The Big Scottish Independence Debate

[Charles Bannerman]

 Please elucidate, for the benefit of the logical among us,

firstly..... what strong voice you think we have, when policies we vote against are imposed on us by a preponderance of votes from English constituency MPs;

secondly.....what you consider democracy, when, we have a FPTP voting system which means that the majority of the voting public, not just voters in Scotland, do not get the Government for which we vote, and have not since 1931. That does not, under any definition I understand, equate to democracy.

thirdly.....we may be slightly over-represented with regard to population, having a whole 9% or so of the total number of Westminster MPs.......but we are slightly under-represented if you base it on how much monetary value alone, Scotland brings to the UK table.....and in the end.I get back to my original point.......that 59 Scottish MPs in a UK Parliament, even if they were to vote en masse against policies which are, in Scottish eyes, considered inequitable, unfair.....and often downright nasty..they produce not a strong voice but an ignorable whimper.

 

firstly.... what strong voice do you think we in the Highlands would have against the preponderance of central belt members of an separate Scottish parliament (or indeed the current one for that matter.)? At this point it is worth reminding everyone that a central belt-created SNP majority has deprived us of direct control over our police and fire/ rescue services as well as our local government services since they have also imposed a Council Tax freeze. Hence, the SNP regularly commit the ultimate hypocrisy of whingeing away about the centralisation of decision making in  Westminster   whilst at te same time centralising decision making in Edinburgh. The future for the Highlands would be especially grim in a separate Scotland.... but historically we really don't owe the central belt one brass Swinney for what they have done for us in the past.

secondly... the current arrangement for the Scottish parliament is to quite a large extent also first past the post, which means that less than half the votes cast in 2011 produced the small SNP majority which has saddled us with this tedious Neverendum.

thirdly.....you seem conveniently to ignore the fact that, as things stand, it's BRITAIN'S oil. It is a (highly volatile) UK asset but not for the first time on here we find an example of someone trying to pre-suppose an outcome in order to establish a justification for that outcome - which is a logical non-sequitur.

[Alex MacLeod]

You amaze me Charles. Its all tedium and you've no interest yet you've nearly typed as many words as Oddquine.

 

I'll answer your points though.

 

Fire, Police. These have been taken out of the realms of local government for a couple of reasons. The first being the mess they were making of running such services. More important though. Why do we need so many Chief constables and all the other hangers on that made up the top brass of each Police region. Why did we need all the gold braid and the local call centres when, in this modern day of technology I can go onto a website and pinpoint my own house right down to the curtains on the window. Each police force, each fire station still has its leaders. Its just the overpaid fatcats and the multitude of call centres that are changing. The savings put more police and Emergency response personell on the front line.

To your second point.......did you even bother to vote cos half the voting population couldn't be ersed.

Third point...... Under International law every country has a twelve mile protection zone around its coast and a 200 mile mineral and fishing (unless you've been scuppered by Brussels) rights, unless there is a clash with other countries. (as UK/Norway) But Charles, and heres where I cut you down for your stupid statements and lack of knowledge of the wealth of minerals across the whole of Britian, What is within our legal zone is ours but if you insist its Britians oil then we'll take no more than our fair share. Then we'll also demand our share of the vast gas reserves of the east and south coast of England as well as the oil fields of Morecombe Bay. Once we've got that then we,ll take our share of the shale mines and the onshore oil development in the south east of England. Perhaps we can even negotiate the vast coal reserves that are still under the English countryside. And the lead and the tin.

 

Finally Charles, you keep mentioning Britian as if we will no longer be a part of it. Sorry to disappoint but we've no intention of cutting loose and sailing away. The island that is Britian, made up of Scotland Wales and England, will always be Britian. There may not be a United Kingdom but there'll always be a Britian

[Charles Bannerman]

 

Finally Charles, you keep mentioning Britian as if we will no longer be a part of it. Sorry to disappoint but we've no intention of cutting loose and sailing away. The island that is Britian, made up of Scotland Wales and England, will always be Britian. There may not be a United Kingdom but there'll always be a Britian

Erm..it's the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - and we WOULD no longer be part of that. Far too many people in connection with this referendum are failing to use the conditional tense - ie WOULD.... as oposed to WILL which implies a degree of certainty which is not at all justified.

But here again we have yet another suggestion from the yes camp in tge quoted extract that voting yes really is no great deal and nothing will really change very much... so go on!! Have a fag!!!!  

The stark reality, which the yessers are trying to play down at the moment along with the institutionalised Anglophobia of the SNP, is that separation would be complete and permanent with no chance of reverting to the security of the UK when it all went t!tsup.

[Oddquine]

 

 

Finally Charles, you keep mentioning Britian as if we will no longer be a part of it. Sorry to disappoint but we've no intention of cutting loose and sailing away. The island that is Britian, made up of Scotland Wales and England, will always be Britian. There may not be a United Kingdom but there'll always be a Britian

Erm..it's the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - and we WOULD no longer be part of that. Far too many people in connection with this referendum are failing to use the conditional tense - ie WOULD.... as oposed to WILL which implies a degree of certainty which is not at all justified.

But here again we have yet another suggestion from the yes camp in tge quoted extract that voting yes really is no great deal and nothing will really change very much... so go on!! Have a fag!!!!  

The stark reality, which the yessers are trying to play down at the moment along with the institutionalised Anglophobia of the SNP, is that separation would be complete and permanent with no chance of reverting to the security of the UK when it all went t!tsup.

 

(Alex..nobody types  as many words (or uses as many exclamation marks and ..... as I do......and here I go again!  )

 

Charles, Britain does not equate to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the shorthand for that is the UK (bar in the minds of the same kind of ignorant folk who think England and  Britain are interchangeable and mean the same thing). Britain, on the other hand, is the main island and it has had that name since at least the days when Pliny the Elder was writing, and in that case Alex is correct. You know fine well  that Alex was talking about nobody taking a JCB to the border and physically separating us from England and Wales and floating off out of the vicinity. The unlikelihood of that means that we would still be British after Independence....as in inhabitants of the Island of Britain. What we would, however, not be is British as a forced blanket single nationality, as was tried for at the Union of the Crowns and politically constructed at the Union of Parliaments.

 

Logically, if the Union of Scotland and England, which gave Great Britain, is broken, there is no Great Britain.....and therefore no United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland...in the same way as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland ceased to exist in 1922, (although the name of the political Union wasn't altered until 1927). However, the Republic of Ireland is still part of an island in the British Isles,though I should think the inhabitants, outside the Six Counties, rarely think of themselves as British, as many Scots don't.

I'm afraid that if you will keep banging on about the institutionalised Anglophobia of the SNP, you do really need to produce something to prove your continually repeated blanket contention...I'm sure the English SNP party members would be interested in links, as I would be myself...otherwise it is just another example of Unionists talking utter crap because they know the SNP are a threat to the Nulabour Party fiefdom in Scotland, and possibly to the whole Union concept. (if not this time, another time in the not too distant future). Westminster Government-phobic would be nearer the mark, (as we have produced plenty facts/figures to illustrate why we hold that opinion) if you really feel a compelling need to categorise hundreds of thousands of your fellow-Scots as racist.......bear in mind that Westminster Government consists of more than just English members of English constituencies. I do realise that anti-Westminster phobia won't smack of the anti-English racism you insinuate we Yes voters harbour,and I do realise you feel you have little option, given the lack of positivity in the Project Fear Campaign, bar do snide and pejorative, but your posts are starting to smack of trolling (which is what people with nothing useful to say do for fun and effect!).

Your posts read to me a lot like anti-Scottish racism, just as irrational as that produced on the Daily Fail/Torygraph comments section by ignorant English voters, who are still quite convinced we are too wee, too poor, too stupid and too subsidised to cope with Independence. They, however, have the excuse that they are mostly regurgitating decades of MSM spin and propaganda....but your excuse is what, exactly? Do you really think you are being funny....or clever?  You know very well that the YES campaign is not just the SNP...if it was, the NO campaign wouldn't be getting so irritatingly irrational with their Project Fear pronouncements, because there is not a snowball's chance in hell that an Independence Bus, with only SNP members as passengers, would ever be able to get out from under the Union hand pushing it in directions they don't want it to go.

The increasing vituperation....and the beginning of promises of devo-Jam tomorrow, maybe, if they can get the Westminster Parliament to agree with some version they haven't actually thought through yet, and which will come in three party flavours, and, going by Calman, after about ten years talking......none of which, looking at the ideas proposed (note.....proposed.....not promised or guaranteed, because none of them can do that without Westminster agreement.as we noticed in 1979...about the same time as we realised Westminster politicians will deliberately lie through their teeth to get elected/keep their jobs) so far will do no better for our aspirations than let us tax more to have about the same as we do now, by the time you add in the Barnett reductions due to austerity cuts and privatisation of public services south of the border, to the reductions in block grant to force us to use the new Scottish Tax and pay for its collection, it seems to me that Devo-whatever-the-flavour is not intended to improve the lot of the Scottish population at all, but is intended, as the 1997 Referendum on Devolution was, to cut the SNP off at the knees..and negate the threat to the Union contained in a political party which exists primarily to tear up the Act of Union.

What pertains at Independence, whatever that is, will be the result of agreed negotiations on a liabilities/asset split..(or no/failed negotiations, therefore no debt and no assets bar those fixed assets in Scotland..and we won't know which, or which combination, until we see how politically pragmatic a Westminster Government will be, if presented with a fait accompli) and that will be the start of a journey, not the end of it....and where we go from the date of the May 2016 election will be our choice, and may be completely different....or stay much the same..but the important thing is that it will be up to all of us to choose our Government, for good or ill, not 57 million people in the rest of the UK.

 

As someone so keen on polls, there was a Panelbase one last year which found that, if Scotland was already Independent, only 18% of the population would vote to join the Union, so I guess life in an Independent Scotland would have to be pretty crap before the Union would be a better proposition.   How many other countries which have become Independent from the UK have been clamouring to rejoin lately.......or ever?

Edited March 16, 2014 by Oddquine

[Charles Bannerman]

 

Charles, Britain does not equate to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the shorthand for that is the UK (bar in the minds of the same kind of ignorant folk who think England and  Britain are interchangeable and mean the same thing). Britain, on the other hand, is the main island and it has had that name since at least the days when Pliny the Elder was writing, and in that case Alex is correct. You know fine well  that Alex was talking about nobody taking a JCB to the border and physically separating us from England and Wales and floating off out of the vicinity. The unlikelihood of that means that we would still be British after Independence....as in inhabitants of the Island of Britain. What we would, however, not be is British as a forced blanket single nationality, as was tried for at the Union of the Crowns and politically constructed at the Union of Parliaments.

 

Logically, if the Union of Scotland and England, which gave Great Britain, is broken, there is no Great Britain.....and therefore no United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland...in the same way as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland ceased to exist in 1922, (although the name of the political Union wasn't altered until 1927). However, the Republic of Ireland is still part of an island in the British Isles,though I should think the inhabitants, outside the Six Counties, rarely think of themselves as British, as many Scots don't.

 

OQ... call it what you like. Like most of the rest of the world, apart from the ultra-Nats to whom the term is  , I use the working title of "Britain" for the highly successful state which resulted from the aggregation of Scotland, England, Ireland and Wales, and from which part of Ireland (the "arc of prosperity" bit  ) departed in 1922. And IF Scotland decided to secede from that, you could still call it what you like but in practice it would still be "Britain" because dropping off 8.3% of the population - sort of like Yorkshire -  really isn't going to make that much difference to "Britain" which might regard it as a bit regretful, but perfectly bearable. However this would make one hell of a negative difference to the seceders who would lose the security and stabilising influences of something which was 12 times bigger. And we didn't cease to be "Britain" when the Irish went away in 1922.

Our history over the last 1500 years or so has been one of ongoing aggregation. You had random tribes which became Strathclyde, Dalriada, Lothian, Pictland (that's the bit with the oil by the way  ) Correspondingly the likes of Wessex, Mercia, Northumbria became England. The next stage was that Scotland, England, Ireland and Wales, by 1801, became Britain or whatever the hell you want to call it.

Fast forward another couple of hundred years and the debate has moved on further to the extent to which there should be further integration in the form of the EU. That's except among you lot in you who just seem to want to turn the clock back more than 300 years to "Scotland" which was really just an intermediate step - and in a lot of respects a failed state until it aggregated with its neighbours - in an ongoing evolutionary process. It's a bit like being a Homo Sapiens and saying you want to go back to being a Piltdown Man!

But if you want to turn the clock back, why stop at 1707? Go on - adopt the slogan "It's Pictland's Oil"

Edited March 16, 2014 by Charles Bannerman

[robbylad]

 

 

Charles, Britain does not equate to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the shorthand for that is the UK (bar in the minds of the same kind of ignorant folk who think England and  Britain are interchangeable and mean the same thing). Britain, on the other hand, is the main island and it has had that name since at least the days when Pliny the Elder was writing, and in that case Alex is correct. You know fine well  that Alex was talking about nobody taking a JCB to the border and physically separating us from England and Wales and floating off out of the vicinity. The unlikelihood of that means that we would still be British after Independence....as in inhabitants of the Island of Britain. What we would, however, not be is British as a forced blanket single nationality, as was tried for at the Union of the Crowns and politically constructed at the Union of Parliaments.

 

Logically, if the Union of Scotland and England, which gave Great Britain, is broken, there is no Great Britain.....and therefore no United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland...in the same way as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland ceased to exist in 1922, (although the name of the political Union wasn't altered until 1927). However, the Republic of Ireland is still part of an island in the British Isles,though I should think the inhabitants, outside the Six Counties, rarely think of themselves as British, as many Scots don't.

 

OQ... call it what you like. Like most of the rest of the world, apart from the ultra-Nats to whom the term is  , I use the working title of "Britain" for the highly successful state which resulted from the aggregation of Scotland, England, Ireland and Wales, and from which part of Ireland (the "arc of prosperity" bit  ) departed in 1922. And IF Scotland decided to secede from that, you could still call it what you like but in practice it would still be "Britain" because dropping off 8.3% of the population - sort of like Yorkshire -  really isn't going to make that much difference to "Britain" which might regard it as a bit regretful, but perfectly bearable. However this would make one hell of a negative difference to the seceders who would lose the security and stabilising influences of something which was 12 times bigger. And we didn't cease to be "Britain" when the Irish went away in 1922.

Our history over the last 1500 years or so has been one of ongoing aggregation. You had random tribes which became Strathclyde, Dalriada, Lothian, Pictland (that's the bit with the oil by the way  ) Correspondingly the likes of Wessex, Mercia, Northumbria became England. The next stage was that Scotland, England, Ireland and Wales, by 1801, became Britain or whatever the hell you want to call it.

Fast forward another couple of hundred years and the debate has moved on further to the extent to which there should be further integration in the form of the EU. That's except among you lot in you who just seem to want to turn the clock back more than 300 years to "Scotland" which was really just an intermediate step - and in a lot of respects a failed state until it aggregated with its neighbours - in an ongoing evolutionary process. It's a bit like being a Homo Sapiens and saying you want to go back to being a Piltdown Man!

But if you want to turn the clock back, why stop at 1707? Go on - adopt the slogan "It's Pictland's Oil"

 

"Highly successful state".... now you bring humour into it.

[Yngwie]

 Since the 670 page publicly funded manifesto divebombed without trace,

 

 

I wasn't aware until recently that they translated it into loads of foreign languages too, at our expense. Have they revealed how many Russian, Arabic or Spanish editions have been circulated?

[Charles Bannerman]

 

 Since the 670 page publicly funded manifesto divebombed without trace,

 

 

I wasn't aware until recently that they translated it into loads of foreign languages too, at our expense. Have they revealed how many Russian, Arabic or Spanish editions have been circulated?

 

All part of Salmond's ego trip Yngwie. Similarly, delaying this vote until 2014, apart from some misguided delusion that we will all get dewy eyed and Anglophobic on the 700th anniversary of Bannockburn, also keeps his moonlike in the public eye for as long as possible.

 

It sort of makes you wish you were a Crimean. At least they got theirs over in a few days!

[Alex MacLeod]

Yep it was translated into the languages spoken by the population of Scotland. Polish, Romanian, Bulgarian, Spanish, French, Hindi, Chinese etc. Particularly so that all who make up our multi-cultural country have a good understanding of the vision before making the decision. Considering around 16% of our population are of non-Scottish descent who have a right to vote in the referendum then its only fair they are provided with the information in a language they fully understand.

 

Charles, I dont see the date of the vote as any sort of delaying tactic and I dont think the majority have any thought whatsoever about a war from 700 years ago. The SNP didnt get majority rule in parliament till 2012. It then took a good few months to get the proposal through statute and a good years notice to allow the people to make an informed decision on how they plan to vote.

 

To those who seem to know about the number of copies of the 'manifesto' that have been distributed can I ask two questions:

1. Does the figure include the number of downloads and the number of times its been read online?

2. Why should it not be publicly funded considering it affects every member of the public?

 

Going back to Yngwie's post #626. I had a discussion with a couple of Norwegian colleagues on this and yes they have a high cost of living but their wages are also higher. Their terms and conditions of employment are better and their welfare system superior. Norway doesn't need to increase the pension age because they spent the national insurance funds on non welfare issues. Norwegian parents get shared, paid (p)(m)aternity leave covering a period of two years. The elderly infirm get state support without having to sell the family jewels and without means testing. All in all Norwegians are happy with their lot. Norways defence budget equates to atround 1.5% of GDP compared to Britians 2.5%. But then Norway does not support ICBM's or any other form of nuclear deterent. Just to put the figures in context UK spends US $57.4 billion on defence. Norway spends $5.7 billion.

Edited March 17, 2014 by Alex MacLeod

[Charles Bannerman]

Alex... four paragraphs above... some comments/questions regarding each......

 

1 - I do take it this was also translated into Gaelic? How many other public documents other than "the vision"  are translated into all these languages?

 

2 - Of course there's been a delaying tactic! Salmond (mistakenly) thought that as time went by, people would come flocking to his side. He also couldn't resist both himself and his pet vanity project being in the limelight for as long as possible. And of course there's a Bannockburn factor because far too many people in the SNP thrive on this blend of romantic claptrap and grievance-based rubbish which is their chosen take on Scottish history. Of course they expected loads of people to start feeling all tartanny and blue faced as they pinned on their spider lapel badges and headed for Bannockburn a few weeks before the vote. But the reality is that they've had to cancel a chunk of the Bannockburn celebrations (sic) because hardly anybody gives a toss. It just goes to show what a pathetic, superficial, caricature perception of Scottishness far too many of these Nats actually  have.

 

3 - If it is going to be publicly funded then it would have cost a lot less if it didn't have the verbose SNP manifesto/ wishlist as a substantial part of it.

 

4 - I know the SNP are keen on dear booze... but ten quid a pint is just ridiculous! So you mean that in the event of a yes vote we're not even going to be able to afford to anaesthetise ourselves to the consequences with a few bevvies

Really the "let's be like Norway" claim is quite absurd.... especially since it's only a Plan B after the Ireland and Iceland "arc of prosperity" went t!tsup.

 

But hang on..... you guys don't do Plan B's

Edited March 17, 2014 by Charles Bannerman

[Oddquine]

2. Why should it not be publicly funded considering it affects every member of the public?

 

 

 

And given we, the public, have paid for the production of every anti-independence report from Westminster Government and "independent" agencies on behalf of the anti-Independence campaign..........plus the parachuting in of politicians to lecture us.

[Oddquine]

 

 

 

I would be interested to know how some folk in the Conservative party opposed to Independence for Scotland, square their wish to come out of the EU with the concept of "Better Together".

 

Fair question. Similar to to asking the separatists why they :

 

DON'T want to remain in a union with their nearest neighbour and biggest trade partner, with whom they share a language and are culturally aligned, have centuries of peace and success together, and where they have a strong voice are overrepresented in the democratic process.

 

but instead they:

 

DO want to be part of the most corrupt, wasteful and undemocratic organisation on earth, with countries with whom we have little in common and who couldn't even point us out on a map, and where we would have absolutely no say in anything whatsoever.

 

 

 

That would be because we have no say at all in the Union which comprises the UK.

 

If we were in the EU we'd have at least the six current MEPs speaking up for, and voting on behalf of, Scottish interests, whereas now, at least four of them focus on the interests of the UK to the exclusion of Scotland. .

 

It is a toss up as to which is the most corrupt, wasteful and undemocratic organisation on earth...you say the EU...while I think that Westminster,  if only because of the bloated administration and the preponderance of MPs out only for their own self interest.  ..........but pretty please, how do you get a strong voice out of 59 MPs from Scottish constituencies  in a 650 member undemocratically elected parliament which runs the UK without reference to anywhere much outside London and the South?  Does my first paragraph not amply illustrate that we have NO voice th Westminster...and therefore NO voice in the Union? The strong  voice is a claim which has been puzzling me  all my life.....and nobody to date has managed to  square that circle to my satisfaction.

 

...and lots more beside

 

 

 

Interesting responses.  Whilst not really expecting a response from the the right wing anti EU "Better Together" supporters, I made my observation as a little dig at a mentality which criticises the "Yes" campaign for saying they want independence but at the same time want to be tied to Sterling and the EU.  Two sides of the same coin really.

 

Yngwie doesn't defend that position but cleverly and succinctly summarises the apparent illogicality of the "Yes" position.

 

Oddquine has, as usual taken the bait and rather less succinctly tries and, I'm afraid, fails to defend the "Yes" position.  I have edited the bulk of her post out in order to leave the main points I want to respond to. <rest snipped>

 

DD, in my turn, I am stripping out most of your post to leave the only points to which I want to respond,  I have specifically given or otherwise touched upon my thoughts on pretty much the rest of your post in other responses on this thread. If you wish, I can give you the links to the appropriate ones.

 

You say "I have come into the Independence debate hoping to listen to informed and mature debate.  As the "debate" progress it seems that the "Yes" campaign can't tell us whether we will be part of the EU after independence or even what currency we will use.  Now we are told that we have no voice in the UK parliament despite having 10% of the MPs, the elected Scottish Representatives to the UK and EU parliaments act against the interests of Scotland and that the majority of Westminster MPs are out only for their own self interest.  So much for informed and mature!

 

Unfortunately, until the Westminster Government becomes more informed and mature, we have to do the best with what we've got. There could easily be clarity on the EU....if Westminster would ask for that clarity...and the fact that they won't, makes one suspect that it is because they think they might not like the answer. We have clarity over the currency issue.....if we vote yes, we will negotiate to try and arrange a formal currency Union (which is not my preferred option)....and failing that we will use sterling anyway. Either way, we will be using sterling in the short/medium term at least. I have a feeling that all this has already been said in posts.

By the way, I don't defend the YES position, because the YES position does not need to be defended...independence is the normal aspiration of any nation not already Independent. The YES position is simply that they believe that decisions for the people of Scotland are best able to meet the aspirations of the majority of people in Scotland if made by a Government chosen by the people of Scotland...a Government with the ability to control our finances, fiscal, foreign and all other policies..in other words, take responsibility for ourselves..so what is there to defend in that.....is that not the norm? 140 other nations have come to that same conclusion since 1945...so why would anyone expect the Scots alone to believe that they are somehow less than other nations?  

 

That alone is what the referendum is all about.and pretty much all I have believed in for the last 50+ years.

What needs to be defended in this referendum is the Union, as that is a political entity created by treaty 300+ years ago, not a nation which has existed from about the 9th century or so.

 

Everything else I post is my own personal opinion formed over those years,sometimes illustrated by linking to, or quoting from, facts and figures from various articles.

Unlike many on here and elsewhere, I do not believe that independence will herald economic catastrophe....or immediate utopia. I rather think that economic catastrophe will arrive as part of the Union....when they start having difficulties paying the unfunded pensions in a few years, for example. And Utopia is a very long-term aspiration which will always remain an aspiration. While I think that the economy is important, it is not as a reason for independence and an end in itself, but a means to an end. Nobody disagrees, not even most Unionists, that Scotland could be a successful country economically, although it wouldn't be hard to be more economically efficient than successive Westminster Governments have been on the way to our £1.3 billion National Debt and continuing regular addition of millions in annual borrowing. But it is all about what we do with our income that counts most. Independence will allow us to be the socially just country we wish to be.

As is so common, Ywngie's "baiting" illustrates the hypocrisy of much pro-Union thinking. When it comes to British versus Scottish nationalism (note the small n), the "simple soundbite" tendency masks the fact that the points made can be turned on their heads to apply to the EU and the Union in the other direction.

 

He could as easily have said, about the referendum promised in 2017 regarding removing the UK from the EU....

DON'T want to remain in a union with their nearest neighbour and biggest trade partner, with whom they share a language and are culturally aligned, have centuries of peace and success together, and where they have a strong voice are overrepresented in the democratic process.

That, regarding the EU is not completely accurate, of course.. but soundbites rarely are.....which is why they do newspaper headlines in soundbites.  The  DON'T want to remain in a union with their nearest neighbour and biggest trade partner applies. While we might not share a  language with the disparate countries involved, we do share a common economic, foreign policy, human rights etc language, which are woven into our laws by virtue of our membership..and our laws reflect the culture of the majority in the EU Parliament. A Parliament which was elected on a PR system, which is a real democratic system, compared to the preferred FPTP system applicable in Westminster, and in which the UK has a stronger voice by virtue of that more democratic system. 

 

However, unlike in Westminster, in the EU, opt-outs can be negotiated, which gives each country the ability to choose to either not apply, or not immediately apply, the decisions agreed on by the majority. And the EU does not dictate how much tax a country has to apply, and what on, or dictate who is entitled, or not, to what levels of welfare benefits, or dictate that state and public service pensions should be unfunded, or how much is spent on defence/foreign embassies/consulates/, or how much is spent on maintaining a bloated Government machine, including 650 elected MPs and nearly 900 unelected Lords etc. The EU certainly sets some basic parameters for some things, but how those parameters are fulfilled is up to each country's elected Government.

 

Cultural alignment between countries, if you assume culture equates to the outlook, attitudes, values, morals, goals and customs shared by a society or nation should, imo, produce some measure of accepted political alignment....so we are not culturally aligned with the EU, as, if we were, there would be more enthusiastic political alignment.....and there would not be a referendum on membership to come.  But then, if you think about it, the different voting patterns between Scotland and the rest of the UK , because of the way most of us view the concept of social justice and equality, the purpose of defence etc, indicates that there is no political alignment in the Union either.  Having a UK wide tendency to queue behind each other in a line at checkouts and driving on the left does not a culture make.

 

Regarding the centuries of peace and success together....where is the peace, either as a member of the EU or within the Union, given that, since 1914, not a year has passed without our forces being involved in conflict somewhere, for some reason. Certainly we don't have Scotland/England internal military skirmishes anymore, but that is not peace due to the EU or the Union....peace would be not having our soldiers coming home in body bags after being killed in action in foreign countries. It rather illustrates the mindset of the MOD when A senior British defence official described a year without military action as a problem. Recruiters were already struggling and the prospect of no action in 2015 would not help. "You want to join the army to do stuff," he said.  So the way it is perceived in UK Government circles appears to be that we need war to recruit soldiers because we need soldiers to fight wars....ergo war is the default position.  Peace.......really?

Regarding being in the Union, he could just as easily have said  we are "part of the most corrupt, wasteful and undemocratic organisation on earth,with countries with whom we have little in common and who couldn't even point us out on a map, and where we would have absolutely no say in anything whatsoever. 

Again, that wouldn't be completely accurate, Westminster is corrupt, but not the most corrupt on earth (and nor is the EU), it is certainly wasteful and undemocratic...and we have little in common politically with the politics voted for by the majority in the UK, though I suspect that everyone in the UK could point Scotland out on a map..North Britain is, after all, pretty obvious when it is a third of a single island..and I say again, that we have absolutely no say in anything whatsoever. Individual Scots do, for sure, but they are doing their saying on behalf of the UK, not Scotland.

If Scotland did have a say, when the majority of Scots MPs voted against the Poll Tax, the Iraq War, the austerity cuts, the welfare benefit cuts/caps, the renewing/replacing of Trident, the bedroom tax etc..would we have got them..as we did or will? How much of a say did we have over the reduction in coastguard facilities or the removal of Nimrod....an action which had the House of Commons Defence committee saying "we believe the risk is likely to worsen in the medium term as further maritime surveillance capabilities are withdrawn or not yet filled. The UK's maritime flank is likely to be increasingly exposed" and that flank is Scottish Waters. Taking some notice of Scotland's preferences would certainly have saved the UK the ignominy of finding out that there were Russian ships anchored off the Moray Coast, via twitter, after the event, and the further day it took to get any ship up there to check out what they were doing. Heck we could have been invaded and the Russians could have been charging over the border to attack England by then, if that was in their mind (and on the way down past, they could have taken over Faslane and/or Coulport and commandeered the nuclear facilities, over which we also have no say in the Union!)

Regarding that stronger voice in the EU, which is something often cited as a benefit of the Union.... how much of a voice do we have in the EU? How much say did we have over handing over to the EU control of our fishing waters? And how much say do we have in what the EU does with that control now they have it? How much say did we have when Scottish farmers were specifically allocated EU convergence payments under CAP..and Westminster decided to share our allocation out among the whole UK. What benefit has our voice in Westminster, or in the EU as part of the UK ever done for Scotland?

[Charles Bannerman]

 

What benefit has our voice in Westminster, or in the EU as part of the UK ever done for Scotland?

Oh God... were're back to the People's Front of Caledonia versus the bloody Romans again

Edited March 18, 2014 by Charles Bannerman

[+DoofersDad]

 

 

What benefit has our voice in Westminster, or in the EU as part of the UK ever done for Scotland?

Oh God... were're back to the People's Front of Caledonia versus the bloody Romans again

 

In 1997 when 56 of the 72 Scottish MPs were Labour, the Labour Government delivered on their manifesto promise to hold a referendum on devolution.  Devolution was duly delivered and has been a great success.

 

Between 2007 and 2013 the Highlands and Islands has received 122 million Euros of funding from the European Regional Development fund which represents 1.1% of the total EU investment earmarked for the UK under the EU Cohesion Policy for 2007 -13.  Given that the Highlands and Islands has approximately 0.5% of the UK population that is funding at 2 x the per capita rate for the rest of the UK.

 

Arguing that Scotland gets no benefit from the UK Government or the EU through being part of the UK is simply ridiculous.  It clearly gets some very significant benefit.  I'm not saying that these points above are an argument for a no vote, I simply make a plea for the case for independence to be placed on a rather more constructive basis that this blind, fanatical hatred of all things Westminster.

 

Think I'll give this thread a miss for a bit as its doing my head in.  I note Oddquine posted a lengthy reply to Charles at 2.39pm on Sunday - er wasn't something else happening in Glasgow at that time? 

[Oddquine]

 

Think I'll give this thread a miss for a bit as its doing my head in.  I note Oddquine posted a lengthy reply to Charles at 2.39pm on Sunday - er wasn't something else happening in Glasgow at that time? 

 

 

It was.....the post was just about finished as the game started, but it took a few minutes to check the spelling....though I did listen to the commentary on the telly, while doing that...and watched the rest of it.  Shame it had to go to penalties...I feel for McKay and Tansey.  Don't know enough about football to say if it was a "good" game, tactics-wise..it wasn't results-wise...but it was good watching (maybe because I don't know much about football and am pretty uncritical as long as they are trying their best and working hard....which they all were.)...thought second half was a bit better than the first, though.  Defence did well, but but finishing wasn't great at the other end. Luckily, Aberdeen's wasn't either.....until the penalties.  Not the best way to lose a match, but better in the final than the first round if it was going to happen. Pleased to see Ryan Christie getting on as well.....always was a cracking wee player.

 

Dunno why men appear to think that women can't multi-task, though.......much the same comment was made when I posted during another game that was on the telly, though I took the huff, then and didn't reply to it. I can do ironing and watch the TV as well, without scorching clothes....most men I know,while watching footie on the telly, can't do anything requiring more concentration than lifting a beer can to their lips and swallowing.

[Yngwie]

 am pretty uncritical as long as they are trying their best and working hard

 

 

Maybe you could try that approach as regards Westminster! 

[Oddquine]

 

 am pretty uncritical as long as they are trying their best and working hard

 

 

Maybe you could try that approach as regards Westminster! 

 

 

I will when they start to try their best and work hard for more than their cronies and their own self interest!

 

Edited to add......and having watched JoLa trying, and failing, to explain what the NuLabour Devo-Zero offer was meant to do bar make sure that Scotland got nothing useful to Scotland....that applies to all Unionist politicians it appears, whichever Parliament they inhabit.   What a waste of two years discussion! 

 

Only benefit of JoLa being in Holyrood is that she's not in some school trying to teach Scotland's children.

Edited March 19, 2014 by Oddquine

[Charles Bannerman]

 

 

 am pretty uncritical as long as they are trying their best and working hard

 

 

Maybe you could try that approach as regards Westminster! 

 

 

I will when they start to try their best and work hard for more than their cronies and their own self interest!

 

Equally, I consider life in Scotland since 1999 compared with before the Scottish Parliament and I ask "In what respects is life better?"

Apart from the smoking ban, it's a question which doesn't seem to have too many answers.

I'm not saying life is worse, but I can't really say it's better either.

[Oddquine]

 

 

 

 am pretty uncritical as long as they are trying their best and working hard

 

 

Maybe you could try that approach as regards Westminster! 

 

 

I will when they start to try their best and work hard for more than their cronies and their own self interest!

 

Equally, I consider life in Scotland since 1999 compared with before the Scottish Parliament and I ask "In what respects is life better?"

Apart from the smoking ban, it's a question which doesn't seem to have too many answers.

I'm not saying life is worse, but I can't really say it's better either.

 

 

So in other words, because devolution didn't make any real difference to your life, it didn't make any difference to anybody else's life either?  How arrogant is that?

Edited March 21, 2014 by Oddquine

[Charles Bannerman]

 

 

So in other words, because devolution didn't make any real difference to your life, it didn't make any difference to anybody else's life either?  How arrogant is that?

 

No, no... I'm quite happy to leave the arrogance to Alex Salmond, Nicola Sturgeon and Mike Russell. After they've had their share, there's not much left for the rest of us anyway.

OQ... read my post again - it refers to "life in Scotland" - ie the generality, not MY life.

I'm not saying life is really any worse either, it's just that I'm not convinced that paying half a billion quid for an eyesore at Holyrood plus wages for everybody who works there has produced any great deal.

For instance, let's look, since 1999, at the devolved powers of ....

Education - teacher numbers are falling, the Curriculum for Excellence is a mess and it is being hopelessly mismanaged. (Believe me - I saw this in action!)

Health - the NHS in Scotland has always been pretty good and remains so, hence no real change there.

Law and Order - Police Services (and Fire and Rescue), are now centralised, as is decision making relating to them. Devolution in action?

Local Government - local councils' decision making and ability to deliver services have been seriously compromised as a result of the Council Tax freeze. Devolution in action?

 

On the other hand, to be fair, we do have the smoking ban which to my mind is the single best thing that Holyrood has done. And we do have a ban on foxhunting which, if I remember correctly, must have been one of the Scottish parliament's top priorities, given how early this appeared in the legislative programme.

Edited March 22, 2014 by Charles Bannerman

[Alex MacLeod]

Charles, you blame the system for the education problems. Personally I blame the profession. Perhaps its time teachers worked the same hours as everyone else. With the same holidays as everyone else. No that wont happen. They'll continue to demand more for less work. They'll continue to blame society because they dont have the leadership ability to control children. And they'll continue with their 14 or so weeks holidays + bank holidays.

 

Local council decision making......your having a laugh. It was bad management and poor decision making that led to the mess that local councils got themselves into. It was the failure of local councils that brought about private sector roads management. It was local councils that allowed our schools to fall into disrepair. One example of stupid decision making I can give is a certain local council that took a decision to use a shut down sand and gravel quarry as a rubbish dump and then had to spend millions digging it all out again because they didnt do any land studies beforehand and ended up near destroying a river with leachates. It was the decisions of local councils that created out of town shopping complexes to the detriment of the inner towns and cities.

If local councils were left to make all the decisions would you be happy paying 25% or so more in council tax?

[starchief]

You've obviously never taught Alex.  Teaching (and lecturing) involve huge amounts of unpaid overtime.  I've never managed to take my holidays yet.  Every weekend and most evenings involve working.  The deadlines are far tighter than any consultancy and immovable.  Illness means working, not matter what.  I earn thousands less than in industry (but the rewards are greater in other areas).

 

Try preparing a 10 minute presentation.  Now go for a 3 hour presentation.  Every day.  For weeks on end.  Not easy.

 

I don't teach in schools (tried it for a morning  -  ooof, never again) but being unable to control students (or throw them out) all comes from upstairs.  What I'd give to be able to teach the way I believe it should be taught...but it's a business now.

[Oddquine]

Going off Topic here to an extent, because I'm interested.....

 

Charles, you say Education - teacher numbers are falling, the Curriculum for Excellence is a mess and it is being hopelessly mismanaged. (Believe me - I saw this in action!)

 

Having experience of, or some knowledge of, via myself, my children and my grandchildren, of the methods and end results of Scottish education from 1951 up to one grandchild continuing in education currently, I have my own opinions on it (as you might expect), and I have problems with the standard of teaching/teachers as well as the various systems which have been introduced over the years.

 

I have kinda thought Scottish education has been a mess for a lot longer than after devolution, (we weren't devolved when my kids were in school or when my grandchildren bar one started.), and believed the Curriculum for Excellence was intended to combat our lagging behind the English results after we began to be influenced by what was happening in England and stopped having a distinctively different system in favour of just a variation on the English theme..or the "nobody still at school is allowed to fail" theme. I'm afraid I gave up on Scottish education as being worth anything when there were paper passes which weren't passes (as in 50% +) .and kids applying for jobs in the likes of banks were citing D, E or even F grades in English and Arithmetic.

 

Why is the Curriculum for Excellence a mess? Because of its aims, because of the administration/oversight or because of the additional workload for teachers a year after introduction?  I don't know a lot about it, because I don't have as close contact with the grandchild still in education, who is the only one living through it, as I had with the others, when I was child minder in chief......but I can find out the child's opinion.

 

I will say that teachers, whether good bad or indifferent, are onto a hiding to nothing regarding discipline in schools nowadays, and effective, appropriate discipline does help in good learning outcomes, particularly in mixed ability classes...but that is neither the fault of the Scottish, or surprisingly from me, the Westminster Government, but that of the Human Rights legislation emanating from the EU and the UN which gaily hands out rights willy-nilly, without imposing any responsibilities as a quid pro quo for those rights.

 

Got opinions on the rest of your post..but thought I'd stick to the subject I know least about for the moment, because reading the intentions/theories doesn't usually equate to the facts after implementation with politicians.

Edited March 22, 2014 by Oddquine

[Oddquine]

Darn good article     http://www.commentisntfree.com/ears-wide-shut/

 

 

and darn good video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWlnk75CTzo#t=1194

Edited March 23, 2014 by Oddquine

[Alex MacLeod]

You've obviously never taught Alex.  Teaching (and lecturing) involve huge amounts of unpaid overtime.  I've never managed to take my holidays yet.  Every weekend and most evenings involve working.  The deadlines are far tighter than any consultancy and immovable.  Illness means working, not matter what.  I earn thousands less than in industry (but the rewards are greater in other areas).

 

Try preparing a 10 minute presentation.  Now go for a 3 hour presentation.  Every day.  For weeks on end.  Not easy.

 

I don't teach in schools (tried it for a morning  -  ooof, never again) but being unable to control students (or throw them out) all comes from upstairs.  What I'd give to be able to teach the way I believe it should be taught...but it's a business now.

No I've never been a teacher but I do teach though I prefer the word train. I prepare presentations. Some short some over a number of days, and in a very wide range of subjects, mainly to young adults with a limited grasp of the english language and a head never out of a mobile phone.