Forum menu
So, as a Scottish citizen, do you rule yourself, or are the laws set by Salmond and Co?
Unless you're First Minister, I think you'll find you always have someone dictating to you in Scotland. Frankly I don't see how it makes any difference. But fine, be a small-worlder, stick your head in the sand, and just wait until you wish you'd been a bit more forward thinking...
Sadly some people are happy being subservient in a class-ridden society with no freedom and want to see everyone else in the same mire.
Not sure if that's incorrectly aimed at me or not, but you couldn't be further from the truth. I'm doing quite well thank you very much, after having just acted quite selfishly and buggered off to a much better paid job with much better conditions on the other side of the world. By being quite the opposite of subservient, I got myself into a position where I could make that decision. What's your excuse?
I'm not sure I quite buy the comments about "idiotic money wasting nonsense that England has" or that this has resulted in better services, particularly in healthcare.
A quick google suggests that the most recent research has found that the oppositite is true - healthcare in Scotland is less efficient, less productive and delivers worse outcomes that England e.g. one and five year cancer survival rates are worse; despite receving significantly more funding.
[url= http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/36928 ]The Centre for Public Policy Research[/url] and KPMG also report improved health outcomes in all the constituent countries, but conclude that there hasn't been a narrowing of the relative health gaps between Scotland and England, despite a 12-16% higher spend per person and 30% higher staffing levels north of the border.
Obviously some of this may be explained by geographic differences, but the differences in the numbers above seems pretty substantial.
yes that is correct an elected representative sets the laws via parliament. Are you arguing against democracy now or just getting desperate with your trolling attempts?
But fine, be a small-worlder, stick your head in the sand, and just wait until you wish you'd been a bit more forward thinking
Again why would anyone want to partner up with you when this is your disparaging attitude towards them.
I think you will find the SNP wants independence from the UK not the EU or the world in general. Federal systems work well eleswhere and can you really tell me why Scotland should not be allowed to make different choices from England over say Education costs - no fees. Remember the Scothish voted, in the General Election for 41 labour MPs 11 Lib dems 6 SNP and ONE Tory and they would have got a tory liberal alliance ruling them. You really think that is fairer system than them having their own parliament that can refelect their differnt political opinion from the England? How can you see that as small minded rather than fair?
Farmer health outcomes are NOT dictated solely by the amount of money the state spend on this. Clealrly other factors such as smoking, diet, alcohol consumption and excercise and wealth affect health outcomes.
Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland are part of a sovereign nation, The UK. Why should the people living there have any more right to decide to become independant than say somewhere like Burnley? If I'm understanding the argument correctly, because a majority of people in a specific area want to be independant then they should be allowed to. I suppose what I don't get is that before the region became devolved it was part of a bigger entity, an entity that I am also a citizen of. Why didn't people in England (or Wales for that matter) get to vote on the splitting up of their country. At that time we were all equal citizens?
If you follow the logic to it's ridiculous conclusion any small town or hamlet should be able to declare independance. Look at it another way, many people in the countryside alliance argued against the fox hunting ban because it was alleged to have been mainly supported by people living in towns. Obviously the argument is drivel as we live in a democracy which means everyone's views are equally important and in theory are represented by our politicians. Shouldn't the same have been true for the devolution issues, everyone should have been able to vote, or conversely nobidy and the elected representatives make the decision on our behalf.
Probably not argued that very clearly but I'd be interested in people's views.
Personally I'd rather live a one bigger diverse but cohesive country, which is what I was born into, seems my wishes don't count though when the break up was decided.
I suppose what I don't get is that before the region became devolved it was part of a bigger entity, an entity that I am also a citizen of
Before it was united it was part of a smaller entity called Scotland Can the UK leave the European Union or can the other members object to this and also vote to decide?
Why didn't people in England (or Wales for that matter) get to vote on the splitting up of their country.
See how you can name seperate countries whilst claiming Scotland is part of them.... it is not being split up the UK is.
By your argument if a spouse wants to divorce it is up to thier partner to allow this [after all they are part of the union] and without this consent they must stay married for ever...does this seem fair to you?
England,Wales,Northern Ireland and Scotland all joined the United Kingdom as equal nations and if the people of any one of those nations vote to leave the United Kingdom they can do so.
At the time of the union the scottish people did nt get much say. Instead a few nobles with vested interests decided to line their own pockets... nothing much has changed in 300 years
England,Wales,Northern Ireland and Scotland all joined the United Kingdom as equal nations and if the people of any one of those nations vote to leave the United Kingdom they can do so.
Not the way it was taught when I did history....
Anyway, what's not to like about devolution?
Plenty of examples where states devolve a lot of power to regional "states" or autonomous / semi-autonomous regions.
About time there was a Cornish Assembly....
rkk01 Its not the way I was taught history in school either but that was due to a system that ignored large chunks of Scottish history. The system only changed in the mid 70s. Try googling "Treaty of Union 1707"
Again why would anyone want to partner up with you when this is your disparaging attitude towards them.
Que?
I'm only disparaging towards those supporting such a petty ludicrous argument. Again, not sure what 'partnering up' has to do with anything. Do you actually have anything useful to say?
If Cameron really wants to save money he should move the British parliament out of Westminster (very expensive real estate) and sell the building to an American high end hotel group.
Senior civil servants (much as they might dislike it) would soon leave London if they found they had to travel to see their minister; juniors would soon follow.
So make money on the building sale and save money on wages without anyone loosing their standard of living.
Scotland would work very well as in independent nation.The money we saved by not killing people in Iraq and Afghanistan would probably enable us to buy most of Northern England.
Large parts of northern England find London about as relevant as Scotland does and might well be interested in a "Federation of Bits of Britain That Ain't The Corpulent South East" - we may need to work on a snappier title.
I'm only disparaging towards those supporting such a petty ludicrous argument. Again, not sure what 'partnering up' has to do with anything. Do you actually have anything useful to say?
Union - A combination so formed, especially an alliance or confederation of people, parties, or political entities for mutual interest or benefit
Partner - One that is united or associated with another or others in an activity or a sphere of common interest
Partnering- to bring together as partners
HTH
I note you declined to comment on whether the UK could leave the European Union without the consent of the other partners as you state Scotland /Wales cannot.
I am able to state my case and counter your points without calling your argument ludicrious or throwing petty insults in your general direction.
The big problem with the UK is that there is not a devolved government for England.
Then our national government could be just that.
At the moment the national government is basically an English government.
I note you declined to comment on whether the UK could leave the European Union without the consent of the other partners as you state Scotland /Wales cannot.
Did I? Don't remember typing that, but then I have more interesting things to do in my life than pay too much attention to what quite a few on here take far far too seriously. You seem to be confused anyway - Scotland, Wales and NI are all within the UK. Did you mean England?
I am able to state my case and counter your points without calling your argument ludicrious or throwing petty insults in your general direction.
State your case you may be able to. State a convincing case for the following questions I seem to ask forever more on these threads? No...
a) Why the majority of Scotland would be better long-term outside of the UK
b) How being a seperate member of the EU from the UK would be any different (if they would have you on your own to start with - UK is a member as a whole, not its constituent parts) from being a member of the UK and EU, other than subsidies coming from England via Brussels, as opposed to more directly? Also bear in mind how much legislation is already handled by Brussels...
c) Or the other angle, how on earth it could benefit Scotland to be a completely independent nation with no formal trade agreements for when things start getting tough? (Other than 'pride')
d) Why other regions of the UK that aren't the South East can't suddenly declare independence, bearing in mind that if you go back far enough through history, someone else's kingdom was swallowed/merged/conquered to form the 4 current constituent nations?
There you go, answer those convincingly, and you might just have a credible argument...
Easy!
a) Why the majority of Scotland would be better long-term outside of the UK
2 main threads - one is that Scotland would be richer now from retaining the oil money and 2) that Scotland could have macro economic policies that suit Scotland rather than the south est of England
b) How being a seperate member of the EU from the UK would be any different (if they would have you on your own to start with - UK is a member as a whole, not its constituent parts) from being a member of the UK and EU, other than subsidies coming from England via Brussels, as opposed to more directly? Also bear in mind how much legislation is already handled by Brussels...
Because Scotland would have representation in the EU which at the moment it does not.
c) Or the other angle, how on earth it could benefit Scotland to be a completely independent nation with no formal trade agreements for when things start getting tough? (Other than 'pride')
Thats not SNP policy - independence in Europe is the aim
d) Why other regions of the UK that aren't the South East can't suddenly declare independence, bearing in mind that if you go back far enough through history, someone else's kingdom was swallowed/merged/conquered to form the 4 current constituent nations?
If they want to they could. It would be much harder however
You do show your ignorance on this one Zokes
2 main threads - one is that Scotland would be richer now from retaining the oil money and 2) that Scotland could have macro economic policies that suit Scotland rather than the south est of England
You do show your ignorance on this one Zokes
Really? I said long-term, and you put your nation's future on a fast dwindling resource. I don't need to argue that - it argues itself.
Before the oil runs out though, I guess you'll be paying a massive subsidy to the EU's poorer countries then, seeing as I remember you previously waving figures demonstrating Scotland would be significantly better off. I don't believe it, but if you are, then surely that's what you'd have to do to be a member?
Anyway, they may just kick all the English back out if they were independent - who would you moan about then? 😉
zokes - hence the second part - macro economic policies to suit
zokes - Member
...State your case you may be able to. State a convincing case for the following questions I seem to ask forever more on these threads? No...a) Why the majority of Scotland would be better long-term outside of the UK
If would be worse off, then surely all those against its devolution should change their minds and support devolution, otherwise you are subsidising us.
let's repatriate the english back to germany where they came from and leave Britain for the Britons
(phone won't let me insert those smiley things)
Why the majority of Scotland would be better long-term outside of the UK
It is a long time since Scotland [or Wales] voted Tory but they get plenty of Tory policies from their English cousins voting patterns..you never say why this is better for them to have the policies of a government they dont support. Do explain please.
b) How being a seperate member of the EU from the UK would be any different (if they would have you on your own to start with - UK is a member as a whole, not its constituent parts) from being a member of the UK and EU, other than subsidies coming from England via Brussels as opposed to more directly? Also bear in mind how much legislation is already handled by Brussels...
Scotland would get to vote if it was a seperate entity in the council of ministers.
c) Or the other angle, how on earth it could benefit Scotland to be a completely independent nation with no formal trade agreements for when things start getting tough? (Other than 'pride')
Perhaps they will be OK without England you know it is possible. I bet people said this to USA and to every country as the Empire fell apart..without us you will be nothing you will fail...you slip so easily into this conceited arrogance.
d) Why other regions of the UK that aren't the South East can't suddenly declare independence, bearing in mind that if you go back far enough through history, someone else's kingdom was swallowed/merged/conquered to form the 4 current constituent nations?
What other regions do is a matter from them clearly I agree with a federal system, so why would I have a problem with this ?Clearly federal governments work. I dont think at present ther eis much pressure for this but it may arise. Again unsure as to why local democracy is so bad in your view.