Scottish independence and devolution superthread

[Patrick Bateman]

Your Holyrood explanation is a complete cop-out. JamboX2 has gone into greart detail about the council tax freeze issue and how that benefits the wealthy. The fact is that Holyrood could quite easily do something about food poverty but choses not to.

 

I'll ask again, what party has put forward a coherant proposal of how to tackle food poverty? It is not good enough to say 'aye, we'll fix that after we vote Yes'. Who will fix it and with what policy? We will still have the same politicians if we are independent.

 

I thought you were a fan of small government, i.e. lower taxes/spending? Are you suggesting that Holyrood could reduce poverty by increasing the council tax?

 

Ian Duncan Smith's benefit reforms have been an unmitigated disaster, with things like the bedroom tax putting poorer people into arrears. Some have to choose between heating, food and paying rent. All the while, the government continues to have the 4th highest military budget in the world, giving handouts to one of the wealthiest families in Europe and cutting the highest rate of tax from 50% to 45%. These are choices that Westminster makes on our behalf. Do they benefit society? I don't think so.

 

And again, just to make this perfectly clear; I have never at any point said that independence will suddenly make Scotland much better, or that we won't make mistakes, because we will, and improvements will take time. But what I've seen a number of times is people seemingly insisting that we couldn't do better, that this is the 'best of both worlds' when looking at other comparable countries, the evidence proves it clearly isn't.

[JamboX2]

I thought you were a fan of small government, i.e. lower taxes/spending? Are you suggesting that Holyrood could reduce poverty by increasing the council tax?

 

I don't get the Yes Campaign's apparently left-ness with a fixation on flat taxation type policies. Surely Council Tax abolition or reform is better than a freeze which robs peter to pay paul. I spoke to a chap in the SNP, big in the one of Edinburgh's constituency parties, and he was of the opinion the ends of it justified the means. Ie, keeping people sweet with this is ok till Yes wins. In otherwords, why bother with dealing with the issues around local government finance and it's fairness when you can moan about it, claim your hamstrung and wait.

 

Again, is it progressive to starve services and charities reliant on local government support for people who rely on said services and groups? Is it right to freeze lowly paid local government workers salaries? All in order for the poorest to get proportionately less back to "help" than the wealthiest, who don't rely on these services, charities, and have seen higher wage rises than the bogstandard of the low paid council worker. Oh aye, it's very fair.

 

Ian Duncan Smith's benefit reforms have been an unmitigated disaster, with things like the bedroom tax putting poorer people into arrears. Some have to choose between heating, food and paying rent. All the while, the government continues to have the 4th highest military budget in the world, giving handouts to one of the wealthiest families in Europe and cutting the highest rate of tax from 50% to 45%. These are choices that Westminster makes on our behalf. Do they benefit society? I don't think so.

 

With the commitments in the white paper to not radically alter personal taxation, retain the monarchy, join an organisation which requires at least 2% of GDP spent on defences and little to say on the standard of living crisis other than we'll have numerous quangos and commissions look into it before acting, what is it that independence offers to amend or affect change in these areas?

 

IDS is a clown who has somehow spoked the PM into keeping his job. UC and PIPs are a failure and the Bedroom Tax the wrong answer to the housing shortfall. Yet apart from a pledge to abolish those policies, I've yet to hear a real coherrent narrative on solving the issues of housing, food poverty, fuel poverty and rent arrears from any Yes party or group. Actually, the Greens want rent controls, and Labour is warming to that in Scotland. The SNP? Well silence is golden I assume.

 

And again, just to make this perfectly clear; I have never at any point said that independence will suddenly make Scotland much better, or that we won't make mistakes, because we will, and improvements will take time. But what I've seen a number of times is people seemingly insisting that we couldn't do better, that this is the 'best of both worlds' when looking at other comparable countries, the evidence proves it clearly isn't.

 

Power is only good if the will behind it's use will radically alter the way people live. I'm reading the White Paper. Can I suggest you read the Red Paper on Scotland 2014: Class, Nation and Socialism? A great read with policy solutions for Scotland within a devolved context and what powers are really needed to change the nation. It's a good read.

Not bothered in the sense that if we become independent we could (would) join it. No big deal imo.

 

The stuff about nuclear weapons etc, again, no big deal as Denmark seems to be able to be a member and refuse nukes on its soil and harbours.

 

White paper policy is a cop-out on NATO. It sets them up for a fall on Trident.

"No to basing of nuclear weapons, however we really want into NATO, oh yes we like the Strategic Concept, and by the way, if we don't ask feel free not to say if US, British or French ships and planes are carrying nuclear weapons..."

 

It's a total cop-out. The Danes are members with no nukes based, but Germany and the Netherlands have cruise based on their soil, and despite being sovereign states can't get the Yanks to put them on planes out of their nations.

 

I ask again, if you are an anti-nuclear Yes voter surely you should be sitting going "What on earth is that?" not, "eyes on the prize lads, Yes now, walking out of NATO in 2020..." This whole campaign is now centering on the SNP policy positions. It's another area which weakens it. Teasing division between the SNP centre and right, and the left of the SNP, the Greens and the SSP and RiC lot is key now. Show division in narrative and show it as a weak argument. It's there to be done.

[Patrick Bateman]

I ask again, if you are an anti-nuclear Yes voter surely you should be sitting going "What on earth is that?" not, "eyes on the prize lads, Yes now, walking out of NATO in 2020..." This whole campaign is now centering on the SNP policy positions. It's another area which weakens it. Teasing division between the SNP centre and right, and the left of the SNP, the Greens and the SSP and RiC lot is key now. Show division in narrative and show it as a weak argument. It's there to be done.

 

Yet more sophistry. I'm voting for independence, I'm not overly concerned with your assertions about Nato and so on. As for your point about the 'division' in Yes Scotland - Folk have different political views, they are all united in the belief that Scotland's future should be determined solely by people who live and work here. What about better together? The tories have been hidden from view and have started to snipe at Alastair Darling. Would they do this if they were confident? Nope.

[Alba gu Brath]

Not bothered in the sense that if we become independent we could (would) join it. No big deal imo.

 

The stuff about nuclear weapons etc, again, no big deal as Denmark seems to be able to be a member and refuse nukes on its soil and harbours.

 

This.

 

As if voting 'no' will take us out of NATO and stop us spending money and lives on more pointless foreign wars.

 

I assume that Jambo X2 leans towards the peacenik side of things, as I do. How then will a no vote help matters? I know one or two Danes and if I were to suggest to them that Denmark was a nuclear nation on account of its NATO membership, they would laugh at me. Personally, I don't like NATO but I know that a 'Yes' vote will give us more power over all these important decisions even if some of them don't accord with my politics. Voting 'no' means more of the same auld shoight and we all know it.

[JamboX2]

Yet more sophistry. I'm voting for independence, I'm not overly concerned with your assertions about Nato and so on. As for your point about the 'division' in Yes Scotland - Folk have different political views, they are all united in the belief that Scotland's future should be determined solely by people who live and work here. What about better together? The tories have been hidden from view and have started to snipe at Alastair Darling. Would they do this if they were confident? Nope.

 

So you want independence, but don't care about the ramifications of a Yes vote and the limits and context a Yes vote will result in?

 

Why do you consistently go back to Alastair Darling? You've attacked folk on here for targeting Big Eck in connection with a Yes vote. A vote for No is not a vote for Darling, to use Yes language.

 

Those in BT, not being one, are united in their belief Scotland is best served in the Union. Bit like Yes folk are united in a belief for independence - as you've shown irregardless of the ramifications, it's for independence. Fair play. Same with most No folk.

 

I would argue to your point on the Tories, that the Greens, SSP, Canavan etc are "hidden" in comparison to the SNP's leading lights. So are we basically saying minority parties are not getting a fair share of the limelight? Or are we insinuating that the SSP are a toxic brand to a Yes vote?

 

What I wrote on NATO I see to be a contradiction to the Yes argument. A want for a neutral nation and one which does not engage in foreign ventures is not a NATO nation.

[JamboX2]

This.

 

As if voting 'no' will take us out of NATO and stop us spending money and lives on more pointless foreign wars.

 

Never said that. A no vote is a vote for the Union. Much like a Yes vote should be for independence. The relationships off these constitutional tangents are for later. That is what annoys me about the Yes vote mantra. I want a vote as a free citizen in an independent Scotland on NATO and the EU as these will have huge ramifications for Scotland. Why am I not, in a new nation, being offered a chance to ratify the government's choices? Surely under the mantra of Yes Scotland I should be allowed a choice here? Why are the other Yes parties allowing the SNP to dictate this key part of the nations future?

 

I assume that Jambo X2 leans towards the peacenik side of things, as I do. How then will a no vote help matters? I know one or two Danes and if I were to suggest to them that Denmark was a nuclear nation on account of its NATO membership, they would laugh at me. Personally, I don't like NATO but I know that a 'Yes' vote will give us more power over all these important decisions even if some of them don't accord with my politics. Voting 'no' means more of the same auld shoight and we all know it.

 

I don't view NATO as necessary for an independent Scotland if it's aim is to be a neutral nation working within the UN fields of conflict prevention and peacekeeping. That is an argument the Yes side need to answer and square to me.

 

The Danes are non-nuclear in how they run defence whilst operating under the NATO Strategic Concept. That Concept allows for the use of a first strike policy on the consent of all member states. So being anti-nuclear in NATO is an hypocrisy. Ireland, Sweden, Finland and Austria aren't in and do fine and well with defence and the like. Why do we need it? Russia ain't moving West, China and North Korea are thousands of miles away. Why bother with a Cold War relic? (Btw, you're right I don't like NATO all that much either way this vote goes). The position of Yes Scotland and the SNP is to make Scotland anti-nuclear. Not non-chalent, like Denmark and Norway and Belgium and Lithuania, Poland, Croatia and Spain - ie agreeing to the strategic concept but not owning the weapons. So NATO to me is pointless for Scotland in an independent future. At least New Zealand stuck to her guns in it's anti-nuclear position and ended the ANZUS pact in a few months.

 

Tell me this, under the White Paper it is stated Scotland in NATO wont ask about which ships from NATO allies carry nuclear arms. So it is allowing such weapons in Scottish territorial waters. Same goes on aircraft. So we are anti-nuclear, as we want Trident out of Faslane, but we are willing to host US super-carriers carrying free-fall nuclear bombs? That's a contradiction. It's hypocrisy. It's an opening to have Trident till the end of its lifetime on the Clyde come a Yes vote. It's not a long way to go to have basing agreements. Look at the Netherlands, Germany, Belgium and now Poland and the Czech Republic, all being pushed to hosting nuclear weapons in Cruise and anti-nuclear weaponry (which makes it a target) by NATO's cheif architects and organisers in the US military. So is NATO good for an independent Scotland? No. Is it good for Britian for the next 50 years? No. Is it relevant? Not really. Am I being offered by either campaign change on NATO? No. I'm being offered the same of the same from both.

Edited December 19, 2013 by JamboX2

[JamboX2]

Yet more sophistry. I'm voting for independence, I'm not overly concerned with your assertions about Nato and so on. As for your point about the 'division' in Yes Scotland - Folk have different political views, they are all united in the belief that Scotland's future should be determined solely by people who live and work here. What about better together? The tories have been hidden from view and have started to snipe at Alastair Darling. Would they do this if they were confident? Nope.

 

Forgot to say, you avoided the rest of my points I made and went for what you saw as the easiest. You cannot argue independence will do much if anything for the real challenges facing Scotland. All you can argue is that it will be Scots alone in Holyrood facing them. Rather face them in partnership with out kin in the UK. Most of the economic power of the UK affecting Scotland is based and registered in the wider UK - the banks, the energy firms, the pensions system, the financial markets. So to make real change you need concerted effort across the UK at Westminster level, imo. What you really want is a change in political narrative. Me too. But that ain't guaranteed by a Yes vote, nor is it guaranteed by a No vote for that. Apathy is the key here. Consitutional politics, be it the UK/Scotland or the UK/EU is not interesting to ordinary folk. Schools, hospitals, housing, welfare, jobs, wages, those are issues of importance. What will independence do for those? From what I've read not a lot much different from what we are seeing now. Political change and will is needed there, not constitutional change.

[Patrick Bateman]

Looks like the BBC have been officially caught out lying about independence. http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/8490-exclusive-trust-finds-bbc-scotland-guilty-of-breaking-guidelines-over-eu-indy-story I await their public apology with interest.

[coconut doug]

More lies. http://wingsoverscotland.com/ian-smart-is-a-liar/

[Alfred]

Some really good debate here... Just spent a couple of hours catching up!

 

Jambox2

 

My take on the nuclear arms/powered ships situation is quite simply that a yes lets us stop spending on nuclear arms and lets us spend it on something else... If other countries (rUK etc) wish to spend their money differently then that's their choice.

[Alba gu Brath]

Never said that. A no vote is a vote for the Union. Much like a Yes vote should be for independence. The relationships off these constitutional tangents are for later. That is what annoys me about the Yes vote mantra. I want a vote as a free citizen in an independent Scotland on NATO and the EU as these will have huge ramifications for Scotland. Why am I not, in a new nation, being offered a chance to ratify the government's choices? Surely under the mantra of Yes Scotland I should be allowed a choice here? Why are the other Yes parties allowing the SNP to dictate this key part of the nations future?

 

 

 

I don't view NATO as necessary for an independent Scotland if it's aim is to be a neutral nation working within the UN fields of conflict prevention and peacekeeping. That is an argument the Yes side need to answer and square to me.

 

The Danes are non-nuclear in how they run defence whilst operating under the NATO Strategic Concept. That Concept allows for the use of a first strike policy on the consent of all member states. So being anti-nuclear in NATO is an hypocrisy. Ireland, Sweden, Finland and Austria aren't in and do fine and well with defence and the like. Why do we need it? Russia ain't moving West, China and North Korea are thousands of miles away. Why bother with a Cold War relic? (Btw, you're right I don't like NATO all that much either way this vote goes). The position of Yes Scotland and the SNP is to make Scotland anti-nuclear. Not non-chalent, like Denmark and Norway and Belgium and Lithuania, Poland, Croatia and Spain - ie agreeing to the strategic concept but not owning the weapons. So NATO to me is pointless for Scotland in an independent future. At least New Zealand stuck to her guns in it's anti-nuclear position and ended the ANZUS pact in a few months.

 

Tell me this, under the White Paper it is stated Scotland in NATO wont ask about which ships from NATO allies carry nuclear arms. So it is allowing such weapons in Scottish territorial waters. Same goes on aircraft. So we are anti-nuclear, as we want Trident out of Faslane, but we are willing to host US super-carriers carrying free-fall nuclear bombs? That's a contradiction. It's hypocrisy. It's an opening to have Trident till the end of its lifetime on the Clyde come a Yes vote. It's not a long way to go to have basing agreements. Look at the Netherlands, Germany, Belgium and now Poland and the Czech Republic, all being pushed to hosting nuclear weapons in Cruise and anti-nuclear weaponry (which makes it a target) by NATO's cheif architects and organisers in the US military. So is NATO good for an independent Scotland? No. Is it good for Britian for the next 50 years? No. Is it relevant? Not really. Am I being offered by either campaign change on NATO? No. I'm being offered the same of the same from both.

 

Very good, but a 'no' vote won't give you a chance to vote on NATO. I'm anti-nuclear and anti-NATO - voting yes is just a start. There will lots of others willing to campaign against NATO upon a Yes vote.

 

Btw.... scare stories are nothing new. This from the 1979 home-rule vote:

 

[Big D]

That was served very cold Alba. Unionists caught lying again and again and... ad nauseum.

[JamboX2]

 

 

Very good, but a 'no' vote won't give you a chance to vote on NATO. I'm anti-nuclear and anti-NATO - voting yes is just a start. There will lots of others willing to campaign against NATO upon a Yes vote.

 

Btw.... scare stories are nothing new. This from the 1979 home-rule vote:

 

 

From the No side. The actual party line was to get a Yes vote. Its laughable stuff. But so is aspertions on Barnett and a Tory hegemony from Yes Scotland.

 

But why are Yes Scotland happy to let the SNP dictate this? Do you honestly think you'll see a party come NATO membership if Yes wins offer a chance to leave? It wont because political and diplomatic pressure will be enforced to keep us in. No they need debated separately after a Yes win. Not as a side show to the Independence issue.

 

Also its arguable that its the right of the islanders to have greater powers over their affairs. Lerwick is further away from Edinburgh than Edinburgh is from London.

Edited December 21, 2013 by JamboX2

[Patrick Bateman]

From the No side. The actual party line was to get a Yes vote. Its laughable stuff. But so is aspertions on Barnett and a Tory hegemony from Yes Scotland.

 

But why are Yes Scotland happy to let the SNP dictate this? Do you honestly think you'll see a party come NATO membership if Yes wins offer a chance to leave? It wont because political and diplomatic pressure will be enforced to keep us in. No they need debated separately after a Yes win. Not as a side show to the Independence issue.

 

Also its arguable that its the right of the islanders to have greater powers over their affairs. Lerwick is further away from Edinburgh than Edinburgh is from London.

 

Laughable that Scotland will get a government it didn't elect? Damn straight.

 

So are you pro or anti-Nato? You seem to continually dredge this up without actually offering an opinion beyond 'X will create uncertainty'. You seem keen to portray challenges as reasons against independence. As we've all been clear; Scotland will face challenges. It's whether we take responsibility for them or continue to let Westminster mismanage things.

 

The last point has already been covered. I'm all for moving power and responsibility closer to the people, hence why I support independence, and don't cling to a naive believe that we're due to get 'enhanced devolution' following a No vote and the termination of any real political leverage. If you cannot learn the lessons of 79, then more fool you. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-23870352

[TheMaganator]

Controversial take on the food bank situation mentioned many times on here:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100242020/whats-fuelling-the-food-bank-frenzy-the-hunger-for-publicity-of-anti-poverty-activists/

[JamboX2]

 

 

Laughable that Scotland will get a government it didn't elect? Damn straight.

 

So are you pro or anti-Nato? You seem to continually dredge this up without actually offering an opinion beyond 'X will create uncertainty'. You seem keen to portray challenges as reasons against independence. As we've all been clear; Scotland will face challenges. It's whether we take responsibility for them or continue to let Westminster mismanage things.

 

The last point has already been covered. I'm all for moving power and responsibility closer to the people, hence why I support independence, and don't cling to a naive believe that we're due to get 'enhanced devolution' following a No vote and the termination of any real political leverage. If you cannot learn the lessons of 79, then more fool you. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-23870352

 

 

I'm anti-NATO. It's a relic which continues MAD style policies beyond the cold war. I'd argue Scotland's defence independent does not require it.

 

I've not argued it creates uncertainty, i argue it is unecessary. My "proposal" would be one of these two:

 

1. Dont join. Dont propose to join.

2. Leave aspertions of joining till after a Yes vote. Then if you want in as a political policy have a referendum on it.

 

I'll learn my lessons from the recent devolution settlement. Devolution enhanced and fought for repeatedly since 1997. Scotland, Wales and NI all have their settlements repeatedly enhanced. 1979 was a baws up. No argument. But lessons etc are only valid if 1997 hadnt happened.

 

More fool you goes to a blind faith that all Yes Scotland's promises will come to fruition.

[The Comedian]

http://www.wealthynation.org/

 

Center-right and voting YES like myself. Glad to see a voice appearing.

[TheMaganator]

http://www.wealthynation.org/

 

Center-right and voting YES like myself. Glad to see a voice appearing.

I went to a lecture by him recently. He sees a Yes vote as the only chance to resurrect the right wing Tory vote in Scotland.

 

I bought his book but haven't had the chance to read it yet.

[Ulysses]

He sees a Yes vote as the only chance to resurrect the right wing Tory vote in Scotland.

 

I can go along with that, though it depends on how one defines "right wing". Given a few years of independence, a centre-right party would emerge as a strong (perhaps the strongest) political force in Scotland. But I can't see much political space for a more hardline right wing party in Scotland, any more than I can see it in Ireland.

[coconut doug]

JamboX2 "Lerwick is further away from Edinburgh than Edinburgh is from London." No it isn't, but it is closer to Oslo than it is to London.

http://ww.distancefromto.net/between/Edinburgh/Shetland+Islands

[coconut doug]

JamboX2 "From the No side. The actual party line was to get a Yes vote. Its laughable stuff. But so is aspertions on Barnett and a Tory hegemony from Yes Scotland."

 

I don't get your arguments at all. What do you mean about aspersions on Barnett? Are you suggesting that the Barnett formula will not be altered to Scotland's detriment at Wesminster's earliest convenience? Are you suggesting that by drawing attention to this prospect, the yes campaign are scaremongering in the style of Labour in 1979? If so then i refer you to these links which show a widespread desire to finish Barnett. They come from Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems,from North and South England, Wales and Northern Ireland, from Local Authorities, Regional Assemblies, and both the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

"Tory hegemony" What price Boris Johnson the next P.M.?

 

http://dofonline.co.uk/index.php/governance/139-governance-2008/2400-new-calls-to-bin-barnett-formula http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/5083092.print/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/5843577/Unfair-Barnett-formula-should-be-scrapped-say-Lords.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-14030607 http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/researchandlibrary/2009/7509.pdf

[jambos are go!]

 

JamboX2 "From the No side. The actual party line was to get a Yes vote. Its laughable stuff. But so is aspertions on Barnett and a Tory hegemony from Yes Scotland."

 

I don't get your arguments at all. What do you mean about aspersions on Barnett? Are you suggesting that the Barnett formula will not be altered to Scotland's detriment at Wesminster's earliest convenience? Are you suggesting that by drawing attention to this prospect, the yes campaign are scaremongering in the style of Labour in 1979? If so then i refer you to these links which show a widespread desire to finish Barnett. They come from Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems,from North and South England, Wales and Northern Ireland, from Local Authorities, Regional Assemblies, and both the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

"Tory hegemony" What price Boris Johnson the next P.M.?

 

http://dofonline.co.uk/index.php/governance/139-governance-2008/2400-new-calls-to-bin-barnett-formula http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/5083092.print/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/5843577/Unfair-Barnett-formula-should-be-scrapped-say-Lords.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-14030607 http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/researchandlibrary/2009/7509.pdf

 

Tell us something we don't know. The Barnett Formula has been under attack for decades but is still in place. The only certain way to get rid of the Barnett Formula is If there is a Yes vote and we become Independent.

[coconut doug]

What is the life expectancy of the Barnett formula in a continuing U. K. ? Very short i say, based on the widespresd lobbying to remove it. So no, the Barnett formula is on its last legs whether we vote yes or no. Who is going to protect it? The narrative has moved on. The needs based criteria for allocating resource to Scotland no longer apply as we are now the third most affluent region of the U.K. How will Labour justify allocating so much to less needy areas and at the same time maintain their policy of sharing the burden of austerity across the U.K?

[JamboX2]

JamboX2 "From the No side. The actual party line was to get a Yes vote. Its laughable stuff. But so is aspertions on Barnett and a Tory hegemony from Yes Scotland."

 

I don't get your arguments at all. What do you mean about aspersions on Barnett? Are you suggesting that the Barnett formula will not be altered to Scotland's detriment at Wesminster's earliest convenience? Are you suggesting that by drawing attention to this prospect, the yes campaign are scaremongering in the style of Labour in 1979? If so then i refer you to these links which show a widespread desire to finish Barnett. They come from Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems,from North and South England, Wales and Northern Ireland, from Local Authorities, Regional Assemblies, and both the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

"Tory hegemony" What price Boris Johnson the next P.M.?

 

http://dofonline.co....barnett-formula http://www.thenorthe...litics-14030607 http://www.niassembl...y/2009/7509.pdf

 

Boris Johnson will not be the next PM. He has no seat in Westminster. He has no solid support to be leader in the Tory parliamentary party. He will not be PM in 2015. Fact.

 

Labour was the Yes party of 1979 in official line. It had splinter groups campaigning for a no. Bit like today the line is No, and there's the Labour for Independence group.

 

Why should the Welsh Labour Party or the Labour and Liberal and Tory parties in the North of England campaign to maintain the Barnett formula? It's against their interests in their opinions. It'd be like the SNP campaigning to let Westminster take a cut of North Sea oil come a Yes vote. Barnett is an equilisation measure. Not a measure to combat need. If it did combat need Scotland would get less and Wales and Northern England more. John Kay has written that the Block Grant (with Barnett) takes into account more the geographical share of North Sea Oil than that of need, meaning it does favour Scotland based on her contribution. It was at first based on need in the 1970s when unemployment and fiscal contribution was lower from Scotland than the UK average, but there is now a gain from it if need is the key determinant.

 

Barnett does not totally determine the block grant. However, it is not true to say it based on need. However, there isn't a huge gulf between the block grant and the amount raised on-shore in Scotland on tax.Yes we have north sea oil. But that's volatile - hence Norway opting to save it in a fund and spend the interest, not vice versa. So there's not a huge deal in difference of what to spend come a Yes vote. There'd be the block grant and our share of shared budgets, persumably equivalents spent in each fully reserved area - defence, welfare, foreign affairs, homeland security. So somethings will be cut to accomodate higher proposed spending elsewhere.

 

For what it's worth, which it's probably not, I think all income and property taxation should be devolved with a reviewed redistribution mechanism which serves all and doesn't disadvantage Scotland for the UK in the event of a No vote. Most property tax is devolved, go the whole hog and through in NI, Income and Inheritance taxation and have communal business taxation imo.

[JamboX2]

JamboX2 "Lerwick is further away from Edinburgh than Edinburgh is from London." No it isn't, but it is closer to Oslo than it is to London.

http://ww.distancefr...hetland Islands

 

Sorry, got that point wrong. However, the point remains. It's a huge distance from here (Edinburgh) to there. They get 1 MSP, Edinburgh and the Central Belt hold most of the seats. So again democratic questions arises. Should Shetland health services and transport funding be impacted by MSPs in Lothian who's issues on such matters hugely differ from those up there.

[Patrick Bateman]

What powers do you think should remain at Westminster and why?

[jambos are go!]

What is the life expectancy of the Barnett formula in a continuing U. K. ? Very short i say, based on the widespresd lobbying to remove it. So no, the Barnett formula is on its last legs whether we vote yes or no. Who is going to protect it? The narrative has moved on. The needs based criteria for allocating resource to Scotland no longer apply as we are now the third most affluent region of the U.K. How will Labour justify allocating so much to less needy areas and at the same time maintain their policy of sharing the burden of austerity across the U.K?

 

You are offering a personal opinion and a guess against the factual continuation of the Barnett Formula despite its political opponents. Cameron said at Westminster last week that there was no review of the Barnett formula on the horizon. Check Hansard.

[jambos are go!]

What powers do you think should remain at Westminster and why?

 

Defence, Foreign and monetary policy for starters. Because it makes sense in a UK that shares risk and pools resources and enjoys electoral legitimacy through clear majority support for the Union in Scotland as expressed in national elections and umpteen National Opinion Polls.

 

Its goodnight for me!!

[JamboX2]

What powers do you think should remain at Westminster and why?

 

Foreign Affairs, International Development and Defence for starters. I reckon the needs of the 4 UK nations are closely alligned in all 3 and those interests are best served through the collective weight and resource of the UK state. Same can be said of internal security.

 

Corporate and consumption taxation creates a level playing field, or can do, across the UK and mean Scottish businesses are not at a disadvantage to lower tax rates elsewhere. Ie if all businesses pay the same tax from John O'Groats to Landsend then there's an equality of starting point in tax. Employment legislation is also a key element of this best exercised over the whole of the UK. Niche taxes should be devolved, ie airport duty.

 

Corporate, market and fiscal regulation is best run as a whole. Using the weight of democratic and the wealth of 65 million against Centrica or SSE or the Banks or international companies is going to make a bigger impact in creating better outcomes than a nation of 5 million fighting against the excesses of firms not even based within our borders.

 

Welfare provision - the state pension, unemployment benefits and incpacity type benefits, should be UK wide. Things like child, family, personal, housing and council tax benefits should be devolved as they impact upon devolved competencies.

 

UK wide issues in health should be retained there where it is necessary to do so. Investment issues in energy market regulation and the national grid should be UK wide. Transport in terms of motorways, cross border railway networks, international transport policy and ports should be UK wide as they have a UK impact. Science and research should always have a UK element of funding. As should the constitution of the BBC and other cultural and communicative industries with UK effect. The Post Office, Mail, broadband, TV and internet regulation UK wide. As in all such areas we share interests.

 

Some issues need to co-operative powers. Agriculture and fisheries being a prime example. There should be greater consultation with devolved legislatures and the British Council needs used much more. Welfare needs to be co-operative. There should be a presumption in favour of devolution with powers.

 

The Scottish Parliament needs to have greater fiscal power and borrowing powers - why can't they have what local government has in that they can borrow that which they afford to repay? The power to nationalise industries or help create public interest companies. Control of benefits which directly connect to devolved competencies and full control of income and propert taxation.

 

The issue is will to use said powers. Bit of a dreamed list under a wee bit of the influence. But it's what I'd hope to see. They closely mirror Red Paper. It's for those who back that to push it. It also borrows from the Liberals. My belief is we can only do so much alone, we need to work with others. We need shared institutions to do that together effectively. We need reform of what we have, not tearing it all down. IMHO ofcourse.

[coconut doug]

JamboX2

Boris Johnson may not be PM in 2015 but that would not preclude him from being the next PM unless of course you take the view that if the tories and Cameron win in 2015 then Cameron will be the next P.M.. When parliament is dissolved and reconstituted it will still be the same David Cameron. It would not be a Rangers/Sevco type situation in my opinion. I'm not too sure what Boris' level of support is and how solid it is but i do know he has significant support in the Tory heartlands and if he is the boy to lift Tory electoral hopes then he will be leader. What price Cameron to become leader in 2005 with only four years in parliament? I didn't say it was a certainty i just said it was a possibility.

I noticed you didn't answer any of my other queries which were genuinely asked to ascertain what you meant by "aspertions on Barnett" It looks to me like you are suggesting that questioning the longevity and magnitude of Barnett that the yes campaign proffering arguments akin to those you described as laughable. Are you?

You ask why various parts of the U.K. would campaign to maintain the Barnett formula. Why indeed, and so Barnett is under threat. The more pertinent question might be why has it not already been abolished? Maybe its because of net benefits to the rest of the U.K. from Scotland's greater per capita contribution to U.K. wealth. This secret is not widely known outside Scotland hence the righteous cries to abolish Barnett and stop subsidy to the ungrateful.

You say Barnett is an equalisation measure not a measure to combat need. Well is that true and what is an equalisation measure if it not needs related? The daily telegraph seems to think needs are the issue http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/6761172/England-loses-4.5-billion-to-Scotland-thanks-to-Barnett-formula.html.

but if you don't fancy the Telegraph you could always try House of Commons research paper which says

In its report on the Barnett Formula, the Treasury Committee agreed with Treasury officials

 

that ??all governments would subscribe to the fact that spending should broadly reflect

 

needs.? The report concludes.

If by equalisation you mean proportionately then replying to a question in the select committee from Donald Dewar, George Younger replied

 

That is exactly what the Barnett

 

Formula is. It was set up for a variety of reasons. First of

 

all, for the need to recognise the spending levels between

 

the various parts of the UK-population sparsity in

 

Scotland, transport needs, needs because of relative ill

 

health, rural needs for education and so on and industrial

 

needs - but above all, of course, although I know some

 

distinguished people have suggested it had nothing to do

 

with it, with income per head. I am bound to say they

 

simply did not understand how the whole allocation of

 

public expenditure worked at the time and I can only

 

speak for myself.

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/rp98/rp98-008.pdf

I would be genuinely intrigued to learn of the link between the geographical share of north sea oil and Scotland's block grant.

[coconut doug]

Jambos are go! You are right It is an opinion and my best guess based on the evidence i see. Cameron did say that there was no review on the horizon but he also said he would not bind future governments. Not even Tory ones. This suggests to me that Barnett is likely to be abolished or changed to Scotland's detriment. A pretty near horizon. They could not discuss it now anyway with the referendum coming up as abolition could be a game changer.

I think you know that just because Barnett supporters have beaten of attacks in the past there is no reason to suggest that they will do so in the future. Things have changed. Scotland's relative position in the U.K. has changed for the better, the U.K. must continue to make swingeing austerity cuts. Barnett is an obvious target but only after the referendum and election. Cameron's comment is meaningless.

[Alba gu Brath]

Sorry, got that point wrong. However, the point remains. It's a huge distance from here (Edinburgh) to there. They get 1 MSP, Edinburgh and the Central Belt hold most of the seats. So again democratic questions arises. Should Shetland health services and transport funding be impacted by MSPs in Lothian who's issues on such matters hugely differ from those up there.

 

Sorry but, how will a 'no' vote rectify all of this? Where's devolution for the English regions? Isn't Berwick closer to Edinburgh than London? And, are you arguing that Shetland should receive proportionately more than their fair share of MSPs? There are some who argue that similar areas shouldn't have any MP/ MSP as they are overrepresented already - i.e. Na h-Eileanan Siar with 20k population having the same voice as West Edinburgh that has... what 5 times as many inhabitants?

 

I don't argue this but I don't see how voting no will extend powers to local communities? Please explain.

 

Agree re. NATO btw. But the chance of a discussion on NATO membership only comes with a Yes vote. Unless you can see a Tory/UKIP or Labour-LibDem (??!!) coalition in London leaving NATO?

Edited December 23, 2013 by Alba gu Brath

[Alba gu Brath]

Btw... interesting to note that the 'rebel Goon Brigade are 'repressed' by the nasty SNP. I wonder if they also campaign against supermarkets who refuse to let them take their banners,songs and fireworks shopping?

 

[Patrick Bateman]

Foreign Affairs, International Development and Defence for starters. I reckon the needs of the 4 UK nations are closely alligned in all 3 and those interests are best served through the collective weight and resource of the UK state. Same can be said of internal security.

 

Can you explain why Scotland's 'defence' requires being part of the 4th highest military budget in the world, a sizeable chunk of which isn't actually spent in Scotland at all? I cannot understand someone who regards themselves as socially progressive being in favour of the UK's foreign policies over the past few decades. We've wasted countless billions in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere with zero benefit to people here. That would stop with independence. Defence should be exactly that; invading other countries is not a defence.

[TheMaganator]

Can you explain why Scotland's 'defence' requires being part of the 4th highest military budget in the world, a sizeable chunk of which isn't actually spent in Scotland at all? I cannot understand someone who regards themselves as socially progressive being in favour of the UK's foreign policies over the past few decades. We've wasted countless billions in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere with zero benefit to people here. That would stop with independence. Defence should be exactly that; invading other countries is not a defence.

 

i assume you mean you hope that would stop with independence?

 

You cannot measure the benefit to the people here of the wars in Iraq and Afghan (I have no interest in getting into a lengthy debate about this as I am about to go out for beers) because you do not know how many potential terrorist activities have been prevented (if any) by intervention in these two countries.

[JamboX2]

Btw... interesting to note that the 'rebel Goon Brigade are 'repressed' by the nasty SNP. I wonder if they also campaign against supermarkets who refuse to let them take their banners,songs and fireworks shopping?

 

 

That's more an issue with a poorly designed peice of legislation rather than independence.

[Patrick Bateman]

i assume you mean you hope that would stop with independence?

 

You cannot measure the benefit to the people here of the wars in Iraq and Afghan (I have no interest in getting into a lengthy debate about this as I am about to go out for beers) because you do not know how many potential terrorist activities have been prevented (if any) by intervention in these two countries.

 

Before the invasion of Afghanistan, the Taliban were willing to negotiate with America. They didn't want war, but we attacked them anyway.

 

Before the invasion of Iraq, Al Qaeda did not exist in any meaningful way. There is absolutely no way you can argue the Iraq war in a positive light any more. It had been a financial and strategic disaster.

 

An independent Scotland would not invade countries because America tells it to. Peace keeping is fine, Shock And Awe is not.

[coconut doug]

JamboX2 "Yes we have north sea oil. But that's volatile - hence Norway opting to save it in a fund and spend the interest, not vice versa."

You state the fund was set up to deal with the volatility of the oil price. No it wasn?t. It was set up to provide lasting benefit to future generations. It was set up to counter inflationary pressures and to improve sustainability.

In the U.K. as far as i can see, we have no concept of providing lasting benefit. Both governments sold off as many national assets at knockdown prices often to their own supporters and used the money to stave off the inevitable fiscal black hole. When the assets were all sold and the money spent they used PFI and similar methods to mortgage our future and keep things ticking over a bit at least.

Scotland would struggle to get anywhere near Norwegian levels, given our starting point but it could do something significant. This i believe is why voting yes is a necessity and why we will only get one chance to break free of the U.K?s cycle of decline and the mismanagement of that decline. It is quite revealing that you would deny Scotland the chance to follow Norway?s example in favour of supporting an increasingly laissez faire, people unfriendly, economic system. Scottish values are different and can only be realised when we are independent.

Your other assertion that the Barnett formula is linked to North Sea revenues in Scotland is not correct. It continues to be calculated on the same basis as ever with slight annual adjustments for population changes. If it were linked to North Sea revenues then its continuation would be much more assured. I suspect you already know this but realise the abolition of the Barnett formula could be a game changer in the referendum. What chance an open and fair debate?

[JamboX2]

Can you explain why Scotland's 'defence' requires being part of the 4th highest military budget in the world, a sizeable chunk of which isn't actually spent in Scotland at all? I cannot understand someone who regards themselves as socially progressive being in favour of the UK's foreign policies over the past few decades. We've wasted countless billions in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere with zero benefit to people here. That would stop with independence. Defence should be exactly that; invading other countries is not a defence.

 

Defence policy is not the backbone of the Foreign Policy. The UK has done good work in relation to international development, been a leader in combating global poverty, furthering democracy and pushing others to meet their millenium goal commitments. Those are good things. There have been foreign policy disasters of late, but those were ones in which the NATO community minus two major nations of it engaged in. Denmark, Norway and Iceland all provided some form of support to Iraw. But in relation to Afghanistan - as you use this a lot - the SNP, Scottish Labour, the Scots Tories and the Scots Liberals (all the major Scottish parties) back this conflict. It was a war began under NATO's Article 4 of collective defence. All NATO allies engaged in it. Had we been independent, Scotland would've taken part.

 

As it is, that war is on the draw down. In fact by the end of 2014 no British combat forces will be serving in Afghanistan. So independence will not "end" this war. Nor will it end a fondness of foreign adventures. The SNP backed the involvement in Libya. They backed Syrian involvement if under UN mandate. The white paper calls for Scotland to play her "full part" in NATO military operations and EU ones too. So Scotland will not be an Ireland or a Sweden engaged in menial peacekeeping work for the UN.

 

There is not a guarantee anything will end or begin or change with independence. There's no guarantee an independent Scotland wouldn't send what forces it had into a dubious conflict. The fact is people are fallable and will make these mistakes. Mark such arguments we wouldn't under the "Scots are morally superior" claptrap spouted by some in the Yes campaign.

 

Before the invasion of Afghanistan, the Taliban were willing to negotiate with America. They didn't want war, but we attacked them anyway.

 

Before the invasion of Iraq, Al Qaeda did not exist in any meaningful way. There is absolutely no way you can argue the Iraq war in a positive light any more. It had been a financial and strategic disaster.

 

An independent Scotland would not invade countries because America tells it to. Peace keeping is fine, Shock And Awe is not.

 

Bollocks. Really is. Iraq was a disaster. Afghanistan has been a prolonged, bloody go no where.

 

But to say Scotland would stand against mighty America is really wrong and misleading, ignores the facts and the position you'd be in under NATO membership. The 9/11 attacks were decided to be the whole collective security thing for NATO. All nations in NATO contributed in some form. Denmark sent troops, Norway too - Denmark was involved in the initial war in Iraq. Two nations of 5 million with men on the ground. The Baltic states even have boots on the ground there. Scotland would have and will be in the same boat by virtue of NATO membership. Iraq was different due to it being a pre-emptive strike. Not a defensive NATO mission.

 

For the rights or wrongs of it the history shows that wee socially progressive nations Yes tells us we can be like they forget that these nations have been involved in all the blunders of UK foreign policy of the past decade. What's the common link? NATO membership and close relationship to the United States. Both policies advocated by Yes Scotland and the SNP government. Should we believe therefore it'd be any different? No. To think so is ignorant to reality and spurious at best to claim.

[JamboX2]

JamboX2

Boris Johnson may not be PM in 2015 but that would not preclude him from being the next PM unless of course you take the view that if the tories and Cameron win in 2015 then Cameron will be the next P.M.. When parliament is dissolved and reconstituted it will still be the same David Cameron. It would not be a Rangers/Sevco type situation in my opinion. I'm not too sure what Boris' level of support is and how solid it is but i do know he has significant support in the Tory heartlands and if he is the boy to lift Tory electoral hopes then he will be leader. What price Cameron to become leader in 2005 with only four years in parliament? I didn't say it was a certainty i just said it was a possibility.

I noticed you didn't answer any of my other queries which were genuinely asked to ascertain what you meant by "aspertions on Barnett" It looks to me like you are suggesting that questioning the longevity and magnitude of Barnett that the yes campaign proffering arguments akin to those you described as laughable. Are you?

You ask why various parts of the U.K. would campaign to maintain the Barnett formula. Why indeed, and so Barnett is under threat. The more pertinent question might be why has it not already been abolished? Maybe its because of net benefits to the rest of the U.K. from Scotland's greater per capita contribution to U.K. wealth. This secret is not widely known outside Scotland hence the righteous cries to abolish Barnett and stop subsidy to the ungrateful.

 

Firstly, Bo-Jo would have to do two things, resign his Mayoral duties - something he rueled out. Secondly, hold a seat in Parliament - the Lords or the Commons. I believe Tory policy is that the leadership can only vest in a Parliamentarian of Westminster for UK leader and PM candidate. He meets none of those criteria. Cameron will lead the Tories into 2015. It's a year out. He's clung on so far and nullified his internal opponents - Hunt, Gove and May always came out worse for wear from their "leadership" ambitions.No party will realistically boot a leader a year out for the sake of it when in power. Why? Disunity doesn't sell to voters too well.

 

Secondly, the "aspertions" was based on the Yes campaigns recent attempt to play the fearmongering card by saying "Vote No and Barnett goes". There is no plans near future to do this. None. No one can agree what to replace the ageing Barnett system. It is disproportionately unfair to certain areas. That needs better balancing. Increased local tax powers in certain areas could do well to help create a fairer model of distribution - especially because Scotland is a lot better off than it was in the 1970s.

 

The only sure fire way to loose Barnett is voting Yes. To me personally whatever way this vote goes there'll be huge institutional changes coming down the line - increased localism in England is being talked about, Wales has Silk and there may even be a Border Poll in Northern Ireland soon. Scotland's position will be affected by all these events. I'd argue No will see more powers. But power goes beyond tax and finance. Tax won't cure all ills here.

[JamboX2]

JamboX2 "Yes we have north sea oil. But that's volatile - hence Norway opting to save it in a fund and spend the interest, not vice versa."

You state the fund was set up to deal with the volatility of the oil price. No it wasn?t. It was set up to provide lasting benefit to future generations. It was set up to counter inflationary pressures and to improve sustainability.

In the U.K. as far as i can see, we have no concept of providing lasting benefit. Both governments sold off as many national assets at knockdown prices often to their own supporters and used the money to stave off the inevitable fiscal black hole. When the assets were all sold and the money spent they used PFI and similar methods to mortgage our future and keep things ticking over a bit at least.

Scotland would struggle to get anywhere near Norwegian levels, given our starting point but it could do something significant. This i believe is why voting yes is a necessity and why we will only get one chance to break free of the U.K?s cycle of decline and the mismanagement of that decline. It is quite revealing that you would deny Scotland the chance to follow Norway?s example in favour of supporting an increasingly laissez faire, people unfriendly, economic system. Scottish values are different and can only be realised when we are independent.

Your other assertion that the Barnett formula is linked to North Sea revenues in Scotland is not correct. It continues to be calculated on the same basis as ever with slight annual adjustments for population changes. If it were linked to North Sea revenues then its continuation would be much more assured. I suspect you already know this but realise the abolition of the Barnett formula could be a game changer in the referendum. What chance an open and fair debate?

 

On your last point, where's the proof of this change being anything more than a wish of the Welsh Assembly? All for open debate and a fair one at that, but such ridiculous claims that a No Vote on September 18th will be followed by an announcement on the 25th from the Treasury that Barnett is going by December is ridiculous. Such a move would need to go through committee and parliamentary hurdles by now. It is also true greater fiscal power in Scotland may see the block grant and Barnett's mechanisms adapted to fit the new realities of enhanced devolution. Much like it'd go after a Yes vote as it'd be no longer possible to retain it after a Yes vote.

 

To your first point - That was my point. The fact that the price and profibility of oil would have a dreadful affect on Norway's smaller economy which would have been swamped by oil was the reason for the fund. My point was also right that it is the case that the actual fund is un-tapped as to spend such amounts would again be detrimental to Norway's economy. Only, I think, 3% p.a. of the interest raised is used in the national budget - hence the high taxation to counteract this lack of oil money. Lasting benefit is a good thing. And I agree it has not been the mantra of recent decades. But that is a political not a constitutional issue. What chance sustainability being pushed from Holyrood on current UK wide companies registered down south who operate in Scotland?

 

On "our chance" - where's the proof this golden age of no-more neo-liberalism is coming? The current Scottish administration promotes a very Blairite-Brownite vision of the economy. It wishes to maintain the macroeconomic policies of the Bank of England through a currency union. It wishes to cut corporation tax at least 3% lower than whatever Westminster would set. On top of that it's time in government shows favouring the positions and wants of big companies - it's kow-towing to Souter on bus regulation in 2007-11, a want to lower air duty is both un-green and pro-big business, a want to retain UK-wide regulators and it's light touch regulation in Scotland post-Yes win is also pretty laissez faire. As is a tunnel vision desire to remain in a predominantly centre-right-laissez faire encouraging EU. Yes Scotland backs this. Your statement this will change under independence in time is spurious. I don't see it. I'm glad you do, but I don't. I see the opposite, I see the maintenance of what has gone on before continuing post-Yes win.

 

Few trinket policies like better child care, a "fairer" welfare state and a push for Nordic outcomes in education is great. But it's hardly radical or concrete as to some social democratic nirvana around the corner.

[JamboX2]

Sorry but, how will a 'no' vote rectify all of this? Where's devolution for the English regions? Isn't Berwick closer to Edinburgh than London? And, are you arguing that Shetland should receive proportionately more than their fair share of MSPs? There are some who argue that similar areas shouldn't have any MP/ MSP as they are overrepresented already - i.e. Na h-Eileanan Siar with 20k population having the same voice as West Edinburgh that has... what 5 times as many inhabitants?

 

I don't argue this but I don't see how voting no will extend powers to local communities? Please explain.

 

Agree re. NATO btw. But the chance of a discussion on NATO membership only comes with a Yes vote. Unless you can see a Tory/UKIP or Labour-LibDem (??!!) coalition in London leaving NATO?

 

I don't see how Yes will deliver extended power to these places either. The fact is these areas want and deserve more power. They vote for independents locally and minority parties for Westminster and Holyrood. So they deserve greater powers. A devolution as it where. As do all Scottish communities. Voting Yes/No is no guarantee of these things occuring. A good friend of mine from Shetland found it hilarious when Tavish Scott raised Shetland and Orkney getting more powers from Holyrood in FMQs a few months back and heard the FM say there was no need for that as a "Scottish government will serve their interests better than Westminster". It's basically a Yes politician opposing increased local power. Something he should naturally back. There's no guarantee of that either way the vote goes. But it is necessary and is only right it happens.

 

If we are in NATO come a Yes win then we wont be leaving. Sad truth mate. No nation has left NATO once joined. I seriously doubt once in NATO members would let it happen and huge pressure diplomatically would be exerted to stop it happening. I just think it's a separate issue from the Yes/No to independence. If I vote Yes to independence, it's for separation from the UK Parliament and UK institutions. Not to join NATO and the EU off the back of it without a further say on those issues prior to membership of them. What is being proposed is that we vote Yes and join from within on both. What a cop-out. A deprivation of the right of the people to set out the future of Scotland beyond being independent or not.

 

And on UKIP - they'll struggle to win seats in numbers to make a huge difference or create a coalition. The lack of PR at Westminster here is a saving grace. Like Veritas and the other lot of the late 1990s they'll wither out eventually.

[Sydney]

Defence should be exactly that; invading other countries is not a defence.

 

Well, it can be actually....for example, in both world wars many of the allies (certainly the British, Canadians, Americans, Australians, South Africans and New Zealanders) had to "invade" other countries to defend themselves against what was perceived to be aggression and the threat to their own countries. We didn't sit back and only fight when the Germans/Italians/Hungarians/Finns/Thais/Japanese invaded our "homelands" (although attacks on Malaya and Hong Kong, for example, might well have been seen as an attack on British Empire lands)

 

I'm not saying it is right or wrong, but I am saying that invasion can often be seen to be a viable defence strategy.

Edited December 24, 2013 by Sydney

[Coco]

Content light contribution to the key issue about identity from Fraser Nelson - though he does reintroduce my Mo Farah test of about a hundred pages ago on this thread.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/12/the-issue-of-scottish-passports-shows-how-small-minded-the-snps-campaign-is/

[TheMaganator]

Content light contribution to the key issue about identity from Fraser Nelson - though he does reintroduce my Mo Farah test of about a hundred pages ago on this thread.

http://blogs.spectat...ps-campaign-is/

 

"It?s ugly,petty, pointless and it?s small-minded"

 

Quite.

[jack D and coke]

Content light contribution to the key issue about identity from Fraser Nelson - though he does reintroduce my Mo Farah test of about a hundred pages ago on this thread.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/12/the-issue-of-scottish-passports-shows-how-small-minded-the-snps-campaign-is/

Why would we stop being global just because we gained independence? I wasn't aware that would mean the doors are closed and nobody leaves. Surely it has all to do with dealing with our own problems first? And why would you have to stop cheering Jessica Ennis? Sorry but what a totally shite article.

 

No offence.

[JamboX2]

 

Why would we stop being global just because we gained independence? I wasn't aware that would mean the doors are closed and nobody leaves. Surely it has all to do with dealing with our own problems first? And why would you have to stop cheering Jessica Ennis? Sorry but what a totally shite article.

 

No offence.

 

Why would you avidly back Team GB if you aren't British?

[redm]

Fraser Nelson - the chap who doesn't much like foreigners. Apparently.

He's been blethering on about borders and terrible threat of foreignness on Twitter since yesterday.

 

That article is just a load of nonsense.

Edited December 24, 2013 by redm

[jack D and coke]

 

Why would you avidly back Team GB if you aren't British?

What has avidly backing Great Britain got to do with independence? Why does that mean I can't back someone who's English? Or Welsh or NI? Does every English person back Andy Murray? You better believe they don't. It's a utter nonsense article. Total pish.

[redm]

Why would you avidly back Team GB if you aren't British?

 

Why wouldn't you? It wouldn't be all that unusual to support another country.