Forum menu
This is just a question of choosing which people you regard as the base unit.
As I've said before, I would prefer a fully federal system of government in the UK. If that was in place, Scottish independence would be a fringe issue.
But it isn't. We're stuck with Westminster, with its undemocratic voting system, its unelected Lords, its cronyism and nepotism. No party wants to get rid of it, or even reform the system slightly.
So all we can do is pick the base unit we have to work with - Scotland - and change that.
Few people deny Scotland is a country - certainly not the "I'm a proud Scot" Better Together people. Scotland is a typical Northern European country in political outlook. It's Britain that's weird:
OH so more from that link which claims
25 October 1951 - Conservative (Winston Churchill)
Scotland voted Conservative (48.6%). Got Conservative.
England voted Labour (46.1%). Got Conservative.
http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/ge51/seats51.htm
says england voted conservative in % and MP terms so I think that paper /claim must be poor but I cannot be bothered doing them all.
Can I see any working rational for your claim please THM
I assume you iwsh to ignore the fact based nature of my retorts and just maintain your claim and then call AS names?
FWIW http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/uktable.htm
Which links to each result and then you can do it by region to see what the figures are
yes it is a slow day at work
It has to be true, assuming we agree democratic is fairer.
Then wouldn't it be even fairer for Fifers if Fife was independent?
[quote=konabunny ]
It has to be true, assuming we agree democratic is fairer.
Then wouldn't it be even fairer for Fifers if Fife was independent?
Of course. All Fife has to do is create it's own legitimately elected local government and then negotiate with the govt. of iScotland to hold a referendum.
There is a proposal to create around 100 local councils and devolve a lot of power to them:
That sounds unfair.
says england voted conservative in % and MP terms so I think that paper /claim must be poor but I cannot be bothered doing them all.
Your link says England voted 45.64% Conservative (or 48.78% for a combined Conservative sub-total) and 48.81% Labour.
I assume you iwsh to ignore the [i]fact[/i] based nature of my retorts
what's that phrase your so keen on about ironing?
I think the reductionist argument about Orkney, Shetland, Fife etc being able to vote is on a par with the counter-point about England being able to vote to go independent. As scotroutes says, all you have to do is elect the right people, who can then negotiate a case for a referendum. The SNP have done exactly that, which still staggers me, given what level of support they used to gather in the 70s and 80s.
But it isn't. We're stuck with Westminster, with its undemocratic voting system, its unelected Lords, its cronyism and nepotism. No party wants to get rid of it, or even reform the system slightly.
There was a great programme on the House of Lords recently, basically saying they were good for the country because they lacked 'party' political affiliation, leaving them free to approve or discredit ideas on merit*.
*Yes, this is a massive generalisation open to attack. I'll see if I can dig out the original piece (I want to say it was 'Lord's Tale', but I'm not sure it is without watching a good portion of it).
what's that phrase your so keen on about ironing?
Sorry I did not mean to put the % [ the difference is only 0.03 %] claim in there I just meant to put down the MP's. My error, I was wrong and not trying to spin it. I have not really helped my case have I 😳 Sorry and thanks for at least reading.
If we look at MP's
Conservative - 259 and combined 271
Labour - 233
England Tory MP's were the majority even thought they [just] lost the popular vote
I am not sure that is "losing the election" and if it is then england alone lost the election. there will not be a similar scenario in scotland and the point was % were chosen to spin the case.
I am not sure how i could have made that point worse or shot myself in the foot so more.
It is marginal and shows the weakness in FPTP rather than
Then wouldn't it be even fairer for Fifers if Fife was independent?
There is probably a point at which passport for Pimlico becomes a comedy and a little counter productive
We have done the a constituency is not a country debate a numbe rof time now
There was a great programme on the House of Lords recently, basically saying they were good for the country because they lacked 'party' political affiliation, leaving them free to approve or discredit ideas on merit*.
voting for the house of lords would be a disaster, we already have a bunch to self serving politicians only looking after their own career... Salmond included...
Anyway, back to Scotland... good luck, go independent, cos if you don't there will only be continued whining about it...
Any figures for setting up a parallel civil service? I would assume now the cost will be similar what ever the size of the country due to a lot of the work being done in large call centers and computer systems. Discounting stuff like the police of course.
Do any of you who support the yes side know why all politicians in all countries are despised? Yes I know they are politicians but they promise the moon on a stick but strangely enough usually cannot deliver. Don't be fooled into thinking politics in Scotland will be any different.
Any figures for setting up a parallel civil service?
Why would we need to do that when we already have one?
The UK has a civil service and some of the infrastructure is based in Scotland. Any changes to policies such as big tax changes will require big changes to the software for example. Roll on those big IT projects.
Geda - the dunleavy report looked into this - the plan is that they are going to continue using rUK DVLA, HMRC etc. until at least 2018 under contract
Of course, thats if we're willing to let them use it - which IMO is entirely dependent on their attitude regards debt repayments, Faslane etc.
Of course, thats if we're willing to let them use it - which IMO is entirely dependent on their attitude regards debt repayments, Faslane etc.
With that attitude on display we'd simply take our percentage share of each and every part of the UK including software code leaving you right up shit street. But only we wouldn't do that as we are a mature and responsible nation.
I assumed that there must be a period of dual running. Still it would be interesting to see how much it will cost as they are capital projects that will need funding, borrowing for example. Borrowing will cost more for a new country especially if it does not have its own currency. Another interesting thing is for example campaigning for a nuclear free Scotland. Individual policies are pointless as surely the only thing that matters is yes/no it is only after independence that these sort of decisions will be made. At a guess the Scottish political climate could swing to the right as you are no longer voting against those bullying southern tories but for "self reliant" Scottish conservatives that want to encourage free enterprise and get foreign investment. Fair social policies can only come from a strong economy. Look at Ireland for an example. As I have said before culture steers the politics of a country and in terms of culture there is not that much difference between England and Scotland.
With that attitude on display we'd simply take our percentage share of each and every part of the UK including software code leaving you right up shit street. But only we wouldn't do that as we are a mature and responsible nation.
Aye big man, Scotland holds all the bargaining chips, eh!
now, who is it whose vote they have to get to join the EU? 😆
At a guess the Scottish political climate could swing to the right
You been drinking?
in terms of culture there is not that much difference between England and Scotland
If by England you mean the North of England then I'd agree with you, but the south is radically different.
It is safe to say both sides have nuclear [ see what I did there] threats to the other but i doubt either will press it as its obvious it would harm both sides
Aye big man, Scotland holds all the bargaining chips, eh!now, who is it whose vote they have to get to join the EU?
Given that everyone in Scotland is already an EU citizen and will remain so after independence due to there being no mechanism for removing our EU citizenship then it certainly will not be needing the rUK's vote, or indeed lack of veto.
Scotland holds more bargaining chips that you give it credit for. That's probably why there is so much opposition from Westminster and south of the border - because you know that you're in a bit of trouble if independence does happen.
Given that everyone in Scotland is already an EU citizen and will remain so after independence due to there being no mechanism for removing our EU citizenship then it certainly will not be needing the rUK's vote, or indeed lack of veto.
Yes, keep on repeating it and it might come true - shame that all the EU politicians still seem to reckon the opposite 😆
Maybe its hidden in that legal opinion that Alex still refuses to publish 🙄
One question - if you're wrong, whats plan B?
One question - if you're wrong, whats plan B?
Stay out of the EU and have the fishing grounds all to ourselves.
With that attitude on display we'd simply take our percentage share of each and every part of the UK including software code leaving you right up shit street.
Marvellous. Do I know you IRL? There's a chap at work says almost exactly the same.
He's not very bright.
Stay out of the EU and have the fishing grounds all to ourselves.
😆
£500M fishing business, versus £1.3 billion whisky exports to EU
I'm afraid that this is a trade war you ain't gonna win 😉
One question - if you're wrong, whats plan B?
Keep the nuclear weapons and point them towards our new enemy?
Yourselves?
good call!
£500M fishing business, versus £1.3 billion whisky exports to EUI'm afraid that this is a trade war you ain't gonna win
You won't be laughing when the Tunnocks stop coming south.
versus £1.3 billion whisky exports to EU
You telling me that people in Europe would instantly stop drinking whisky? That argument is retarded.
Also given that Scottish boats alone landed £429million worth of fish in one particularly bad year a couple of years ago, it would seem unlikely that the whole fishery was only worth £500m/yr.
£500M fishing business
Does that include the non-uk vessels fishing in Scottish waters but landing outside uk?
Ernie, ninfan,
sorry Ernie I meant that they can't nuke us because we have nukes i.e. a deterrent. Let's try to keep the discussion pleasant guys. 😉The reason given for their inability to "nuke us" was poor outdated equipment
Ben, I agree with you nukes are repugnant but I think the world is stuck with them until we all live in peace, due to the amount of conflict going on I predict that won't be any time soon 🙁 .
Wanmankylung is a better together troll?
No - and that's actually pretty insulting.
sorry Ernie I meant.....
I see, you meant something different to what you said.
Is this even on topic anymore?
Somebody is fibbing somewhere.
I see, you meant something different to what you said.
No Ernie as pointed out by ninfan there was a comma there to aid understanding. I will use bullet points from now on. 😉
Nothing to do with commas. Z-11 tried to help a fellow nuclear armer out by suggesting it was all down to commas.
If you wanted to say "they can't nuke us because we have nukes" then you should have said so.
Even with all the commas it still doesn't say "they can't nuke us because we have nukes"
fasternotfatter - MemberBen Russia and China have poor outdated equipment, couldn't nuke us and our troops have real combat experience.
Gordi, they invaded Georgia and slyly invaded Ukrainian Crimea as well.
Posted 23 hours ago # Report-Post
On a side issue, almost every country in the world doesn't have nuclear weapons and yet Russia and China haven't nuked any of them with their outdated equipment and inexperienced troops.
Is having experienced troops a good thing to boast about? Or is it more a sign that the country's leaders are a bit fighty and warmongering.
klumpy - Member
....As for moving them from Scotland, the base was never a nuclear target in itself as the deterrent subs are mostly at sea...
Strange reasoning. The base is where the non-operational subs and warheads are held. It would have to be a prime target if only to deny re-supply.
There is a precedent.
The UK put a lot of effort into trying to destroy German U-boat bases during WWII for very much the same reasons.
scotroutes - Member
A/ a currency union would place no more restraints on the Scottish Government than it currently has.
Was that serious Scotroutes? If so, that is a unique interpretation of how CUs work.
Perhaps it was a really smart answer in that the no more restraints refers to the fact that you would (it isn't going to happen) devolve all responsibility to a foreign country. So independent, that you don't even bother. Amazing concept.
THM - would Scotland be independent if they joined the Euro? Because Germany, France, Spain and Italy are all what right minded individuals would call independent and they use a currency over which they do not have full control. So, what exactly is your grip about a currency union? Other than spouting utter shite.
On the contrary, I understand entirely how this works.You don't quite understand how independence works. Sure, we'd be tied into a currency union, EU treaties, NATO treaties, WTO treaties, whatever, same as every other country.But if we didn't like it, we could elect a government that would pull us out of those treaties. We could decide for ourselves whether we wanted to be in those clubs or not.
However, how long do you think it takes to negotiate a way out of treaty commitments and how much do you think it costs? It is a contract. It will have penalties designed to be much worse in the event of departure than staying. No party to a treaty will be happy to (say) see Scotland benefit for 10 years and then leave the deal once it is Scotland's turn to let the support flow the other way without paying for that. Once you're in, departing is a nuclear (in political and diplomatic terms) option.
Why thank you - utter shite it is then.
Out of interest, have you had a wee look at what has been going on in Europe over the past few years. What happens when you're devolve responsibility to others who are unaccountable to you. Just how much independence do many countries in the (your word) shite have. Look at the "democratic" result in Italy. Ask youself just have equal and prosperous the periphery of Europe are.
They have given up responsibility for their own policies and the results have been an utter disaster.
So how independent? Less than now, that is the elephant in the room. If you want to swallow this, good luck! See no evil, hear no evil, speak now evil.....
Anyway CU isn't going to happen, so major gripe is that the DO should STFU and come up with plan D and no, that isn't sterlingisation..
Anyway CU isn't going to happen, so major gripe is that the DO should STFU and come up with plan D and no, that isn't sterlingisation..
What are you basing the currency union isn't going to happen claim on?
Also wtf is a DO?
And plans A&B are using sterling, plan D is using the Euro and plan C is the Cameron is a Bawbag (rather catchy name for a currency.)
It takes considerable myopia to vote for the exact opposite of what you want. But don't say that you were not warned.