Scottish independence and devolution superthread

[The Comedian]

Scotland doesn't have any proven oil reserves. The United Kingdom does. If Scotland were to seek to secede from the United Kingdom, the disposition of those reserves would be a matter to be resolved in negotiations on the terms of secession. In the event that such negotiations were to result in the apportionment of more than 50% of reserves and production to Scotland, then Scotland would be the largest oil producer in the EU. If such negotiations were to result in 50% or less of reserves and production being apportioned to Scotland, then it would not.

 

One cannot state conclusively that an independent Scotland would be the largest oil producer in the EU without prior knowledge of the outcome of negotiations that may or may not take place in a couple of years time.

 

Detailed research of the money brought in by the UK oil and gas fields suggests that Scottish waters ? defined by the line of demarcation used in the fishing industry ? accounted for 91.1 per cent of UK North Sea revenue in 2008/09.

 

http://blogs.channel...s-it-alone/6524

 

Would there be a argument over where we can fish? Will the English take the oil while we merely get the fish above it? I'd like to see us take our piece of the reserves found off the Falkland Islands too.

Edited December 15, 2012 by The Comedian

[Ulysses]

[/size][/font][/color]

 

http://blogs.channel...s-it-alone/6524

 

Would there be a argument over where we can fish? Will the English take the oil while we merely get the fish above it? I'd like to see us take our piece of the reserves found off the Falkland Islands too.

 

These are matters to be negotiated - that is a fact. What that means is that one cannot make any assumptions about these matters unless and until they are negotiated.

 

By the way, I've also made the point that an independent Scotland would not need oil reserves and revenues to succeed.

[jambos are go!]

Oh my.

 

I benefit majorly from free tuition, and I'm not "wealthy". I wouldn't have went to university if I had to pay up to ?9,000 per year like folk down south. Labour now want to scrap that policy for some outrageous reason, even though they were the ones who introduced it and have always been in favour of it until wee Lamont took to the helm.

 

Can you tell me why the council tax freeze mostly benefits the wealthy as well please? And while your at it, tell me how increasing it would benefit lower and medium income households.

 

If we didn't have to subsidise the rest of the UK's oil and gas industry, or saved throwing away billions of pounds on nuclear weapons and a pointless war in Afghanistan, then we would be in much better shape.

 

well we have universities with loads of students who went to fee paying schools who went from paying well over ?10k a year to nothing for a top class education whilst full time places in Further education are being cut fr working class kids. We could have means tested fees that mean that the full fee need not be payable. The repayment terms on student Loans never mind possible fees are are hardly prohibitive and strictly related to the the ability to pay over a long period .

 

Folk with money overwhelmingly tend to live in big houses that attract higher Council tax/. Folks on benefit or loew pay get relief from council tax so will be protected from increases.

 

Now you say you have benefited from free tuition and I will admit to benefitting from frozen council tax. Now can you explain why the likes of you and I should benefit 'majorly' whilst people are in fuel poverty. Now today this winter.

 

The SNP policies on Tuition fees and Council tax are not socially progresive but no more than a bribe to the middle class like me to get them to support Independence. IMO.

[Sarah O]

People are so scared

 

 

[Kemble's Cascade]

well we have universities with loads of students who went to fee paying schools who went from paying well over ?10k a year to nothing for a top class education whilst full time places in Further education are being cut fr working class kids.

 

Evidence please. I don't think I know a single person on my course who went to a private school. Are places in further education genuinely "being cut for working class kids" or did you just make that up?

 

We could have means tested fees that mean that the full fee need not be payable. The repayment terms on student Loans never mind possible fees are are hardly prohibitive and strictly related to the the ability to pay over a long period .

 

I believe that everybody should be entitled to free education, regardless of your background. Why should someone have to pay in their quest for knowledge? Perhaps the billions of pounds we spunk away on nuclear weapons and a pointless war in Afghanistan could be cut instead of making folk pay to go to university. Labour and co. always seem to sidestep that one for some reason, though.

 

Folk with money overwhelmingly tend to live in big houses that attract higher Council tax/. Folks on benefit or loew pay get relief from council tax so will be protected from increases.

 

Perhaps, but see my point above.

 

Now you say you have benefited from free tuition and I will admit to benefitting from frozen council tax. Now can you explain why the likes of you and I should benefit 'majorly' whilst people are in fuel poverty. Now today this winter.

 

People shouldn't be in fuel poverty, as we are one of the most oil and energy rich countries on Earth, but we are held back by our apparently "better together" union.

 

The SNP policies on Tuition fees and Council tax are not socially progresive but no more than a bribe to the middle class like me to get them to support Independence. IMO.

 

I cannot for the life of me see how a policy of free higher education is "not socially progressive" and frankly I think that is an utterly ludicrous thing to say. Look at nations like Norway and Finland who do not charge tuition fees - they are amongst the best run nations on the planet. Interestingly, they have a lot in common with Scotland. As for the freezing of council tax being done just to get people to support independence, I highly doubt it.

[Kemble's Cascade]

People are so scared

 

Indeed. If what most polls currently indicate turns out to be what happens in 2014 - a no vote - then I genuinely think it will have a lot to do with dafties voting because of things which are totally irrelevant like "will I still be able to watch Eastenders" etc, rather than caring about what would (or wouldn't) truly benefit Scotland.

 

Hopefully folk like that don't get off their arse to vote anyway like they probably do for most elections come autumn 2014.

[Rand Paul's Ray Bans]

The SNP policies on Tuition fees and Council tax are not socially progresive but no more than a bribe to the middle class like me to get them to support Independence. IMO.

 

I've seen a few people saying this; but it's completely false.

 

The referendum on independence is not on the SNP. Granted, they're the face of the YES campaign, but there are many other groups that make up pro-indy supporters.

Also, one of the first things (imo should) happen soon after if Scotland votes yes is that there be a Scottish general election. The first government of Scotland could be a Labour one.

The policies of the SNP now should be an irrelevance to whether one votes yes or no in 2014.

[Alba gu Brath]

I've seen a few people saying this; but it's completely false.

 

The referendum on independence is not on the SNP. Granted, they're the face of the YES campaign, but there are many other groups that make up pro-indy supporters.

Also, one of the first things (imo should) happen soon after if Scotland votes yes is that there be a Scottish general election. The first government of Scotland could be a Labour one.

The policies of the SNP now should be an irrelevance to whether one votes yes or no in 2014.

 

Well said. I'm not a member of the SNP or any party and only - broadly - support them as they're the best of the bunch, at least in mainstream Scottish parties.

 

I would hope that should independence be achieved that a 're-born' Scottish Labour Party - no longer needing to appeal to right-wing middle-English Tory voters - would rediscover some of its auld principles and policies.

 

A more successful Green Party would be a bonus too - at least one that was big enough to make an impact on some issues - better and cheaper public transport, better cycling lanes, legalised weed - while being small enough to be held in check should they go overboard with any wacky policies.

 

No-one can claim independence will be a panacea but equally it is the default status of most of our neighbours who don't just survive but thrive. Equally, what does a 'no vote' represent? Is it a vote for something? Retain the Union but leave the EU courtesy of UKIP and the Tories? And can anyone really see the UK's ?1000billion debt disappearing? Will a 'no vote' rid Scotland of its ugly swathes of poverty? A 'Yes vote' might eventually.

Edited December 16, 2012 by Alba gu Brath

[davemclaren]

well we have universities with loads of students who went to fee paying schools who went from paying well over ?10k a year to nothing for a top class education whilst full time places in Further education are being cut fr working class kids. We could have means tested fees that mean that the full fee need not be payable. The repayment terms on student Loans never mind possible fees are are hardly prohibitive and strictly related to the the ability to pay over a long period .

 

Folk with money overwhelmingly tend to live in big houses that attract higher Council tax/. Folks on benefit or loew pay get relief from council tax so will be protected from increases.

 

Now you say you have benefited from free tuition and I will admit to benefitting from frozen council tax. Now can you explain why the likes of you and I should benefit 'majorly' whilst people are in fuel poverty. Now today this winter.

 

The SNP policies on Tuition fees and Council tax are not socially progresive but no more than a bribe to the middle class like me to get them to support Independence. IMO.

 

You'll be telling me next that free healthcare isn't socially progressive either.

[jambos are go!]

You'll be telling me next that free healthcare isn't socially progressive either.

No I'll be telling you that free heathcare was delivered by the UK Labour Party.

[davemclaren]

No I'll be telling you that free heathcare was delivered by the UK Labour Party.

 

Ah, that makes it socially progressive then.

[JamboX2]

A few thoughts on some points above.

 

1. Council Tax is actually a regressive form of taxation. Based on cash terms (ie actual amounts of cash not the proportionate amount a person has and spends) it affects the poor more. A poor person will still have less cash after paying than a richer person. This is because, whilst housing in poorer areas will have generally reduced in price since it's imposition in 2007, the rate is set to the value from 2007 (the height of the market). Now when we consider many more are either unemployed or on reduced earnings, it's evident that if you are paying a rate set in '07 based on a property valued in the latter half of the boom, then you will be worse off. Meanwhile, those on higher earnings, who have in general either seen a stagnation of earnings or in some cases an increase, a tax freeze on your property is going to leave you with more cash in your hand to spend than the poorer man whose wages have barely moved. It's technically regressive, but is a good sound bite. Factoring in inflation, prices rising and wages not matching that hammers home the fact it's an awful idea for the poorest.

It also has the effect of reducing the cash councils have to spend. Where as in the past a council facing budgetary constraints from the Scottish Government grant (which many are) could raise more from council tax (ie increasing more from bigger and more expensive properties) to maintain services, they can no longer do that. So we have a self-imposed Scots Austerity drive through a blind sited attempt to please the middle-upper classes of Scotland by retaining an unltimately unfundable council tax freeze. What would you rather have, weekly bucket collections? Good social care for the most vulnerable? Well funded schools? Or a tax cut/freeze?

 

2. This myth peddled by the SNP on Scottish Labour wanting to get rid of free uni education is plain wrong. Scottish Labour is doing something the recent Beveridge Report asked for and have a commission to examine budgetary commitments of government. The main one in their sights is the Council Tax freeze to allow for a redirection of funding into tiertiary education (mainly increasingly underfunded Scottish Colleges) and to maintaining free personal care for the elderly (which is actually a sliding scale of free to paying depending on capital wealth). I agree you should NOT have to pay upfront fees for university. I am one of the lucky generations to have had free university tuition, but I feel, as a student who this year is paying his tuition, that there needs to be a graduate endowment or tax when you leave. Maybe say paying 10% of your total tuition cost over a period once you've earned a set amount. So there is an ability of government to redirect funding into other, as important, areas of further education. Fact is we have a jobs market over burdened by professional degrees, the drive since 1997, and it was a noble one, was to have an emphasis on university. But that's been misguided. We need Further Education Colleges specialising in certain areas of vocational work as that's where we have major shortages in the economy these days. We need more vocational people in the economy, building, welding, creating a new highly trained industrial economy in Scotland, and the UK. University really isn't for everyone, I've seen and met a lot of folk at uni for the sake of being in uni. It's not right. We need balance. Scottish Labour, the Lib-Dems and Greens up here are arguing for a rebalancing of the economy, the SNP, in government, have made lip service to this. Scottish Labour brought in, with the Scottish Lib-Dems free uni education. It is not in their dna to take that away. It is not their policy. Actually read Ms Lamont's speech, she does not say it will go, she does not argue that. She was wrong to call it a something for nothing culture, but she had a point on how we direct funding. We in Scotland have devolution, Dewar called it a power for social justice in Scotland, and fact is successive governments have paid lip service to that through their policies and spending commitments. Fact is there is no political will to change the uni fees situation, but there is also a lack of will to tackle poverty effectively here.

 

3. I have heard this argument as well from too many of the pro-independence lobby, 'IF we are independent, it will allow Scottish Labour to return to their roots'. Well two points, (1) independence won't change the leadership of the party and it's political direction, (2), have you actually heard what they are proposing up here? They are totally against IDS welfare reforms, vehemently opposed to austerity, want to effectively renationalise the busses and trains in Scotland by calling for a not-for-profit statutorily created rail franchise and re-regulation of the busses across all of Scotland and are arguing for an end to pay day lending. These aren't wild right wing zealot policies, they are reasonable centre-left policies. Their last manifesto called for the abolition of youth unemployment. That again is not some right wing mania. What I'll say is they are awful in presentation, they always go on the wrong foot in presenting themselves. The party is very much against the SNP, to the extent where it's personal. And that isn't helping them. If they'd focused on the above in the last election and agued more on their social justice policies than the constitution or the tories then they'd not have been as badly beaten. The SNP are well oiled, slick, New Labour-esque press machine, they are hard to take on and win because they are the Scottish masters of spin. The found Labour in 2007 and 2011 too easy to paint the way they wanted, and Labour played into that too easily.

 

4. Independence or not, we need more power in Scotland. I'm a federalist/devolutionist by heart and mind. But to be frank, I have lost the will to care about this referendum. If we vote Yes we need to have an election here in May 2015 to create a constituent assembly to have a truly representative 'Board' to negotiate independence and NOT leave it to big Eck and his administration. The issue for Yes Scotland is that they are a broad based campaign, but one which is really run as an arm of the SNP. The Greens, Margo, Labour for Independence, Denis Cannavan and the rest are bit players to the SNP band. That is inescapable for Yes Scotland. And the issue for Salmond is the sheen of his government is wearing thinner these days. Holding this vote late may backfire now. But it only will when the Better Together campaign finally offer the alternative for Scotland come a NO vote. I hope it's wider tax powers, more responsibility in welfare and wider change to the UK system of governance to allow equalisation of power in Wales and Northern Ireland.

 

In total, I think Yes may actually edge a win here. I'm not totally for that. But I can see why it'd be appealing. I don't think independence would be a disaster, people said devolution would be too. What I think would happen though is there'd be job losses in Rosyth (for all intents and purposes a British naval yard the nationalists don't want), the yards in the Clyde would suffer and no doubt end up shut in a decade and there'd be a short term struggle to assert the nation as a new state. But in the long run, a disaster? No. I think we do stand to loose a lot from leaving the Union, but it's a Union which is in serious need of an overhaul.

[jambos are go!]

Ah, that makes it socially progressive then.

Indeed and it shows a major benefit delivered to Scotland by the UK Parliament. Proposed by a Liberal Unionist and delivered by a Unionist Labour Government.

[Kemble's Cascade]

No I'll be telling you that free heathcare was delivered by the UK Labour Party.

 

Indeed and it shows a major benefit delivered to Scotland by the UK Parliament. Proposed by a Liberal Unionist and delivered by a Unionist Labour Government.

 

[Rand Paul's Ray Bans]

Actually, I think it's a pretty futile endeavour predicting what's going to happen post-independence (if it happens), until much nearer the time. Definitely a lack of a plan so far from the SNP (but that's supposed to be coming next year?).

 

Personally atm I'm undecided; I'll make my mind up much nearer the time.

[2NaFish]

Alasdair Gray, wum extraordinaire. take a bow.

[Boris]

Indeed and it shows a major benefit delivered to Scotland by the UK Parliament. Proposed by a Liberal Unionist and delivered by a Unionist Labour Government.

 

But thankfully outwith Westminster's remit now.

[jambos are go!]

Evidence please. I don't think I know a single person on my course who went to a private school. Are places in further education genuinely "being cut for working class kids" or did you just make that up?

 

 

 

I believe that everybody should be entitled to free education, regardless of your background. Why should someone have to pay in their quest for knowledge? Perhaps the billions of pounds we spunk away on nuclear weapons and a pointless war in Afghanistan could be cut instead of making folk pay to go to university. Labour and co. always seem to sidestep that one for some reason, though.

 

 

 

Perhaps, but see my point above. Secondly lets abolish fees at Public Schools if you believe in free education

 

 

 

People shouldn't be in fuel poverty, as we are one of the most oil and energy rich countries on Earth, but we are held back by our apparently "better together" union.

 

 

 

I cannot for the life of me see how a policy of free higher education is "not socially progressive" and frankly I think that is an utterly ludicrous thing to say. Look at nations like Norway and Finland who do not charge tuition fees - they are amongst the best run nations on the planet. Interestingly, they have a lot in common with Scotland. As for the freezing of council tax being done just to get people to support independence, I highly doubt it.

 

Firstly, if you want evidence read the whole thread. Secondly,following your logic we should abolish fees at all public Schools eg Watsons. Heriots. Merchiston, Fettes and Gordonstoun. We can swap examples and I could point that the USA does not have free tuition fees. Its all about priorities for spending and the SNP headline policies favour the middle and upper classes. IMO to garner support for independence. I note although you doubt it you dont rule it out.

 

Now perhaps you could answer my point over why you should 'majorly' benefit from Holyrood expenditure rather than those in fuel and other poverty. I cant justify why I am benefiting from the Council tax freeze. I tend to give but why should the needy rely on that.

Edited December 17, 2012 by jambos are go!

[jambos are go!]

But thankfully outwith Westminster's remit now.

 

The Scottish Health Service has been under the control of the Scottish Government and its predecessors for many decades ( a century?)before the creation of Holyrood. Maybe if it was controlled by Westminster Scots would not have to go to England to get Cancer drugs.

[Boris]

Firstly, if you want evidence read the whole thread. Secondly,following your logic we should abolish fees at all public Schools eg Watsons. Heriots. Merchiston, Fettes and Gordonstoun.

 

Abolish private education then? Where do I sign...

 

Now perhaps you could answer my point over why you should 'majorly' benefit from Holyrood expenditure rather than those in fuel and other poverty. I cant justify why I am benefiting from the Council tax freeze. I tend to give but why should the needy rely on that.

 

I agree, the needy in our society should not have to rely on charity and hondouts. This makes Govt lessen its responsibility.

[Boris]

The Scottish Health Service has been under the control of the Scottish Government and its predecessors for many decades ( a century?)before the creation of Holyrood. Maybe if it was controlled by Westminster Scots would not have to go to England to get Cancer drugs.

 

Stop it. You know fine well what I mean there.

 

Prior to Holyrood, Westminster controlled Scottish Health, part of the Scottish Office's remit, but still responsible to cabinet at Westminster.

 

Bit on Radio 4 this morning about bowel cancer screening. In England the age is 60 for an automatic screening, it's 50 in Scotland. Yeah Westminster...

 

It's quite funny, in previous threads and posts you have quite boastfully (and wrongly imo) heralded how it was New Labour that delivered devolution, yet in this instance you are happy to denigrate the democratic will of the Scottish Electorate.

 

New Labour acolyte speak with forked tongue....

[JamboX2]

 

 

Stop it. You know fine well what I mean there.

 

Prior to Holyrood, Westminster controlled Scottish Health, part of the Scottish Office's remit, but still responsible to cabinet at Westminster.

 

Bit on Radio 4 this morning about bowel cancer screening. In England the age is 60 for an automatic screening, it's 50 in Scotland. Yeah Westminster...

 

It's quite funny, in previous threads and posts you have quite boastfully (and wrongly imo) heralded how it was New Labour that delivered devolution, yet in this instance you are happy to denigrate the democratic will of the Scottish Electorate.

 

New Labour acolyte speak with forked tongue....

 

In all fairness, that first Blair government (97-01) didnt really put a foot wrong. Devolution, minimum wage, human rights act, the succesful completion of the peace settlement, economic growth, new schhols and hospitals. Indeed had it ended there and then we'd still all be Blairites imo. 2002 - 2010 was not a glorius period.

 

But he's right in saying Labour delivered Devolution. They and the LibDems pushed it home while the SNP refused to join the Constitutional Convention or sign it. John Smith made it an 100 day priority. No other party could deliver it. To use a quote from Mick McGahey, "Labour did more in an afternoon for Scotland than the SNP in a decade" (paraphrased the timescale but its from his TUC speech of 1968 on nationalism). By delivering to Scotland devolution Dewar, Smith, McLeish, Wallace, Kennedy, Steel, Cenyon Wright and many of the Labour and Liberal parties gave Scotland something narrow nationalism didnt in 300 years, self-governance.

 

If you like, they gave Nationalists the platform they actually needed to go for independence. Whatever happens it should be established by both sides that we can govern ourselves well.

Edited December 17, 2012 by JamboX2

[Boris]

In all fairness, that first Blair government (97-01) didnt really put a foot wrong. Devolution, minimum wage, human rights act, the succesful completion of the peace settlement, economic growth, new schhols and hospitals. Indeed had it ended there and then we'd still all be Blairites imo. 2002 - 2010 was not a glorius period.

 

But he's right in saying Labour delivered Devolution. They and the LibDems pushed it home while the SNP refused to join the Constitutional Convention or sign it. John Smith made it an 100 day priority. No other party could deliver it. To use a quote from Mick McGahey, "Labour did more in an afternoon for Scotland than the SNP in a decade" (paraphrased the timescale but its from his TUC speech of 1968 on nationalism). By delivering to Scotland devolution Dewar, Smith, McLeish, Wallace, Kennedy, Steel, Cenyon Wright and many of the Labour and Liberal parties gave Scotland something narrow nationalism didnt in 300 years, self-governance.

 

While New Labour put the legislation through, it was the Scottish Electorate who ratified it via the dual question referendum.

 

And I still think that New Labour failed the Union by its hotch-potch approach to devolution within the UK as a whole.

[JamboX2]

 

 

While New Labour put the legislation through, it was the Scottish Electorate who ratified it via the dual question referendum.

 

And I still think that New Labour failed the Union by its hotch-potch approach to devolution within the UK as a whole.

 

You are right. It was a hotch potch. But it was done based on two conventions and a negotiated peace settlement. The Welsh didnt want the level of devolution Scotland wanted. Their justice system for centuries has been english, as was their education. It was a harder sell to justify self rule. The narrower vote shows that. Things there are moving towards greater self governance though. I remember a former Plaid Cymru leader said something about Scots have always had a greater political nationalism whereas in the Welsh its a cultural emphasis through the language, sport and heritage. Which i actually think is the case. Time will tell but i think a no vote will create a british style federalism. Wont be as clear cut as in America or Germany or Canada etc, but it will be a uniquely British solution.

[Boris]

Time will tell but i think a no vote will create a british style federalism. Wont be as clear cut as in America or Germany or Canada etc, but it will be a uniquely British solution.

 

I hope so. I was really hoping for a two question referendum, offering a devo-max option.

 

I don't trust the unionist parties to deliver this off their own backs in the future.

[JamboX2]

 

 

I hope so. I was really hoping for a two question referendum, offering a devo-max option.

 

I don't trust the unionist parties to deliver this off their own backs in the future.

 

I dont think Devo-Max can be delivered without wider Devolution to Wales, Northern Ireland and the major mayor-ships of England. I think it will come but only through an agreement and understanding with others in the UK. Independence is majorly different as its taking yourself totally out of political decision making in the UK, no need to negotiate there apart from termd of separation.

 

I reckon in the 10-15 years following a NO vote then you'd see the emergence of a quasi federal union. A YES vote i think paves the way over 50 years for the UK as a whole to seaparate totally with Wales, England and Northern Ireland all fragmenting apart. Purely because the imbalance to England at Westminster without Scotland is so huge.

[Patrick Bateman]

Given that in the past 10 years, Westminster has taken us into one illegal war, presided over a financial collapse with practically no recovery, an endemic MP expenses scandal and a climate of press collusion, can any Unionist please explain why were are better off being governed from there? The current Unionist tactic appears to be throwing various questions and claiming that a vote for independence will create some sort of apocalyptic uncertainty. When in reality, the future always has uncertainty, but it's far, far better to have some degree of control via a parliament which represents 100% of the country, rather than the 9% we currently have down in London.

[reaths17]

i have no time for any party/politician/ or the union but your points are a bit weak when scottish mp's were involved/ voted on these same points.

 

 

i'm still waiting for some smp's to be jailed for the compulsory works orders carried out by the councils for work that didn't need done at inflated prices by companies linked to members of the council.

 

scams have been carried out by by politicians of all parties and nationalities.

 

the pro independence group are adamant we will be or try to be part of the EU. this will come with conditions that i'm certain will be a worse deal than were getting now and with no power to veto. in other words we will be a smaller fish in a bigger empire.

 

at the moment the english call the shots but we do get some input. you want to swap that for letting the french and germans call the shots with little to no input.

 

i dont see that as benefitting me your every day joe bloggs

[Patrick Bateman]

i have no time for any party/politician/ or the union but your points are a bit weak when scottish mp's were involved/ voted on these same points.

 

 

i'm still waiting for some smp's to be jailed for the compulsory works orders carried out by the councils for work that didn't need done at inflated prices by companies linked to members of the council.

 

scams have been carried out by by politicians of all parties and nationalities.

 

the pro independence group are adamant we will be or try to be part of the EU. this will come with conditions that i'm certain will be a worse deal than were getting now and with no power to veto. in other words we will be a smaller fish in a bigger empire.

 

at the moment the english call the shots but we do get some input. you want to swap that for letting the french and germans call the shots with little to no input.

 

i dont see that as benefitting me your every day joe bloggs

 

I deliberately didn't mention the nationalities of those involved. My point remains unanswered, Westminster is corrupt, why do Unionists think that decisions are 'better made there'? Do they think we'd suddenly fall to pieces? Do they think we're incapable? Do you think we'd have joined in the invasion of Iraq were we an independent country?

 

We are already part of the EU and we have less representation than countries with a similar population, because we are seen as a 'region' of the UK.

 

at the moment the english call the shots but we do get some input. you want to swap that for letting the french and germans call the shots with little to no input.

 

i dont see that as benefitting me your every day joe bloggs

 

That's a tragically servile mindset. We should call our own shots. Do you think the Irish would want to rejoin the UK because of what happened to them economically? Do you think they feel vulnerable and at the whim of Germany and France? I can't understand some peoples mindset towards independence; Scotland must be one of the few places in the world where this is seen as a pejorative word by a substantial amount of the population.

[reaths17]

in my opinion the EU is more bureaucratic and corrupt than westminster.

 

"why do Unionists think that decisions are 'better made there'? Do they think we'd suddenly fall to pieces? Do they think we're incapable?

Do you think they feel vulnerable and at the whim of Germany and France?"

 

i think we would be at the whim of the EU and being part of it is not independence as i recognise it. give me independence and i wiil consider it.

 

norway has the same kind of resources as us "oil, fishing and are doing ok on their own. why does our independence have to be tied into joining the EU.

[Gizmo]

Eu > Westminster > Holyrood

 

or

 

EU > Holyrood

 

The second may come with no veto but we will get more MEPS.

 

Don't see the problem.

[reaths17]

so we will have more useless mp's sitting on the EU gravy train, where do i sign up

[jambos are go!]

Given that in the past 10 years, Westminster has taken us into one illegal war, presided over a financial collapse with practically no recovery, an endemic MP expenses scandal and a climate of press collusion, can any Unionist please explain why were are better off being governed from there? The current Unionist tactic appears to be throwing various questions and claiming that a vote for independence will create some sort of apocalyptic uncertainty. When in reality, the future always has uncertainty, but it's far, far better to have some degree of control via a parliament which represents 100% of the country, rather than the 9% we currently have down in London.

 

So I take it Scots played no part in taking us into Iraq. No Scots MPs voted for it and Scots like Blair, Brown, Darling ,Reid and George Robertson never played a leading role.Involvement was probably Illegal and definetly a disaster but Scots were up to their ears in it. Your statistical justification would support Edinburgh seeking Independence from Scotland and Leith seeking Independence from Edinburgh. Nonsense.The UK is made up of kith and kin as we have discussed before.

[Gizmo]

so we will have more useless mp's sitting on the EU gravy train, where do i sign up

 

Which is it then? Is the argument "less influence" or "too many MEPs"?

[Patrick Bateman]

So I take it Scots played no part in taking us into Iraq. No Scots MPs voted for it and Scots like Blair, Brown, Darling ,Reid and George Robertson never played a leading role.Involvement was probably Illegal and definetly a disaster but Scots were up to their ears in it. Your statistical justification would support Edinburgh seeking Independence from Scotland and Leith seeking Independence from Edinburgh. Nonsense.The UK is made up of kith and kin as we have discussed before.

 

You should try reading my post again. Did I say at any point that there was no 'Scottish' influence? No, I didn't. As an aside, these people would/have all claimed to be British, not Scottish. Trying to play 21st century politics in a 17th century setting, with medieval heckling and scrapping, is bound to lead to failure.

 

I've noticed that no Unionist has even attempted to answer my question. Why should decisions about the military, economy and foreign policy be made in Westminister, by a government that was not voted into power by Scotland, when they could be made at Edinburgh? Given the total failure of successive British governments to promote the Scottish economy and the disastrous military decisions that have been made on our behalf, why shouldn't Scotland have a parliament with 100% control over its affairs? Unionists will pedal the 'uncertainty' stuff, as though they have the answers, funny they didn't see the banking collapse coming, or how to get out of it.

[Gizmo]

So I take it Scots played no part in taking us into Iraq. No Scots MPs voted for it and Scots like Blair, Brown, Darling ,Reid and George Robertson never played a leading role.Involvement was probably Illegal and definetly a disaster but Scots were up to their ears in it. Your statistical justification would support Edinburgh seeking Independence from Scotland and Leith seeking Independence from Edinburgh. Nonsense.The UK is made up of kith and kin as we have discussed before.

 

Would Holyrood vote us into some hair-brained illegal war? NO.

 

Once in the Westminster system most of those unionist politicians toe the party line and the whip, which is predominantly pursuing stupid policies and wars to pretend the UK still has great influence on the world. What a waste of time/money/lives/resources spent on nothing more than "image" basically.

 

I still remember the spineless Rifkind standing idly by whilst Ravenscraig and then Rosyth were messed over and doing sod all about it. THAT is the mentality of the unionist politicians, do as the Party says irrespective of whether you have divided loyalties.

[jambos are go!]

You should try reading my post again. Did I say at any point that there was no 'Scottish' influence? No, I didn't. As an aside, these people would/have all claimed to be British, not Scottish. Trying to play 21st century politics in a 17th century setting, with medieval heckling and scrapping, is bound to lead to failure.

 

I've noticed that no Unionist has even attempted to answer my question. Why should decisions about the military, economy and foreign policy be made in Westminister, by a government that was not voted into power by Scotland, when they could be made at Edinburgh? Given the total failure of successive British governments to promote the Scottish economy and the disastrous military decisions that have been made on our behalf, why shouldn't Scotland have a parliament with 100% control over its affairs? Unionists will pedal the 'uncertainty' stuff, as though they have the answers, funny they didn't see the banking collapse coming, or how to get out of it.

 

The legitimacy of Westminster within Scotland was set out by the Act of Union that Scotland voluntarily entered. That Union continues to hold majority support as expressed in opinion poll after opinion poll and majority support for Unionist parties in Holyrood and Westminster elections. Rock solid legitimacy. And BTw there was majority public support for going into IRAQ IIRC. Only when the folly was exposed did that collapse.

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

 

 

Would Holyrood vote us into some hair-brained illegal war? NO.

 

Once in the Westminster system most of those unionist politicians toe the party line and the whip, which is predominantly pursuing stupid policies and wars to pretend the UK still has great influence on the world. What a waste of time/money/lives/resources spent on nothing more than "image" basically.

 

I still remember the spineless Rifkind standing idly by whilst Ravenscraig and then Rosyth were messed over and doing sod all about it. THAT is the mentality of the unionist politicians, do as the Party says irrespective of whether you have divided loyalties.

 

You cannot for one minute predict what Holyrood would do. What if an independent Scotland actually finds that it needs or wants to be as close to the US as the UK is? And then is asked to show it's support for US operations? I know salmond opposed the Iraq war (righty so) but in reality, he did so in the knowledge that no-one could call his bluff. If you're telling me that Scotish politicians are more inclined to "do the right thing", you're being a bit presumptuous.

[Arnold Rothstein]

You should try reading my post again. Did I say at any point that there was no 'Scottish' influence? No, I didn't. As an aside, these people would/have all claimed to be British, not Scottish. Trying to play 21st century politics in a 17th century setting, with medieval heckling and scrapping, is bound to lead to failure.

 

I've noticed that no Unionist has even attempted to answer my question. Why should decisions about the military, economy and foreign policy be made in Westminister, by a government that was not voted into power by Scotland, when they could be made at Edinburgh? Given the total failure of successive British governments to promote the Scottish economy and the disastrous military decisions that have been made on our behalf, why shouldn't Scotland have a parliament with 100% control over its affairs? Unionists will pedal the 'uncertainty' stuff, as though they have the answers, funny they didn't see the banking collapse coming, or how to get out of it.

 

Where do you stop though? For arguments sake, say Glasgow is represented predominantly by Labour MSPs but we have an SNP government at Holyrood, should Glasgow then protest that they didn't vote the SNP in so why should decisions affecting them be made by a government that they did not vote into power?

[number-16]

You cannot for one minute predict what Holyrood would do. What if an independent Scotland actually finds that it needs or wants to be as close to the US as the UK is? And then is asked to show it's support for US operations? I know salmond opposed the Iraq war (righty so) but in reality, he did so in the knowledge that no-one could call his bluff. If you're telling me that Scotish politicians are more inclined to "do the right thing", you're being a bit presumptuous.

 

I'm sure we could make this man ambassador to the US and he'd smooth everything over.

 

http://t1.gstatic.co...C3cDWddqMuw&t=1

[Gizmo]

You cannot for one minute predict what Holyrood would do. What if an independent Scotland actually finds that it needs or wants to be as close to the US as the UK is? And then is asked to show it's support for US operations? I know salmond opposed the Iraq war (righty so) but in reality, he did so in the knowledge that no-one could call his bluff. If you're telling me that Scotish politicians are more inclined to "do the right thing", you're being a bit presumptuous.

 

We have NO need to pretend to be part of the World Police or sook up to the US. We may enter troops into United Nations peace-keeping missions but I do not believe for a second we'd be trailblazing into Iran on the coat-tails of the US and rump UK. After Obama and Cameron chucked Scotland under the bus in respect to Lockerbie I do not believe our government would be in a hurry to be the doormat of the US.

 

I never even said Scottish politicians would do "the right thing" - I more expect them to be accountable and to listen to the wishes of the electorate. Show me any other small country that rushed to the aid of the US over their incursions into Iraq and Afghanistan?

 

The legitimacy of Westminster within Scotland was set out by the Act of Union that Scotland voluntarily entered. That Union continues to hold majority support as expressed in opinion poll after opinion poll and majority support for Unionist parties in Holyrood and Westminster elections. Rock solid legitimacy. And BTw there was majority public support for going into IRAQ IIRC. Only when the folly was exposed did that collapse.

 

What majority support for Unionist parties in Holyrood?

[Patrick Bateman]

The legitimacy of Westminster within Scotland was set out by the Act of Union that Scotland voluntarily entered. That Union continues to hold majority support as expressed in opinion poll after opinion poll and majority support for Unionist parties in Holyrood and Westminster elections. Rock solid legitimacy. And BTw there was majority public support for going into IRAQ IIRC. Only when the folly was exposed did that collapse.

 

 

If I were a unionist, I'd be wary about appropriating history. I don't really want to go into Darien, etc at the moment, because it's only useful to provide a context, but to say Scotland 'voluntarily' entered it just isn't true and you know it. There were riots on the streets of Glasgow and Edinburgh, ffs. There has been constant voices advocating independence throughout every century since the act of union.

 

The only poll that matters is the one that takes place in Autumn 2014. On the Iraq War - http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/jan/21/uk.iraq2 Poll says otherwise. There was no appetite for war, we were dragged into it by war criminal Blair. If Scotland was independent, we wouldn't have been complicit in it.

 

 

 

Where do you stop though? For arguments sake, say Glasgow is represented predominantly by Labour MSPs but we have an SNP government at Holyrood, should Glasgow then protest that they didn't vote the SNP in so why should decisions affecting them be made by a government that they did not vote into power?

 

Facetious argument. Glasgow isn't a nation, Scotland is. The Union is a relic and isn't the most effective way of governing Scotland. There is an overwhelming amount of empirical support for this position. For instance, in 1950, 50 countries signed the UN charter, there are now 192 independent nations. Why is that? Can you name a country which has become independent, then decided it wasn't for them? It doesn't happen for a reason. I'm amazed at the number of people who will ignore this, or try to twist the indisputable fact that political power is best held in those who have the best interests of the country at heart. As it stands, unionists want Scotland to remain a region, where our needs are secondary to that of the UK; our historic lack of economic growth is the most obvious sign of this, as is the suppression of the McCrone report. Why want to be governed by a system which will outright lie about a country's wealth to protect its own interests? No unionist has ever provided a reason to dismiss the McCrone report.

[Coco]

We have NO need to pretend to be part of the World Police or sook up to the US. We may enter troops into United Nations peace-keeping missions but I do not believe for a second we'd be trailblazing into Iran on the coat-tails of the US and rump UK. After Obama and Cameron chucked Scotland under the bus in respect to Lockerbie I do not believe our government would be in a hurry to be the doormat of the US.

 

I never even said Scottish politicians would do "the right thing" - I more expect them to be accountable and to listen to the wishes of the electorate. Show me any other small country that rushed to the aid of the US over their incursions into Iraq and Afghanistan?

 

[/font][/color]

 

What majority support for Unionist parties in Holyrood?

 

I believed that the Kosovo intervention - driven by Tony Blair - was illegal under international law. But would you have been happy for the Scots to stand aside and not prevent the ethnic cleansing there?

[Coco]

 

 

If I were a unionist, I'd be wary about appropriating history. I don't really want to go into Darien, etc at the moment, because it's only useful to provide a context, but to say Scotland 'voluntarily' entered it just isn't true and you know it. There were riots on the streets of Glasgow and Edinburgh, ffs. There has been constant voices advocating independence throughout every century since the act of union.

 

The only poll that matters is the one that takes place in Autumn 2014. On the Iraq War - http://www.guardian....jan/21/uk.iraq2 Poll says otherwise. There was no appetite for war, we were dragged into it by war criminal Blair. If Scotland was independent, we wouldn't have been complicit in it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Facetious argument. Glasgow isn't a nation, Scotland is. The Union is a relic and isn't the most effective way of governing Scotland. There is an overwhelming amount of empirical support for this position. For instance, in 1950, 50 countries signed the UN charter, there are now 192 independent nations. Why is that? Can you name a country which has become independent, then decided it wasn't for them? It doesn't happen for a reason. I'm amazed at the number of people who will ignore this, or try to twist the indisputable fact that political power is best held in those who have the best interests of the country at heart. As it stands, unionists want Scotland to remain a region, where our needs are secondary to that of the UK; our historic lack of economic growth is the most obvious sign of this, as is the suppression of the McCrone report. Why want to be governed by a system which will outright lie about a country's wealth to protect its own interests? No unionist has ever provided a reason to dismiss the McCrone report.

 

The vast majority of the new independent nations have taken their place internationally due to the end of communist dictatorship or colonial rule.

 

Scotland is not similar to those countries. There are a huge number, perhaps a strong majority, of people in Scotland who see themselves as British.

[shaun.lawson]

On the Iraq War - http://www.guardian....jan/21/uk.iraq2 Poll says otherwise. There was no appetite for war, we were dragged into it by war criminal Blair.

 

 

1. This is untrue.

 

http://www.ipsos-mor...On-The-War.aspx

 

2. Prove that Blair was a "war criminal" please. As I've argued before, the Iraq war was, according to the letter of the law, legal: albeit only by a bawhair.

 

3. If your problem is that you regard the war as illegal, I take it you were calling for Blair to be sent to The Hague when NATO bombed Serbia in a wholly illegal war four years earlier? Problem is, Patrick, rather awkward realities like first, ethnic cleansing in Europe; and second, the fear of the consequences of terrorists getting hold of WMD (the inspection of which Saddam had continually obstructed for many years, and he would certainly have built back up had he had the opportunity to do so) rather gets in the way of your dogma.

Edited December 17, 2012 by shaun.lawson

[JamboX2]

 

 

If I were a unionist, I'd be wary about appropriating history. I don't really want to go into Darien, etc at the moment, because it's only useful to provide a context, but to say Scotland 'voluntarily' entered it just isn't true and you know it. There were riots on the streets of Glasgow and Edinburgh, ffs. There has been constant voices advocating independence throughout every century since the act of union.

 

The only poll that matters is the one that takes place in Autumn 2014. On the Iraq War - http://www.guardian....jan/21/uk.iraq2 Poll says otherwise. There was no appetite for war, we were dragged into it by war criminal Blair. If Scotland was independent, we wouldn't have been complicit in it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Facetious argument. Glasgow isn't a nation, Scotland is. The Union is a relic and isn't the most effective way of governing Scotland. There is an overwhelming amount of empirical support for this position. For instance, in 1950, 50 countries signed the UN charter, there are now 192 independent nations. Why is that? Can you name a country which has become independent, then decided it wasn't for them? It doesn't happen for a reason. I'm amazed at the number of people who will ignore this, or try to twist the indisputable fact that political power is best held in those who have the best interests of the country at heart. As it stands, unionists want Scotland to remain a region, where our needs are secondary to that of the UK; our historic lack of economic growth is the most obvious sign of this, as is the suppression of the McCrone report. Why want to be governed by a system which will outright lie about a country's wealth to protect its own interests? No unionist has ever provided a reason to dismiss the McCrone report.

 

I'm sorry but that is a totally valid point. In 1707 the thoughts and opinions of ordinary people mattered little across the globe. There were riots back then because certain people weren't hung for having sheep 10 miles too close to the coast, in Hartlepool people hung a monkey believing it to be a french spy. Folk back then were idiots to be frank. No where near as close to our level of knowledge of politics or the world. Riots were a normal part of Scotland in the tumultuous period after the covenanters and the restoration of the crown. Scotland made Britain, and Britain made Scotland. Scotland would have been a European backwater for a century unless it had been for the Union. That's a fact.

 

On your second point, Glasgow was part of the nation of Strathclyde, which till the Union of Scotland in the 10th Century was independent. So they like Northumbria, or Wessex or Pictland all have claims to nationality. That is a historical fact. Not that that will happen. I will say this, there is a belief in the Shetland and Orkney Islands that if Scotland goes independent that they deserve a devolution, as it is a greater distance between Shetland and Edinburgh than it is from Edinburgh to London. They want greater self governance now because they believe Holyrood is a central belt run clique, like some here view Westminster to be a distance foreign government. That's also a fact. So an independent Scotland may result in a state where you have mainland and Island Scotland. What do the pro-independence folk think on that?

 

 

I myself believe in devolution, not independence.

[jambos are go!]

 

 

If I were a unionist, I'd be wary about appropriating history. I don't really want to go into Darien, etc at the moment, because it's only useful to provide a context, but to say Scotland 'voluntarily' entered it just isn't true and you know it. There were riots on the streets of Glasgow and Edinburgh, ffs. There has been constant voices advocating independence throughout every century since the act of union.

 

The only poll that matters is the one that takes place in Autumn 2014. On the Iraq War - http://www.guardian....jan/21/uk.iraq2 Poll says otherwise. There was no appetite for war, we were dragged into it by war criminal Blair. If Scotland was independent, we wouldn't have been complicit in it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I see this discussion has moved on and others have joined in but how can you include a link that largely does not support your point and say it does. And dismiss the the current and historic support for the Union as irrelevant. Give me Strength.

[reaths17]

Which is it then? Is the argument "less influence" or "too many MEPs"?

 

 

do bums on seats give you more influence, really?

[Boris]

Scotland would have been a European backwater for a century unless it had been for the Union. That's a fact.

 

Em, I'm not sure that is strictly true.

 

Due to the reformation, Scotland was in many ways far more advanced that the rest of Europe, mainly through the provision of primary education. The people weren't as thick as you seem to think.

 

Would this have happened had there been a full Union in 1603, rather than just the crowns? I'm not so sure. The Presbyterian influence may well have been subdued by Anglican liturgy, as was attempted by Charles I, and that never went well for him.

 

I don't doubt that Scotland contributed to the growth and (relative) success of the British Empire, and equally, the Empire benefited certain social strata in Scotland, but then again, arguably, Scotlands main contribution to the Empire was providing cannon-fodder as joining the military was about the only career available to many, especially after the Highland Clearances.

 

Let us not forget Voltaire, who once said that, "We look to Scotland for all our ideas of civilisation."

 

So I would argue that, Union or not in 1707, people like Adam Smith, David Hume, Robert Burns etc would still have flourished intellectually and culturally. Also, don't forget that at the time of Union our Southern "benefactor" only had two universities, while poor, ignorant Scotland had four. That, I think, says an awful lot.

 

Oh, and going off topic, happy birthday Jambos are Go! Hope you have a good day.

[jambos are go!]

Em, I'm not sure that is strictly true.

 

Due to the reformation, Scotland was in many ways far more advanced that the rest of Europe, mainly through the provision of primary education. The people weren't as thick as you seem to think.

 

Would this have happened had there been a full Union in 1603, rather than just the crowns? I'm not so sure. The Presbyterian influence may well have been subdued by Anglican liturgy, as was attempted by Charles I, and that never went well for him.

 

I don't doubt that Scotland contributed to the growth and (relative) success of the British Empire, and equally, the Empire benefited certain social strata in Scotland, but then again, arguably, Scotlands main contribution to the Empire was providing cannon-fodder as joining the military was about the only career available to many, especially after the Highland Clearances.

 

Let us not forget Voltaire, who once said that, "We look to Scotland for all our ideas of civilisation."

 

So I would argue that, Union or not in 1707, people like Adam Smith, David Hume, Robert Burns etc would still have flourished intellectually and culturally. Also, don't forget that at the time of Union our Southern "benefactor" only had two universities, while poor, ignorant Scotland had four. That, I think, says an awful lot.

 

Oh, and going off topic, happy birthday Jambos are Go! Hope you have a good day.

 

Thanks but its not my Birthday. My profile is a mystery to me and I dont know who put that in or more worringly the various friends I seem to have mysteriously gained and had to delete.Maybe its George Foulkes or Leslie Deans birthday. I've been accused of being them more than once.