IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Scotland, Yeh or Neh?
TallDarkAndHands...
post Sep 9 2014, 10:52 PM
Post #1


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,062
Joined: 15-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 60



You decide! (well you can't)

As 5 million scots are deciding the fete of this once great nation....... any comments?

My own opinion is that if it's the will of the scots let them be.

Can they?

Run a health service
Form an army
Collect taxes
Create "Scottish Telly" without the BBC
Create a currency
Have independent elections
Create border controls
Create a pension system for the old
Have an independent schools system
Become nuclear "free"
Keep the remaining north sea oil revenue

All things said this is quite a serious matter. I'm in two minds and I'm not even Scottish so it must be tough for them.

Not a random rant as this affects all and sundry including people in Newbury

Opinions? Some of my friends think it would be a disaster but others want them to go. Interesting...........
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Sep 10 2014, 07:37 AM
Post #2


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,894
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



The more we 'concede' to their 'ransom', the more I think we should have a say too. Saying that, I have not heard a sing coherent argument for why there must be a change, nor have I heard one why they must remain. What has been missing it seems as a reliable independent analysis of the for and against argument. Just referring to the two camps is simply accepting confirmation bias. I suspect as in all things in life, it wont be as bad or good as either camp suggest.

I see Scotland as an allegory for people's rejection of the London/southern England elite.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
motormad
post Sep 10 2014, 12:48 PM
Post #3


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,970
Joined: 29-December 09
From: Dogging in a car park somewhere
Member No.: 592



I don't really think it matters at all.


--------------------
:p
Grammar: the difference between knowing your poop and knowing you're poop.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gazzadp
post Sep 10 2014, 01:34 PM
Post #4


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 198
Joined: 29-March 12
Member No.: 8,684



I will stick my head above the parapit on this.

I have to say that if I was still living and working in Scotland, I have to admit that I would be voting "YES".

As sadly they NO campaign lost all credility right from the start, as the NO campaign has all been based around NEGATIVE campaigning an trying to BULLY & BLACKMAIL the Scots into voting NO.

As for the £ well the British (soon to be English) government has NO right and more importantly NO RIGHTS to say Scotland cannot use the £. As the Scottish already have their own banks, their own bank notes and their banks are just as old as ours. So Scotland will keep the £ what ever happens. Our government would only be able to treat the Scottosh £ as any other foreign currency and set a high exchange rate, that would also mean that the Scottish £ would nolonger be legal tender in England/Wales.

If there is one positive that is going to come from a YES vote, it is that David Cameron would be out of his job. I would hope that he would do the honourable thing and call a general election so that the people of England could tell the ConDems where to go too.

But the sad thing is MANY Scottish people will be voting YES for the wrong reasons, that is many of them will be voting YES because the NO campaign is ANTI Conservatives, anti LibDems, and they see a YES vote as a way of showing their disapproval of Cameron, Clegg and this ConDem government.

Cameron had the chance to allow the Scots the 3rd option of DEVOLUTION MAX, but he was too arrogant and said it had to a YES or NO vote!

Well he made that decision, thankfully it will be his downfall!


--------------------
Obnoxious possiby, VEXATIOUS definitely not.

*****

www.notellingyou.not
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Sep 10 2014, 03:32 PM
Post #5


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (motormad @ Sep 10 2014, 01:48 PM) *
I don't really think it matters at all.


Actually, in reality, safely you are quite right.

We know round here that at all levels does not listen to the people. We are just fed sound bites as policy. Political debate has reduced to simply a question of service delivery, nothing more. Just centralised bureaucracy.

Arguably, the Scottish a independents are quite right, Scotland as a region in a federal Europe can and will survive quite as well as it does today. Frankly, the rest of the UK would do well to heed the example. At least if would give a real degree of respect and autonomy to the other regions in these islands.

Westminster has blown it, MPs lost what little respect they commanded in the expenses scandal and have done nothing since to earn it back.

Let Scotland go, but let's do the job properly, break the remainder up as well - who knows, we might get our voice back!


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Sep 10 2014, 04:37 PM
Post #6


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,894
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



I see a potential for an increase in sectarianism, not only in Scotland but elsewhere too. The No campaign is bound to be negative because that is the incumbent situation. The relationship between Scotland and England is unique so there is no precedence to relate to. No-one really knows the full extent to what will happen both short term or long term. The fallacy in the Yes vote is that domiciles of Scotland are every bit as human as the English, so to think that Scottish parliament will be any 'cleaner' or Scottish is false in my view; it's almost racist to think so in fact.

In my view, to change a constitution, any constitution, it should be by an overwhelming majority and I doubt that will be the case.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Sep 10 2014, 05:46 PM
Post #7


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Sep 10 2014, 05:37 PM) *
I see a potential for an increase in sectarianism, not only in Scotland but elsewhere too. The No campaign is bound to be negative because that is the incumbent situation. The relationship between Scotland and England is unique so there is no precedence to relate to. No-one really knows the full extent to what will happen both short term or long term. The fallacy in the Yes vote is that domiciles of Scotland are every bit as human as the English, so to think that Scottish parliament will be any 'cleaner' or Scottish is false in my view; it's almost racist to think so in fact.

In my view, to change a constitution, any constitution, it should be by an overwhelming majority and I doubt that will be the case.

Wholly agree with your last comment and the majority should be of the whole nation, not just part.


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Sep 10 2014, 07:13 PM
Post #8


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



You all know how I feel about self-management.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Sep 10 2014, 07:31 PM
Post #9


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,894
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Sep 10 2014, 08:13 PM) *
You all know how I feel about self-management.

Good point, but should matters be 'forced' on a population based on a significant minority (I appreciate that cuts both ways)?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Sep 10 2014, 07:34 PM
Post #10


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Sep 10 2014, 08:31 PM) *
Good point, but should matters be 'forced' on a population based on a significant minority (I appreciate that cuts both ways)?

You make an interesting point. I favour a simple majority, but I can understand why you would suggest that fundamental changes like this pass a tougher test, like a 2/3 majority.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackdog
post Sep 11 2014, 12:37 AM
Post #11


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,945
Joined: 5-June 09
Member No.: 130



QUOTE (Gazzadp @ Sep 10 2014, 02:34 PM) *
If there is one positive that is going to come from a YES vote, it is that David Cameron would be out of his job. I would hope that he would do the honourable thing and call a general election so that the people of England could tell the ConDems where to go too.

If Scotland leaves the UK the next general election will return a Conservative Government with a big majority, without the Scottish seats Labour has no chance of beating them. And no one else can come close.

QUOTE (Gazzadp @ Sep 10 2014, 02:34 PM) *
But the sad thing is MANY Scottish people will be voting YES for the wrong reasons, that is many of them will be voting YES because the NO campaign is ANTI Conservatives, anti LibDems, and they see a YES vote as a way of showing their disapproval of Cameron, Clegg and this ConDem government.


Well you've got me confused?

I think the Scots are being asked an impossible question. The referendum should be about determining whether the Scottish Government has a mandate to negotiate the terms of independence with the UK Government. Once the terms were agreed another vote could decide Yes or No with the real issues on the table. No more politicians telling us what will happen, purely because they see it in their crystal balls - make the final decision once the real impact of independence is clear.




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Sep 11 2014, 06:26 AM
Post #12


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (blackdog @ Sep 11 2014, 01:37 AM) *
..............
I think the Scots are being asked an impossible question. The referendum should be about determining whether the Scottish Government has a mandate to negotiate the terms of independence with the UK Government. Once the terms were agreed another vote could decide Yes or No with the real issues on the table. No more politicians telling us what will happen, purely because they see it in their crystal balls - make the final decision once the real impact of independence is clear.


That's the most sensible comment I've heard about this whole campaign. If this had been done, it would have given a credibility which could be sustained, no matter which way the vote went, even on a simple majority decision.


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ron
post Sep 11 2014, 07:59 AM
Post #13


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 271
Joined: 15-August 09
Member No.: 277



QUOTE (On the edge @ Sep 11 2014, 07:26 AM) *
That's the most sensible comment I've heard about this whole campaign. If this had been done, it would have given a credibility which could be sustained, no matter which way the vote went, even on a simple majority decision.

If, as they seem to say, a yes vote will affect us all, why are we all not getting a say in the result?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Sep 11 2014, 08:31 AM
Post #14


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,894
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (Ron @ Sep 11 2014, 08:59 AM) *
If, as they seem to say, a yes vote will affect us all, why are we all not getting a say in the result?

Hear, hear.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GMR
post Sep 11 2014, 03:01 PM
Post #15


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,085
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury, Berkshire.
Member No.: 33



The trouble is nobody knows if Scotland will do well or not. The only true way to find out is try it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Blake
post Sep 17 2014, 12:41 PM
Post #16


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 507
Joined: 19-May 09
Member No.: 75



No. Since when does faux-persecution and faux-paranoia legitimise an entire political movement like the SNP?...only when it is a spurious and invalid one.

Scotland is part of Britain and should stay that way ever after. The idea that what in effect would be a city-state could raise sufficient taxes to form a 21st century defence force alone is a total joke and would open up a security vulnerability to the rst of us at the very time that the hawkish Russians are back to their old tradition of gunboat diplomacy.

A unified kingdom works and has worked well for hundreds of years.

It's not broke and does not therefore need fixing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Sep 17 2014, 01:27 PM
Post #17


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



Not sure I'd agree. Seems to me the UK as a whole is a mess politically. It has been rotting away since 1945. Let's not pretend we are a leading power anymore, simply hangers on in the big boys gang. As for needing our own armed forces; why? Makes no sense today; when we can simply take the lead from Europe: we should provide on the same basis as our peer nations. Russia won't invade us - the Ukraine issue is a family squabble; been going on for years, we won't fix it.

The Empire has gone, we've lost our World markets and are just living on past glory. A bit like Woolworth, HMV and the like before they collapsed.

Loosing Scotland will actually benefit us, no more subsidy leeching out of England to pay for free prescriptions, further education grants etc, etc. Trying to keep GB together 'as is' is simply an emotional response.


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Sep 17 2014, 05:22 PM
Post #18


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,894
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (On the edge @ Sep 17 2014, 02:27 PM) *
Loosing Scotland will actually benefit us, no more subsidy leeching out of England to pay for free prescriptions, further education grants etc, etc. Trying to keep GB together 'as is' is simply an emotional response.

I understand that we get more back in tax than we spend, so I am not sure that is true.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Sep 17 2014, 05:48 PM
Post #19


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Sep 17 2014, 06:22 PM) *
I understand that we get more back in tax than we spend, so I am not sure that is true.


There's so much bluff and bluster on both sides it's been impossible to see the real truth. Nonetheless, we do know that the Barnett formula for local government does substantially favour Scotland. Similarly, there doesn't seem to be any reduction in spend elsewhere to set against the cost of free prescriptions and further education grants. So, who is being suckered?


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Sep 17 2014, 06:55 PM
Post #20


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,894
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (On the edge @ Sep 17 2014, 06:48 PM) *
There's so much bluff and bluster on both sides it's been impossible to see the real truth. Nonetheless, we do know that the Barnett formula for local government does substantially favour Scotland. Similarly, there doesn't seem to be any reduction in spend elsewhere to set against the cost of free prescriptions and further education grants. So, who is being suckered?

Yes I understand that information is arranged to suit the argument (typical confirmation bias), but I have been lead to believe that Scotland pays its way, unlike the rest of the UK outside the south east. Yes we do spend more per head than in other areas of the UK, but if you take into account oil revenue (at 90% of total oil revenue), then Scotland pays for itself.

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-stag...88-union-public
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 16th February 2020 - 07:30 PM