[Closed] Todays Scottish Independence thread

Accurate?

Succinct?

We don't want any of that nonsense! How is that supposed to promote tribal, repetitive, petty bickering and childish point-scoring?

Go and have a think about what it is you've just done

We're preparing to defend our borders
[img] [/img]

Can't we just build a wall or something and have done with it?

BBSB, TJ's looking well buff and ting there.

There's no thread that can't be improved with a judicious application of Zardoz.

Just realised that if we get Independence. We get rid of Osborne, Clegg and CMD in on fell swoop.

I'll take on RBS' debts for that.

Salmond isn't really proposing independance though is he? It appears that he is just trying to move the government from London to Brussels. I'm not really sure that would help much...

Am I mistaken in the following thinking...?

- Salmond has been bleating on about independence, joining the Euro and being a Celtic Tiger for a few years now. Westminster generally ignores him.
- Now that the Eurozone is down the toilet and it would be a disaster for Scotland to be part of the Euro, Westminster are saying "fine, have a referendum. Difficulty: Yes or No options only."
- Salmond realises he's been so focused on splitting from Westminster that he forgot to pay attention to the happenings in the Eurozone and that noone in Scotland with a brain in their head would now vote for independence and the subsequent joining of the Eurozone, so is now pressing for a third option of no actual proper independence but rather greater fiscal independence.
- Westminster is enjoying Salmond's back-pedalling and relishing the opportunity to put the Scottish independence question to bed once and for all.

EDIT: I may or may not have confused the Eurozone with Euro-using countries. I mean the latter.

the opportunity to put the Scottish independence question to bed once and for all.

I wouldn't of thought that the issue would go away just because a referendum was defeated. You'd still have the campaign for Devo-max or whatever you want to call it, and it would still come back in 20 or 30 years time I'd of thought, like it did after the vote in the 70's.

Yes, you are mistaken.

Next question...

why not scots did not vote for the current lot they finished 3 and 4 th in scotland but get to rule due to literally english votes- they finished 2 3 in wales with only 11 seats combined v 26 for labour- you seem to think it is ok for england to decide the laws for wales and scotland despite them not being the most popular parties[ even combined].It is quite undemocratic

I wouldn't of thought that the issue would go away just because a referendum was defeated

+1

Eventually, this will only end one way - independence. Ideally, I'd like to see it in my lifetime though 🙂

Ox- yes, you are quite mistaken.

The Flying Ox - it is remarkable how you have, in spite of the widespread recent media coverage, managed to completely miss what is actually going on.

Find the other threads on this and you'll see some reasonable debate and explanation (on both sides of the independence argument)

Hmm.. federalism...

Meh. I was hoping to keep this one light-hearted rather then regurgitating the stuff from the past couple of days!

goo d shout that tbh to save the union

the figures are quite shocking with libs and cons being 3 rd and 4 th in scots uk election and 2 & 3 rd in wales - it does seem odd they should be ruled by who the english want

I dont think federalism within a more powerful EU is necessarily that bad an idea personally.....cant see uk politicians voting to reduce their power though
Note not all constituencies are the same size as the lib dems get massive ones in scotland but have in reality only got 11 to labours 41 and only 1 tory and same in wales for labour - still its clear only England is tory.
I think this is the crux of the issues Scotland will get tory govts but will never vote for them and that makes them dislike the union
[img] [/img]

Scotland will get tory govts but will never vote for them and that makes them dislike the union

Scotland, like the rest of the UK, was ruled by Labour up until fairly recently. Did that then mean that support for the union grew during those years?

CaptainFlashheart - Member
BBSB, TJ's looking well buff and ting there.

POSTED 3 HOURS AGO # REPORT-POST

😀 😀 😀 😀 😀

why not scots did not vote for the current lot they finished 3 and 4 th in scotland but get to rule due to literally english votes- they finished 2 3 in wales with only 11 seats combined v 26 for labour- you seem to think it is ok for england to decide the laws for wales and scotland despite them not being the most popular parties[ even combined].[b]It is quite undemocratic[/b]

no, you're wrong, it's not undemocratic at all, just a case of backing the losing side.

i don't want a tory govt either but i've got one, think i'll press for the peoples republic of denbury.

Look we've taken back Gordo and might even let Darling back in what more do you want from us? Blair is oot o' the country and Sean Canary might come back to live here but only if we don't charge him any tax (so might "the Big Yin") is this not enough penance. Suffering Brown and Darling must be worth the oil revenue alone.

BORED NOW.

New subject please.

no, you're wrong, it's not undemocratic at all, just a case of backing the losing side.

i don't want a tory govt either but i've got one, think i'll press for the peoples republic of denbury.

But effectively we are states within a country so the democratic method means that those with the "most" votes rule.

To take it to extremis I didn't vote Tory so.....

well yes but again if you were in a state that never votes tory would you want to stick with this union - it is hardly a good deal for you now is it ? this will just keep happening [ hence the calls for devolution /independence will keep occuring - lets not forget when they gave the country a parliament hey designed it specifically to never have a majority party as well
I accept many in england did not vote for them either but they are not a country that will always be ruled by another country.it is more like the votes of france decided who rules you and you are destined to get a [Tory] govt you have never voted for

We are countries within a union I suggested states within a country as a possible solution - Devolution max so to speak but the govt the scots did not choose dont want to allow this option, how very democratic.

Scotland is a separate country within a union destined to keep getting a Tory govt they dont want and dont vote for...its not hard to see why this may annoy them and why they may wish to opt for a scenario that gives them the govt they do choose. Given this will occur I dont think the calls will ever die away tbh
Comparing an individual or a constituency with a country is comparing chalk and cheese.

If they gain their independence Tory will be in govt for a long time which also means putting all those lazy buggers to hard labour ...

So please let the Scots have their independence ...

Also once they got their independence they will be less competitive and the South being more competitive means more money and will be able to afford more 2nd home in Scotland ... hahhahha ...

Win, win ...

Wouldn't some kind of coalition with Wales be beneficial for Scotland? Two countries against one which would clearly be in a position to maintain the United Kingdom name.

If they gain their independence Tory will be in govt for a long time

would they though ? they way i remember things, people get fed up of govts and vote them out after a while regardless of what flavour they are.

maybe an england free of the union might one day be free of tory domination too ?

we can but dream.

@Junkyard

I've never voted for a Tory government and I keep getting the buggers. I'd happily throw in my lot with Scotland if they gained independence.

trailmonkey - Member

would they though ? they way i remember things, people get fed up of govts and vote them out after a while regardless of what flavour they are.

maybe an england free of the union might one day be free of the tories too ?

we can but dream.

Makes it harder to vote the other way as most Labour voters are from the North ... so get rid of the lot of them it will be a paradise for Tory which means putting you lazy buggers to hard labour. Therefore, lazy buggers will immigrate to Scotland ... the land of the free! Freedoommm!

Britain without Scotland is like a bicycle without wheels. Sorry, but the Union has achieved a great deal as a common entity and it would be tragic if we broke apart now.

PJM1974 - Member

Britain without Scotland is like a bicycle without wheels.

Yes and no.

Yes, if majority is worst off but I doubt it as the bulk of the population is in the South and I guess the contribution from Scotland might not be as high as everything might have thought.

No, if the South prosper while the North sucks ... they choose that life style so be it.

We can always leave the door open for them to join again if they want ...

Britain without Scotland is like a bicycle without wheels.

don simon - Member

A wheel in itself is a pefectly functioning unit.

To look at for the rich ... 🙂

It strikes me as an exercise in futility. We're all going to end up parts of a federalised Europe sooner or later (which I don't believe to be a bad thing). Even England itself is a sum of it's defunct constituent parts.

Scotland has brought Britain so much over the centuries; culture, engineering, statesmen & women. I do think that in every measure, Britain would be much poorer without Scotland. And vice versa.

Makes it harder to vote the other way as most Labour voters are from the North ... so get rid of the lot of them it will be a paradise for Tory

Not really if you believe David Dimbleby on Question Time this week. He said that no Labour Government has ever needed the Scottish vote to gain a majority. Can't remember the source he quoted. Completely blew Kelvin MacKenzie out of the water who was trying to argue that Labour would be out of power forever if Scotland got independence.

Really all these Scottish Independence threads are completely moot. Whenever the vote happens the turkeys are not going to vote for Christmas. The best Shrek can hope for is some extended form of devolution.

@Junkyard

I've never voted for a Tory government and I keep getting the buggers. I'd happily throw in my lot with Scotland if they gained independence

The Flying Ox - it is remarkable how you have, in spite of the widespread recent media coverage, managed to completely miss what is actually going on.

Sorry all. Wasn't meaning to offend. I've not been in the country since the middle of November and have only really been getting snippets of news.

can you tell me when Scotland or wales last voted for a tory govt?

It doesn't matter. The populace of Wales, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland voted in a General Election for Her Majesty's Government, which sits in Westminster. The lot that are now in power got in because of how the UK's population as a whole voted. That's how it works.

In fact, I can almost certainly guarantee that no Lib Dem supporter has voted Tory, so if anyone has room to moan, it would be those voters...

^^ Point missed I think zokes

can you tell me when Scotland or wales last voted for a tory govt?
It doesn't matter. The populace of Wales, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland voted in a General Election for Her Majesty's Government, which sits in Westminster. The lot that are now in power got in because of how the UK's population as a whole voted. That's how it works

We got this govt because of how England voted though not how the whole of the UL voted as England has the numbers. How about you tell me the last time there was a govt that did not have the majority in England? and then compare that to when it did not have the majority in Scotland and wales...basically the uk govt is chosen by England and the others just have to lump it

It is how it works BUT the issue is whether it is fair or democratic and you made no comment on that.
Whilst this continues to happen it will never be possible to silence the voices asking for independence as they will keep literally getting ruled by who england chooses.

Imagine a govt you dont vote for setting the laws for your country ...that is democracy in action ?

Wouldn't it have all be simpler if Scotland & England had been a proper merger and they'd simply done away with all this "nation within a nation" stuff back in 1706?

I'm pretty sure Scotland votes for 59 seats in Westminster, Junkyard. Where's the unvoted for government?

I never said unvoted as they do vote and they voted labour and they got the govt England chooses thats how- libs and tories finished 3rd and fourth in scotland and had less than labour in terms of votes that is my point - it matters what england votes not what Scotland [ or wales] in the general election

yes they get a say but that say is not critical in deciding who governs them and set their laws so in that sense it is not democratic.

yes they get a say on who governs the whole UK but the critical factor in deciding this result is how england votes not how scotland votes

The fact this happens means there will always be some pressure for independence and whether you wish to be pro union or anti union it is not hard to see why this is unfair, undemocratic and causes resentment.

Imagine england[ uk] was in an union with the EU and the EU kept giving us leaders we had not voted for - lets say we vote tory and keep getting socialist govts...would there be pressure for change in this union here? Would all those claiming the current scenario is fair and democratic also maintain it is fair then? [ Of course not]
Would they further accept that the EU got to set the question to ask if we wished to leave or that all the EU had to decide is we could?

There's about as much merit in your argument as me complaining that because Scotland voted Labour, the Conservatives didn't get an actionable majority at the last election, so England is governed by the coalition.

Scotland at least has some variation in this due to devolution and the Scottish Parliament. England is stuck with the MPs Scotland votes for, end of. Is that democracy at work?

Junkyard - Member
because they voted labour and they get the govt England chooses thats how- libs and tories finished 3rd and fourth in scotland and had less than labour in terms of votes

How explicit do I need to make this point?
yes they get a say but that say is not critical in deciding who governs them and set their laws so in that sense it is not democratic.

yes they get a say who on governs the whole UK but the critical factor in deciding this election result is how england votes not how scotland votes

The fact this happens means there will always be some pressure for independence and whether you wish to be pro union or anti union it is not hard to see why this is unfair, undemocratic and causes resentment.

The Flying Ox - Member

Scotland at least has some variation in this due to devolution and the Scottish Parliament. England is stuck with the MPs Scotland votes for, end of. Is that democracy at work?

Edit: the current coalition would not have been necessary had it not been for the Scottish Labour MPs. There would have been a Tory majority.

the current coalition would not have been necessary had it not been for the Scottish Labour MPs. There would have been a Tory majority.

Other than the fact that this is the only time that's happened as opposed to it being a regular occurrence the other way round, you have a point.

That's my point. You can't complain about England forcing its parliament on Scotland whilst at the same time agreeing that the government the England voted for was scuppered by the Scottish vote.

shame someone else had to make it for you 😛

So the union means no individual country gets the govt they wanted or voted for [ this time any other examples BTW], my mistake it is certainly working and very democratic I withdraw everything i said 😉

This is just another example of how it is not working tbh.

Damn you druidh I did not know that at it does weaken my view [ though it is the exception not the rule] but this is stw so we dont admit that bit obviously

Okay. How about we look at when Scotland got its own parliament and so from which point in time your argument has held any real relevance*. 1997. Who did Scotland vote for? Who got in power? How about 2001? 2005? Were you unhappy about having the English electoral result forced upon you then?

*That's not meant in an insulting way, by the way. It's just that prior to 1997, you sucked up the Tory government you didn't vote for just the same way as my home town did, and Liverpool, and any other number of Labour "strongholds".

Most North Sea UK oil lies in Scottish waters. It is the country’s biggest asset, but a diminishing one: oil tax revenues are projected to fall to 0.2 per cent of UK GDP by 2022/23, from 0.7 per cent now. Even including its geographical share of revenues, Scotland would have had a fiscal deficit of 10.6 per cent in 2010. Moreover, its banks could be an outsized burden. Who would be lender of last resort in the next banking crisis? Mr Salmond appears to want more oil revenue while insisting Scotland’s banks are London’s concern. [b]The thing about independence is that it quickly dispels such complacency.[/b]

Lex column in today's FT

Even including its geographical share of revenues, Scotland would have had a fiscal deficit of 10.6 per cent in 2010.

The Flying Ox - Member
Okay. How about we look at when Scotland got its own parliament and so from which point in time your argument has held any real relevance*. 1997. Who did Scotland vote for? Who got in power? How about 2001? 2005? Were you unhappy about having the English electoral result forced upon you then?

Scotland would have been better off outside of the UK.

Or in the same ballpark anyway, even according to Stephanie Flanders who is hardly likely to skew the numbers towards the SNP view.

On the Treasury view, the gap between spending and revenues in Scotland for 2009-10 was £3,150 per head. On the Scottish Nationalist view, the gap between spending and revenues was closer to £2,130.

Please, take your pick. All I ask is you bear in mind one other number - related to one other obvious, but very important fact. Namely, that Scotland is not the only part of the UK that is currently spending more than it raises in revenues.

If you apply the same kind calculation to the UK as a whole, the net 'subsidy' for the average person was well over £2,000 last year.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16477990

Ditto look at GDP per capita?

I sincerely hope the reason for the split is not money, as that (*in forum terms) would make all the Scots Thatcherites/Tories now wouldn't it .....

I think it's a mistake (as I think big will rule in the modern world, so making yourself smaller isn't a great plan, and I'm not sure how 'big' 'Europe' will be and how we would fit into it), however I'd prefer it (for both Scotland and Wales) to the the absolute bollox of 1 man, 1 tax system, slightly different returns carry on we have now.

Can I also remind everybody of the difference between bankers and politicians - when bankers (*and it was a LOT LOT more people than them who are responsible for overspending mess we're in) cock it up they get culled, when politicians cock it up they get replaced (*ie there is NO saving...)

I sincerely hope the reason for the split is not money, as that (*in forum terms) would make all the Scots Thatcherites/Tories now wouldn't it ...

It isn't money but money is always discussed because unionist politicians say Scotland couldn't afford to be independent.

Again according to FT:

If Salmond, a canny nationalist, has his way, the people of Scotland will vote for independence in a referendum in 2014. Countries of its size (5.2m people) can easily go it alone (think Denmark) but Scotland has a bloated public sector and is currently subsidised from London. Politically, independence may be unassailable; economically, Scotland would face a rocky first few years.

Scotland is a rich country: income per capita of £20,200 is not far short of the UK average of £21,000. Gross domestic product in 2010 was £116bn. But the numbers hide some worrying trends. The Scottish economy is 4 percentage points smaller now than four years ago. It is more sluggish than both the UK – growing by just 1.6 per cent between the trough in the second quarter of 2009 and the second quarter of 2011, compared with 2.7 per cent in the UK – and similar-sized European Union countries, according to official data. Public spending is half of GDP. With a fiscal deficit in 2009/10 of 17 per cent of GDP, Scotland would attract a low credit rating. Rather than Ireland, which was the Scots’ model for years, a better comparison might be with Slovakia. It is the same size, rated A plus/A1, and has 10-year bond yields of 4.5 per cent against the UK’s 2 per cent.

teamhurtmore - Member
The Scottish economy is 4 percentage points smaller now than four years ago. It is more sluggish than both the UK – growing by just 1.6 per cent between the trough in the second quarter of 2009 and the second quarter of 2011, compared with 2.7 per cent in the UK – and similar-sized European Union countries, according to official data. Public spending is half of GDP.

"Those who ignore history are bound to repeat it"