland has always had a sectarian undertone in some areas and this is being replaced temporarily by Salmond's diversion. I just hope he is proud. He has already showed himself to be a sore loser. |
|
22 Sep 14 - 04:35 AM (#3662531) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,Patrick This is only a delay on the road to Independence, taking a similar route to devolution., one mighty step forward, waiting for Westminster to default and then surging onwards. By 2020 Scotland will be independent, if not sooner. |
|
22 Sep 14 - 05:31 AM (#3662545) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Tattie Bogle There are absolutely NO statistics to prove that the late promises, or "The Vow" persuaded people to vote No. Many who voted either way made their minds up months in advance of the polling date, and had posted their votes well before all the events of the final week, so could not be influenced by all that rhetoric. I think it was approx 20% of voters had a postal vote. Sure, there was a poll (a sample, who's to say if it was representative?) showing a largish percentage of people were still undecided only a week or so before the vote. But there is still NO sound statistical proof that the activities of Cameron, Darling and Brown drove people into the No camp: one could equally argue that it was their activities, or the later speeches of Salmond and Sturgeon persuaded people to vote Yes.......or it might just have been down to whoever had the best sales pitch at the polling station. ("Every time Cameron opens his mouth, it's another yes vote" was a popular belief"!) The whole campaign has been beset by false claims on both sides, and these now continue in the aftermath. And now they have the cheek to blame the over-65s No voters: we ALL have loose screws, lost marbles, advancing dementia, according to some sources. It has been a wake-up call for Westminster, so let's keep up the pressure for change. And let's not lose friends over it. |
|
22 Sep 14 - 05:34 AM (#3662546) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Keith A of Hertford "Huns" is an abusive sectarian term for Protestants, originating in Northern Ireland. |
|
22 Sep 14 - 05:45 AM (#3662547) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,Rahere Ah, but that was always the Scots way, not giving a tinker's toss about anyone else. Put all your egocentrics in one basket and what do you get? This refusal to cooperate or collaborate was the essence of Culloden, and they've not moved on significantly since. It was the essence of the Yes case, presuming that RUK would give them everything they wanted (currency, pensions, NHS, you name it) just because they were so charming, believing in the Victorian myth. What Vickie was responsible for in her excessive romanticism, all the Germanic Christmas guff and Scottish Hogmanay BS. The thing I most resent the Yes bunch for is that we still have no excuse for getting rid of the JH Hootnanny at the end of the year - the rest can keep, I'd still vote Yes if we were given the same voice in the South. The pipes are fine instruments, but not in that context. What did the Scots do before 1788, when Burns wrote that bloody poem? They spend the year knocking the shit out of each other and suddenly some twat stuffs something mawkish and false down everyone's throats suggesting we love each other after all. It's about the same time as the GHB appears on the scene - what were they thinking of? The 1746 Dress Act banning the wearing of highland dress and tartan had been repealed in 1782, and perhaps Burns was trying to appeal to the Jacobite spirit - in which case, stop trying to ram treason down English throats more than 350 years after we discovered the Union was il-advised. The Stuarts took a bare 40 years to make themselves and their Scotish brethren unwelcome at the start of the 17th Century, and are still playing the same con games 400 years later. This surely was the reason the English weren't allowed a vote either - we'd probably have voted far more heavily to separate, according to the figures we now see. When the only reason to stay together is a fiction, then it's a sad state of affairs. This is of course the problem Cameron and company have just discovered, the wheels just fell off the fabulation, England wants fair treatment. This time, I think UKIP just might be able to break through: the essence of the problem was generated by NuLab, acting without a sense of consequences, and Cameron has just scored zero for picking up the pieces afterwards. |
|
22 Sep 14 - 06:04 AM (#3662554) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket A delay? Force the Scottish people into something they rejected? And here was me thinking we were debating with people who cared for Scotland and cared for its people, however misguided or ignorant they are... You can't beat democracy. In fact quite a few British men fought and died to save Europe from attitudes such as yours and Akenaton's, thinking you know what is best for people. Akenaton even has his list of his idea of untermensch. Mainly gays, gypsies, liberals... Listen to yourselves. If the Scottish people were as thick as you assumed they were, you would have said everybody has to respect the vote. Respect it, and ask yourself why, instead of blaming Westminster for everything, many of the issues SNP raised have been in their power to address for a long time now. The Scottish parliament, not Westminster has made the situation idiots blame others for.. |
|
22 Sep 14 - 06:23 AM (#3662564) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket Tattie Bogle has perhaps posted the best response I have seen yet, a few posts above. Thank you sir. |
|
22 Sep 14 - 07:00 AM (#3662578) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Teribus Devo-max as it is worked out and delivered brings with it it's own set of responsibilities Ake. Once these "additional powers" are doled out then it will be incumbent upon those third-rate wasters who sit in the Scottish Parliament to use them - the one thing they will not be able to do (As Jowly Eck & Co have done since 2007) is to sit back and heap all blame on "Westminster". To sort out problems in Scotland under these "additional powers" the party in Government may find itself having to face reality and actually order the cutting of services and increasing taxes which may make them unpopular - but there again Akenaton governing a country has never been about popularity it has always been about doing the right thing for the country as a whole - a thing modern day "professional politicians" seem increasingly incapable of doing - all they care about is getting elected and staying in power - and that does require "popularity" - doesn't do the country any good though. The UDI thing is typical Alex Salmond bluster, poorly thought out, baseless, twaddle. The whole of the electorate of the British Isles will vote in the Referendum on the EU and believe me those wishing to escape the clutches of rule by the selected Commissioners of the EU, will not make the same mistakes that Salmond, Sturgeon, the SNP and the YES-Campaign made - they will do their homework and they will have detailed answers worked out to all the difficult questions their representative will asked. |
|
22 Sep 14 - 07:08 AM (#3662581) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Ed T IMO, minimizing the meaning a democratic vote falls under the heading of "sore loser". If one were to make a claim that a percentage of those voting "no" did not know what they doing, it is just as reasonable to assume that a similar number on the "yes" voted similarly. So, excluding both groups from the final results leaves one with the same majority vote of intelligent folks voting for the no side, for whatever reason was important to them. |
|
22 Sep 14 - 08:18 AM (#3662599) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: akenaton Fine thoughtful response Mr T. Personal responsibility will be one of the positives to come with independence. Nae feer eh you and me bein' enemies Tattie, nae maiter how ye vote. Too much watter unner the bridge.....eh? :0) |
|
22 Sep 14 - 08:44 AM (#3662608) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Ed T ""Personal responsibility" comes from a broad spectrum of sources and outcomes. Some folks work hard to maintain an illusion that they are immersed in such (and few others are). Combined with compassion, together they provide good building blocks for respecting others, including their perspectives, aspirations and life choices-whether they be similar or otherwise. Children have narrow vision, which is replaced with a broader viewpoints as they mature. Where it doesn't provides furtile ground for anger, bitterness and intolerance -sometimes towards others who do not see things (and life choices) as they do, or choose lifestyles as they have. |
|
22 Sep 14 - 09:18 AM (#3662620) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket What's all this about personal responsibility will come with independence? Get someone to read a newspaper to you. Scotland wishes to remain an important section of The United Kingdom. Personal responsibility has been displayed in the decisive group responsibility in deciding economic and social stability has more to offer than some Mel Gibson charactature after too many cans of Special Brew. So far as predictions go, I appear to have backed the right horse. No surprise there. I invest in Scotland as much for level headed pragmatism of business dealings there as I do for a kilt fetish. |
|
22 Sep 14 - 11:40 AM (#3662673) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,gutcher |
|
22 Sep 14 - 12:20 PM (#3662685) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,Rahere Ah, but it wasn't a democratic vote. I'm in England and nobody asked me to vote on something affecting me, contrary to Article 41.2 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. There are Scots all over the world who didn't get a vote, whereas I am told illegal immigrants north on the border did. The current proposals on the table about the English devolution right is equally unprincipled, insofar as the English MPs draft the Law but the Scottish ones still get to vote on it. See the discrepancy? Scotland still gets it both ways, England doesn't vote on kicking them out but they get to vote on our autonomy. How offensive is that? |
|
22 Sep 14 - 01:01 PM (#3662716) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,gutcher Greetings all As one who is not thirled to a computer keyboard please excuse the delay in replying to our sneering poster. He makes the claim that most of the people on this forum are intelligent and then proceeds to spout a parcel of lies thus insulting that intelligence. I would normally treat his posts with the contempt they deserve, however in the interests of trueth his post of 21.9.14 at 2.15pm requires an answer. At no point did I claim my journalist friend was a TV reporter although he has appeared on that medium, his various degrees include a 1st from Oxford. As an Ulsterman living in Scotland he has supported the No side in this referendum so any information emminating from him can be treated as correct. If I did not know the mindset of the poster from the tenor of his posts I could give at least three Edinburgh University Academics and one American Professor as guarantors for my verasity. Again he claims I have gleaned my information in a "Pub". This will of course cause some amusement to those who know me as I am a complete teetotalier and could count on the fingers of one hand the number of times that I have been in a "Pub" during the past two years, these visits have been for musical purposes only. Need I continue, this sneering, bullyboy, boastfull character should be treated with nothing but contempt. |
|
22 Sep 14 - 01:12 PM (#3662719) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket Amazing how conspiracy theorists try to claim some moral high ground and then reel off credentials... You flatter yourself. I started with your absurd conspiracy theory then went on to generalise. If you know any chair at Edinburgh, possibly an aquaintence if they get anywhere near the medical school. I give three lectures a year there myself, plus one at each of the local Royal Colleges. So, what have we learned? Err.. Fuck all actually. 💤 |
|
22 Sep 14 - 02:28 PM (#3662748) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,MikeL2 Hi Guest Gutcher <" I could give at least three Edinburgh University Academics and one American Professor as guarantors for my verasity."> Great - don't you think it's great that someone who has such academic claims but can't spell the word veracity?? You've got to admit even if it is a typo it is still amusing. Cheers MikeL2 |
|
22 Sep 14 - 02:32 PM (#3662749) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,Sol There are a couple of serial posters on this thread who are no more than petty, pompous agitators. I'm out. |
|
22 Sep 14 - 04:13 PM (#3662777) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket I thought you were going to say "I'm one." |
|
23 Sep 14 - 03:07 AM (#3662852) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,achmelvich yes, musket, i'm fairly sure he was saying you are one (of them) |
|
23 Sep 14 - 03:17 AM (#3662854) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket The problem is, you can't have Mel Gibson have the last word on account of the fact the good people of Scotland have made it clear they are British and wish to remain so. Serial poster? Sounds like someone complaining when bullshit is confronted. Perhaps our little people who don't like democracy can shut up, then this thread can slink into obscurity along with the wistful dreams of a charismatic dangerous fool. 🇬🇧 |
|
23 Sep 14 - 03:43 AM (#3662860) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: akenaton The "dream", is no longer a dream. SNP membership had doubled by over 20,000 since 18th of September. The genie is out of the bottle, our young folk are incensed by the lies of Westminster and the hypocrisy of so called socialists and conservative parties banding together to subjugate one small country and deny it self determination. Its only a matter of time now......Mr Salmond will not be leaving the stage, he will make mincemeat of the dithering liars and further boost SNP power in the next election. This is one issue which will never "go away", no matter how much you would like it to, Ian. However I suppose you worry about your property portfolio from down in the South? :0) |
|
23 Sep 14 - 03:57 AM (#3662864) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Teribus "Mr Salmond {wistful dreamer & erstwhile charismatic dangerous fool.} remarked that the referendum was a triumph for the democratic process and participation in politics, calling 'on all of Scotland to follow suit in accepting the democratic verdict of the people of Scotland.' The First Minister finished his speech saying: 'We shall go forward as one nation" That was on Friday the 19th September Before the week-end was over this complete and utter waste of space was muttering about Scotland declaring UDI - God this man Salmond is a national embarrassment. |
|
23 Sep 14 - 05:31 AM (#3662878) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket Presumably they will change the name of their party soon. Scotland rejected nationalism quite emphatically. As I said. The day to day running of the country, if they weren't so incompetent at it is commendable. SNP are a liberal, inclusive, equality focused party who mean well for all. Even Salmond, for all his misty eyed history inspired nonsense has been a champion of minorities, pushed through legislation that puts all residents on an equal footing and was comfortable with being portrayed as a liberal. My holiday lets.. Funny you should mention them. A surge in bookings since Friday. Seriously. From Easter to October next year, seven cottages have no free weeks at all. For the twelve months to end September 2015, I had 42% occupancy overall this time last week, and over the weekend and yesterday, that has risen to 69% overall. I need to book a couple of weeks in Kingussie quick before they are all taken. No. I don't worry about my property portfolio. Holiday lets and student digs only in Scotland. Two markets that will never do too badly. I notice one of the holiday cottage agencies they are registered with has emailed past customers in The Netherlands saying the result means they can book their next holiday with confidence. I thought that was rather funny.. |
|
23 Sep 14 - 07:11 AM (#3662924) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: akenaton SNP membership is now standing at almost 45,000 just higher than Liberal membership figures for the whole of the UK!! More than doubling in under one week......I reckon the penny has dropped, don't you ? |
|
23 Sep 14 - 08:02 AM (#3662944) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Howard Jones Although I will be sorry to see it happen, I do think that independence will eventually come. The biggest problem with this referendum was, to use use the marriage metaphor, one partner walking out of the door with nowhere to go. It was the uncertainty, coupled with Salmond's whitewashing of the crucial political and practical difficulties, that I think persuaded many to vote with the head, perhaps even if the heart said otherwise. If a Scottish government could gain an irresistible mandate to negotiate independence then I think it would have to happen. The difficulties would have to be negotiated and thrashed out, and only then presented in a referendum so that people would know what they were actually voting for. Only in those circumstances do I think that independence might be obtained, and have a chance of working. |
|
23 Sep 14 - 08:16 AM (#3662950) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,gutcher Mikel 2. I made no claim to any academic prowess. The people mentioned are all personal friends two of whom I visit at their homes, my friend the American Professor being an exception he visiting my home on his annual visits to these parts. If a spelling mistake of one letter is the best you can come up with you are easily amused and pretty shallow forbye. To get back to that snivelling worm the pathological liar, take his post of 22.9.01.12. "Amazing how conspiracy theorists try to claim some moral high ground and then reel of credentials" In this thread I have pointed out that all the media, written and broadcast, with the exception of the BBC, clearly showed and stated who were the thugs, wrapped in the union flag in George Square, does this constitute a conspiracy theory, I think not and am sure that all who read and viewed these reports will agree with me. PS--I understand that a spelling check is available on this machine. As one whose first language is not English, how do I access this function. |
|
23 Sep 14 - 08:21 AM (#3662951) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket I suppose Stalin sat wondering if democracy helped him work out what is good for people before dismissing it as not giving him the answers. Whilst the disillusioned idiots here carry on thinking people don't know what's good for them, the population of Scotland is waiting to see how the future holds now their status as part of The UK is confirmed. As Salmond says Scotland is so rich, I look forward to the rest of us sharing the riches. However, the reality being different, I suppose more of my taxes will drift North. |
|
23 Sep 14 - 08:24 AM (#3662952) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Ed T ""Nothing is inevitable in politics"" Michael Ignatieff |
|
23 Sep 14 - 08:32 AM (#3662956) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Teribus "If a Scottish government could gain an irresistible mandate to negotiate independence then I think it would have to happen." - Howard Jones Now what would in your mind constitute "an irresistible mandate" - like winning an election on their flagship policy of "An Independent Scotland" - If so they got that in the 2011 Scottish Parliamentary Elections the only trouble with that is that less than 45% of the electorate turned out to vote so that the SNP Government was elected by less than 21% of the electorate - In 2011 more of the people who turned out to vote voted to keep the SNP out than voted to get the SNP in - so hardly what anyone could describe as having "an irresistible mandate" Future attempts at destroying the United Kingdom of Great britain and Northern Ireland should meet the criteria that the people of any one of the constituent countries must vote in a referendum to establish whether or not THEY want a referendum IT SHOULD NOT BE LEFT TO THE AGENDA OF A SINGLE POLITICAL PARTY. Population of Scotland 5.3 million, electorate of Scotland ~4 million v SNP voters ~0.9 million, SNP members 45,000 Here Howard is the voice of the electorate of Scotland on independence as of 18th September 2014: 2,001,926 voted NO to independence 1,617,989 voted YES to independence |
|
23 Sep 14 - 10:04 AM (#3662989) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,gutcher Cognizance must be made of the fact that the voting system set up for election to the Scottish Parliament was meant to ensure that no party could have an overall majority in that Assembly. Scottish Labour, if there be such a beast, have never recovered from their defeat in the 2011 election and the events of last week when five areas,at the very heart of their support, voted YES must be giving them much to think about at their current conference. These five areas contain some of the worst areas of deprivation in Europe. this despite some of them having been controlled by Labour Councils for over Seventy Years. |
|
23 Sep 14 - 10:30 AM (#3662997) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Howard Jones Teribus, I agree the result of this referundum was convincing. On the other hand 45% of Scots wanted to leave, and it appears at least some of the No voters will have to be bribed to remain. At best, the vote to stay in the Union was conditional. I think the time may come when there is a clear majority support for independence. I don't have a particular figure in mind, although in some countries a 2/3 majority is required for changes to the constitution. However if there were a convincing majority in favour I don't see how the UK government could ignore it. In those circumstances it would be better to negotiate first and then vote on the outcome. |
|
23 Sep 14 - 02:15 PM (#3663073) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Ed T ""I think the time may come when there is a clear majority support for independence"" Possibly, given time, Scotland may be like Quebec-where the topic of separation never goes away, but support has deminished over time? (Though, it could resurface again, under a different climate). In Quebec, where the population mostly speaks a different language than the rest of Canada, separation from Canada is now estimated to be at an all time low (over 44 years) -below 40 percent. This number is down from the 49.4 percent vote for separation in the 1995 referendum. The reason, according to most who do attitude surveys on the topic, is "sovereigntists are getting older and dying, or giving up on splitting from therest of Canada. There is low renewed support for sovereignty to replace them among the younger generation, who currently focus more on economic issues, versus the language, culture and constitutional issues that turned many strongly towards separation many years ago. Could the situation evolve differently in Scotland? Well, yes-especially if the central UK government does not heed the recent messages given by the Scottish citizens. |
|
23 Sep 14 - 02:32 PM (#3663083) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,MikeL2 Hi Guest Gutcher I did not mean my comment about the spelling mistake to be taken seriously. It was meant to be a friendly joke. I am sorry that you did not take it that way. Cheers MikeL2 |
|
23 Sep 14 - 02:42 PM (#3663087) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket I think from his comments over credentials of other people, he is slightly unhinged anyway. Incidentally, the areas he speaks of are also controlled by the parliament in Edinburgh. Perhaps he might ask his clever friends what that means. Scotland is part of The UK. Currency is safe, jobs in defence, oil and banking are safe so the parliament in Scotland can now concentrate on providing a sustainable future for its people, using the devolved powers they have. Some of which they don't use, preferring to blame others for situations within their power to address. |
|
23 Sep 14 - 03:43 PM (#3663106) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Q (Frank Staplin) A Scottish neighbor (he came over long ago) said that the Scots have become too "Britified" to vote for independence. As a Canadian, I shouldn't comment, but the vote seems to have supported his view. |
|
23 Sep 14 - 03:48 PM (#3663111) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,gutcher Apology accepted Mikel 2 Have become so used to lies and rat like squirmings from an obvious source that I may have been inclined to take a jaundiced view of other posts appearing to uphold his reprehensible conduct. |
|
23 Sep 14 - 03:55 PM (#3663115) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: selby Was it not agreed by Alex Salmond and David Cameron that the referendum was a straight majority even if that figure was one. Each thought he could win with this deal and it went to the wire. So why does no one from the Yes camp want to build a better Scotland? Why does no one from the yes camp feel pleased that they have given their English Welsh and N Irish brothers hope? What does the yes camp continue to behave like petulant children rather than Adults with a brighter future than at the moment the rest of the UK Keith |
|
23 Sep 14 - 05:11 PM (#3663129) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket Even when they rattle on about Salmond's "reprehensible conduct" they confuse him with those of us who understand and respect the Scottish people and their democratic wish. |
|
24 Sep 14 - 04:47 AM (#3663233) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Teribus "and it appears at least some of the No voters will have to be bribed to remain" What is your basis for that assumption? The vast majority of those who voted NO had you asked them the instant the referendum question came up would have told you that they: A: Never wanted a referendum in the first place B: Fully intended to Vote NO |
|
24 Sep 14 - 05:04 AM (#3663236) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Howard Jones All the UK parties had to pile in with promises of further devolution and the 'No' camp is insisting that they keep these, no less than the Yes side are. Teribus, I don't question that many No voters had already made up their minds, nevertheless these promises do seem to have swayed some. Would the Nos have won so convincingly without these promises? Scotland's vote to remain appears to be conditional. |
|
24 Sep 14 - 05:12 AM (#3663237) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Johnny J Just last week, Yes campaigners were extremely jubilant and boasting that victory was in sight. They "poo pooed" the so called scare stories of the No campaign and the late hour offer of extra powers saying then that it would have no benefit for their opponents and actually drive even more people over to the Yes side. Now that they have lost, they are now blaming the No side for scaremongering and attempting to bribe the electorate. This "wot swung it" they bleat but they didn't say this would be the case the week before and the negative campaigning by Better Together was always stated to be one of the reasons why Yes support was so high. Now, we're expected to swallow the notion that all Yes voters did so as they supported Independence as an ideal and were all committed to the cause. Of course, The Yes campaign also continually tried to bribe the electorate throughout with promises which could not be guaranteed i.e. more childcare, no more wars, Tory free Scotland and so on. They also spread their own fear stories re The NHS and so so on. Further, they exploited the fact that many poorer people who wished to be rid of the Tory Gov and had temporarily lost faith with Labour felt that they had little to lose and encouraged them to vote Yes. However, these voters didn't necessarily support Independence either but just hoped that "their lot" could be improved some way of other. If, and I realise it's a "big IF", we do get the promised extra powers and these prove to be adequate, many of these disaffected voters will no longer worry about Independence and all this extra "YES" support will soon melt like snow off a dyke. |
|
24 Sep 14 - 05:25 AM (#3663241) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Teribus "the 'No' camp is insisting that they keep these, no less than the Yes side are" As far as I can see Howard nobody in the NO camp are really all that fussed about "additional powers" and if the YES side shut up about them there wouldn't be a murmur. Your additional power "bribe" came on the 16th September the referendum was on the 18th September if you check there was no "effect" whatsoever. |
|
24 Sep 14 - 02:43 PM (#3663378) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,MikeL2 Hi IMHO many of the potential NO voters were swayed over the to YES by the appearance of " The Three Stooges". Cheers MikeL2 |
|
24 Sep 14 - 03:47 PM (#3663397) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: Musket If the idiots rattling on about being duped are representative of the yes voters, which of course they aren't* then they have a low opinion of the intelligence of the majority of voters in Scotland and deserve to be marginalised and ignored by normal people anyway. They certainly don't know fuck all about Scotland nor its people despite their pretence otherwise. * There is one in every village. Scotland seems to have a commune of the sad sods. |
|
25 Sep 14 - 08:22 AM (#3663564) Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence From: GUEST,Patsy To be honest I wasn't that bothered about Scottish Independence one way or the other (chances of me ever going there is quite remote as I am not a lover of cold weather)except for the fact that it has caused ripples and discomfort at Westminster. As far as I am concerned politicians have needed a kick up the backside for a while now. It has been a good thing to bring it home to all the parties concerned that not all people in the UK are happy. Even if the 'Yes' votes haven't won it is still a big voice of disgruntled people to take into account let's hope Cameron keeps to any promises that he has made, although I doubt it. |
