Jump to content

The Big Scottish Independence Debate


Recommended Posts

 

 

 

 

This is where your arguments always fall Charles. You forever harp on as if the independent Scotland will vote an SNP government in 2016. That may well not be the case.

 

So equally we can also completely ignore the following, and a lot more about the so called "shape of an independent Scotland", from the 670 page publicly funded SNP Manifesto published last November?

 

  • Thirty hours of childcare per week in term time for all three and four-year-olds, as well as vulnerable two-year-olds.
  • Trident nuclear weapons, currently based on the Clyde, removed within the first parliament.
  •  
  • Housing benefit reforms, described by critics as the "bedroom tax", to be abolished, and a halt to the rollout of Universal Credit.
  • It would be in Scotland's interest to keep the pound, while the Bank of England would continue as "lender of last resort".
  • BBC Scotland replaced at the start of 2017 with a new Scottish broadcasting service, continuing a formal relationship with the rest of the BBC.
  • Basic rate tax allowances and tax credits to rise at least in line with inflation.
  • A safe, "triple-locked" pension system.
  • Minimum wage to "rise alongside the cost of living".

 

Nope....it is exactly what every UK party does before every election..........puts forward what they'd do if they got into power.  It's called a manifesto and the SNP made no secret of the fact that part of the 670 pages included what they would hope to do if they became the first iScotland Government and depending on the results of the negotiations. Nicola Sturgeon said as much on a GMS interview post the publication.

 

It was in there mostly as an example of what could possible if we had the control of our own economy, compared to what we know will happen in the Union if we vote NO. Before the end of negotiations we won't know stuff like......will we have our share of the debt or no debt....... will we have our share of assets or none of them.......but it was written on the assumption that Westminster wouldn't tear up the Edinburgh Agreement (given the current Westminster rhetoric, that assumption was most certainly wishful thinking).

 

Could give you links to the other parties ideas on what an independent Scotland could be like if they were in power. Personally, I don't expect to have many , if any, majority Governments in iScotland, which pleases me, because consensus politics is a lot less wasteful than adversarial politics.

 

Still waiting for a cogent response to post #576, btw.

 

 

Is it an election?

 

 

The referendum is not an election but, in the event of a yes vote and on full independence, there would be a general election in iScotland to determine who would form iScotland's first "proper" Government.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

My voting form arrived on the doorstep this morning. After, months and months (and years for some, and 'centuries' for others!) of debate, it's now become very, very real! There will be an actual vot

I have to be honest I have not looked at this post for six months maybe, just got so peeed off with the lies coming from both sides.   Oddquine by the way is a real person, of the more senior genera

Well. of course it does and they have never made any secret of the fact.which is why the Scottish Parliament voting system was deliberately set up by Westminster to ensure there would never be majorit

Posted Images

pretty much all of those institutions will be moving to England, taking their jobs, GDP and tax revenues with them. is nothing more than Unionist spin (lies).  All of them are preparing to move all or parts of their businesses if necessary.....which is sensible business practice......but none of them has said unequivocally, that they intend to move lock, stock and barrel out of Scotland on Independence as soon as, or shortly after we vote YES. Businesses do pragmatic and will wait and see what policies will come into play....as many have said they will, including a couple of the airlines and a couple of the banks. 

 

Nobody is saying they will move everything south. Call centres etc will stay here, along with whatever infrastructure is needed to serve their Scottish customers.

 

It's nothing to do with the mainstream media by the way, as even they don't appreciate the scale of what would happen and all the knock on effects. It's just common sense that financial institutions will relocate their head offices and other key functions, to meet the needs of their customers and their shareholders.

 

Do customers (mostly living in England) really want their pensions and investments held in a foreign country? With an unproven regulatory framework? With a different currency perhaps? With a government that doesn't have the appetite or the resources to resolve the next crisis? The shareholders have similar concerns, and in the case of RBS the major shareholder is course the rUK government, who will do whatever is best to protect and control their substantial investment and that will involve having it based in their own jurisdiction.

 

This isn't scaremongering, it's just how business works. The fact that an English airline reckons it might make higher profit from its Scottish customers isn't really any consolation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

This is where your arguments always fall Charles. You forever harp on as if the independent Scotland will vote an SNP government in 2016. That may well not be the case.

 

So equally we can also completely ignore the following, and a lot more about the so called "shape of an independent Scotland", from the 670 page publicly funded SNP Manifesto published last November?

 

  • Thirty hours of childcare per week in term time for all three and four-year-olds, as well as vulnerable two-year-olds.
  • Trident nuclear weapons, currently based on the Clyde, removed within the first parliament.
  •  
  • Housing benefit reforms, described by critics as the "bedroom tax", to be abolished, and a halt to the rollout of Universal Credit.
  • It would be in Scotland's interest to keep the pound, while the Bank of England would continue as "lender of last resort".
  • BBC Scotland replaced at the start of 2017 with a new Scottish broadcasting service, continuing a formal relationship with the rest of the BBC.
  • Basic rate tax allowances and tax credits to rise at least in line with inflation.
  • A safe, "triple-locked" pension system.
  • Minimum wage to "rise alongside the cost of living".

 

Nope....it is exactly what every UK party does before every election..........puts forward what they'd do if they got into power.  It's called a manifesto and the SNP made no secret of the fact that part of the 670 pages included what they would hope to do if they became the first iScotland Government and depending on the results of the negotiations. Nicola Sturgeon said as much on a GMS interview post the publication.

 

It was in there mostly as an example of what could possible if we had the control of our own economy, compared to what we know will happen in the Union if we vote NO. Before the end of negotiations we won't know stuff like......will we have our share of the debt or no debt....... will we have our share of assets or none of them.......but it was written on the assumption that Westminster wouldn't tear up the Edinburgh Agreement (given the current Westminster rhetoric, that assumption was most certainly wishful thinking).

 

Could give you links to the other parties ideas on what an independent Scotland could be like if they were in power. Personally, I don't expect to have many , if any, majority Governments in iScotland, which pleases me, because consensus politics is a lot less wasteful than adversarial politics.

 

Still waiting for a cogent response to post #576, btw.

 

 

Is it an election?

 

 

No,  it isn't an election, though you'd be forgiven if you thought it was, given the MSM spin on the SNP supremacy and Charles' fixation on the idea that the SNP will definitely form the first iScotland Government.  It is a vote, at bottom, to decide if we want to have elections in the future which will give us the government for which we vote...and which will institute policies which will give us the kind of society we would prefer...whatever the colour of that administration may be.

 

As a one time SNP member (and local council candidate (failed)) who has always voted, for the 4+ decades since I reached voting age, solely on the independence principle, and not on SNP policies, I am highly unlikely to vote SNP in iScotland. However, if you are facing an unknown situation which has not yet been resolved, like in any General Election, you look at the possibilities/options in the best case scenario and produce policies which should work, all things being equal.which is what all political parties do prior to any elections, and what the SNP did in a part of the White Paper.....but in the SNP case, they were not aiming at election and power, but at  illustrating what could be, with the will of the Scottish electorate to vote YES on September 18th 2014.. A proper manifesto from any party is not possible until post-negotiation, when we will know where we stand.

 

I suppose it is down, in the end, to a decision as to whether we are happy to have England tell us that the UK  "democratically"  elected Government, elected on English votes, while Scotland has long turned its back on right wing Governments, is what we have to accept because of the Union. So we have to suck up the Westminster fixation on subsidising the city state of London while penalising all areas outside London and the South, including Scotland.

 

An iScotland may well end up, proportionately, not a lot  better off debt-wise than the UK in the short term.....but the difference will be that  we will spend our free (as in not already committed)income to benefit all our citizens....and not just the richest..as it appears is the main aim of the current Westminster administration with an eye on  their main chance and their future employment

Link to post
Share on other sites

I entirely agree with Oddquine that the forthcoming referendum is not an election and certainly not a vote either for or against the SNP and, in the event of a yes vote it's far from certain that the SNP would form the first administration which is much more likely to be a broadly centre left coalition.

 

Where I differ from former SNP member Oddquine is that whilst, since ever I was old enough to form a considered view, I have been a supporter of and advocate for independence but never much of a fan of the SNP.

 

However, I have to say that since the Nats came to power I have been largely impressed with the way they have dealt with matters and the economy in particular during turbulent economic times particularly given the very limited grip on the fiscal levers the Scottish Government are allowed under the current devolution settlement. I believe that the unassuming John Swinney in particular is one of the shrewdest and underrated politicians in the land.

 

A decade ago I would not have voted SNP in an elections for an independent Scottish parliament and would, in all probability, have voted Lib Dem. If an election was held post yes vote now I would very likely vote SNP not on the basis of nationalist (with a small n) sentiment but on their competent record in power over the last several years. 

Edited by Kingsmills
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Still waiting for a cogent response to post #576, btw.

 

Geez Oddquine... I've been working a 70 hour week just to get to post #76  never mind #576 in the face of the increasingly verbose ways you seem to dream up to say that you don't like :swear: Westminster :swear:  (a near synonym for :swear: The English :swear: ?) and as a poor put-upon Jock, what a completely bum deal you're getting from same. 

My viewpoint is straightforward. Like a large number of people in Scotland I am perfectly happy with the current arrangement and as such I actually grudge having to endure three and a half years of grievance and resentment politics and harping on about a complete side issue - or rather non-issue. In particular I have no interest at all in nitpicking away about the perceived intricacies of the Barnet Formula and the evils of "Financial Corporatism" etc etc etc.

However just in case there might be the slightest risk of the unthinkable, the unprecedented and the highly improbable emerging from the unlikeliness of the biggest turnaround in political history, I do feel obliged to dip my toe in the water from time to time.

 

As a result, something did emerge from recent posts when I made the point that Salmond and co. say they want to keep the queen.

"Don't worry," someone else replies. "That's just what the SNP are saying they WOULD do IF they were re-elected in 2016 which is by no means certain!"

Aye, OK then. So equally, all the stuff they put into the "Bribery" section of the 670 page publicly funded manifesto, some of which I listed in an earlier post, must presumably fall into the same category and be equally ingnorable then?

The punchline here is that this actually epitomises one of the SNP's fundamental strategies which is simply to tell people what they thnk people want to hear in the hope that they can be conned, for the duration of their 30 second stay in front of the ballot box, into casting a vote for something which will have consequences for all time.

Wanting to benefit from both contradictory sides of this argument is typical of the separatists' "have your cake and eat it" methodology which also includes the idea of sharing all the bits they want to keep, such as sterling and embassies etc whilst hogging as much of the oil for themselves.

Separation is for life.. not just for ther duration of a single parliament and certainly not just for Christmas.

Edited by Charles Bannerman
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oddquine, you posted this link http://moneyweek.com/endofbritain/ in an earlier post.  I have read it and on the face of it there would seem to be some logic in the worrying conclusions it draws that economic meltdown is just round the corner due the level of the UK debt.  If that is the case then to argue that an independent Scotland would be less at risk if Scotland's per capita debt is less makes sense.

 

What doesn't make sense to me is that if the Westminster parliament and the London centric banking institutions' irresponsible borrowing policies are leading to imminent economic meltdown, why does the Yes campaign remain totally focussed on currency union?   Given that the doomsday scenario the article predicts would cause a catastrophic devaluing of Sterling, I would have thought a main reason for independence would be to disentangle the Scottish economy from the fatally flawed pound ASAP.

 

Truthfully, I don't know, and I'd personally prefer no formal Currency Union at all, but if it was to be, definitely not one which tied us to a long fixed term. I would much rather have, in the fulness of time, our own Scottish pound and central bank, but it seems only sensible to use sterling in the  short/medium term, though I'd prefer to use it without a formal currency union. Seems to me that no Central Bank to act as lender of last resort would focus spending policies at a sensible level to produce balanced budgets and not produce the same kind of OTT borrowing which takes place in the UK.

I am inclined to think, (or probably over-think), that it was believed to be less scary for the Scots if there was no unnecessary change just for the sake of change, so in the short term at least, we'd still have the monarchy, sterling, open borders etc..and initially we'd see little difference in our day to day lives. As far as I'm aware, negotiations are not going to be the sole responsibility of the Scottish Government, but will include representatives of other parties and individuals with expertise in various areas...and post negotiations and an election some things may well change, but more gradually than suddenly on independence, depending on who is elected in 2016.  

The different parties and groups in favour of independence have different ideas on how they'd like to see an iScotland work, and they include those who want a Scottish currency, those who want rid of the monarchy, those who want a Thatcher-esque free market approach , those who don't want to be in NATO etc. Pretty much all they mostly agree on is that they want a nuclear free Scotland and a more fair and equitable society (bar the Thatcher free market fans.who say "The key to future happiness lies not in the redistribution of wealth - the key to future happiness lies in the creation of wealth."). So what the SNP proposes just now may well be how we set out on our journey, but won't necessarily still be how we look further down the road. But isn't the whole point of independence that our government is elected by the Scottish voter only...and we get to choose what the country we live in will be like.

Whatever Westminster says about a Currency Union putting restrictions on Scotland's sovereignty, they conveniently forget that it will be a negotiation and not Westminster dictat, if it happens, ( as I think it well may, unfortunately...at least in the short/medium term) it won't just be Scotland having it's borrowing etc restricted, rUK will also have restrictions negotiated...otherwise it isn't a negotiation......just Westminster doing what Westminster does best....telling us what we are or aren't allowed to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

pretty much all of those institutions will be moving to England, taking their jobs, GDP and tax revenues with them.

is nothing more than Unionist spin (lies).  All of them are preparing to move all or parts of their businesses

if necessary.

....which is sensible business practice......but none of them has said unequivocally, that they intend to move lock, stock and barrel out of Scotland on Independence as soon as, or shortly after we vote YES. Businesses do pragmatic and will wait and see what policies will come into play....as many have said they will, including a couple of the airlines and a couple of the banks. 

 

Nobody is saying they will move everything south. Call centres etc will stay here, along with whatever infrastructure is needed to serve their Scottish customers.

 

It's nothing to do with the mainstream media by the way, as even they don't appreciate the scale of what would happen and all the knock on effects. It's just common sense that financial institutions will relocate their head offices and other key functions, to meet the needs of their customers and their shareholders.

 

Do customers (mostly living in England) really want their pensions and investments held in a foreign country? With an unproven regulatory framework? With a different currency perhaps? With a government that doesn't have the appetite or the resources to resolve the next crisis? The shareholders have similar concerns, and in the case of RBS the major shareholder is course the rUK government, who will do whatever is best to protect and control their substantial investment and that will involve having it based in their own jurisdiction.

 

This isn't scaremongering, it's just how business works. The fact that an English airline reckons it might make higher profit from its Scottish customers isn't really any consolation.

 

 

Most of them are not necessarily moving anything, though...whatever the impression being given by the MSM. Contingency plans don't indicate definitely but do indicate " just in case"  It's not a great deal different in 2014 than it was before the 1997 devolution referendum.....and Standard Life, who was threatening to leave then, have stuck around to threaten to leave again.....maybe. 

 

For large multinational Companies, like Shell, it is not uncommon to operate different companies in different countries, all under the one umbrella. It's perfectly natural and, in some countries, is actually a requirement. And Shell seems to be more worried abut the In/Out of the EU vote  which has been promised in 2017 than Scottish Independence.

 

we have started work to establish additional companies registered in England, in order to provide operational flexibility and to complement our existing business in Scotland."  Alliance Trust

 

: "If anything were to threaten this, we will take whatever action we consider necessary - including transferring parts of our operations from Scotland - in order to ensure continuity and to protect the interests of our stakeholders."  Standard Life

 

So if it wasn't for the NO to a Monetary Union from the Three Stooges, they wouldn't even be contemplating a flit. 

 

But, to be fair, the S&P Report appears to think that it would be a good idea for Scotland to lose some of the risky financial sector..so some movement south by parts of some financial services would perhaps not be as unwelcome as it appears on the face of it.

 

.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

pretty much all of those institutions will be moving to England, taking their jobs, GDP and tax revenues with them.

is nothing more than Unionist spin (lies).  All of them are preparing to move all or parts of their businesses

if necessary.

....which is sensible business practice......but none of them has said unequivocally, that they intend to move lock, stock and barrel out of Scotland on Independence as soon as, or shortly after we vote YES. Businesses do pragmatic and will wait and see what policies will come into play....as many have said they will, including a couple of the airlines and a couple of the banks. 

 

Nobody is saying they will move everything south. Call centres etc will stay here, along with whatever infrastructure is needed to serve their Scottish customers.

 

It's nothing to do with the mainstream media by the way, as even they don't appreciate the scale of what would happen and all the knock on effects. It's just common sense that financial institutions will relocate their head offices and other key functions, to meet the needs of their customers and their shareholders.

 

Do customers (mostly living in England) really want their pensions and investments held in a foreign country? With an unproven regulatory framework? With a different currency perhaps? With a government that doesn't have the appetite or the resources to resolve the next crisis? The shareholders have similar concerns, and in the case of RBS the major shareholder is course the rUK government, who will do whatever is best to protect and control their substantial investment and that will involve having it based in their own jurisdiction.

 

This isn't scaremongering, it's just how business works. The fact that an English airline reckons it might make higher profit from its Scottish customers isn't really any consolation.

 

 

Most of them are not necessarily moving anything, though...whatever the impression being given by the MSM. Contingency plans don't indicate definitely but do indicate " just in case"  It's not a great deal different in 2014 than it was before the 1997 devolution referendum.....and Standard Life, who was threatening to leave then, have stuck around to threaten to leave again.....maybe. 

 

For large multinational Companies, like Shell, it is not uncommon to operate different companies in different countries, all under the one umbrella. It's perfectly natural and, in some countries, is actually a requirement. And Shell seems to be more worried abut the In/Out of the EU vote  which has been promised in 2017 than Scottish Independence.

 

we have started work to establish additional companies registered in England, in order to provide operational flexibility and to complement our existing business in Scotland."  Alliance Trust

 

: "If anything were to threaten this, we will take whatever action we consider necessary - including transferring parts of our operations from Scotland - in order to ensure continuity and to protect the interests of our stakeholders."  Standard Life

 

So if it wasn't for the NO to a Monetary Union from the Three Stooges, they wouldn't even be contemplating a flit. 

 

But, to be fair, the S&P Report appears to think that it would be a good idea for Scotland to lose some of the risky financial sector..so some movement south by parts of some financial services would perhaps not be as unwelcome as it appears on the face of it.

 

.

 

Not sure why you choose Shell Oddquine. They dont have headquarters in Scotland. Nor do BP They have offices to support their North Sea Operation and their biggest part of those operations was sold off before the SNP came to power. On saying that, and knowing all about the effects of Scottish Independence, niether of those two majors have stopped investing in Scottish waters. Indeed both have increased spending and have indicated they will continue to do so over the next five years. The Chinese, who bought over Canada's Nexon Corporation have also, recently, pledged more investment in Scottish waters. These alone should tell the world exactly why Westminster is so keen to hold on to us. And more especially why they lie through the teeth about the future prospects of North Sea Oil. There are enough known reserves around our shores to last a very long time. It just needs the technology development to retreave it from our deepwater, unpredictable seas. And thats not far away 

 

As for the banks, if they choose to move their headquarters then so be it. they still have custom in Scotland and they will still make profit from Scotland so they will still pay taxes in Scotland. And I'll wager that if currency union doesn't happen they'll all be creeping back to bid for the Central bank opportunity.

For all those institutions who are threatening to pull out there are as many happy to stay and many of those threatening will also stay for the reduced level of corporation tax that Charles omitted from his selective list a few posts ago.

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

pretty much all of those institutions will be moving to England, taking their jobs, GDP and tax revenues with them.

is nothing more than Unionist spin (lies).  All of them are preparing to move all or parts of their businesses

if necessary.

....which is sensible business practice......but none of them has said unequivocally, that they intend to move lock, stock and barrel out of Scotland on Independence as soon as, or shortly after we vote YES. Businesses do pragmatic and will wait and see what policies will come into play....as many have said they will, including a couple of the airlines and a couple of the banks. 

 

Nobody is saying they will move everything south. Call centres etc will stay here, along with whatever infrastructure is needed to serve their Scottish customers.

 

It's nothing to do with the mainstream media by the way, as even they don't appreciate the scale of what would happen and all the knock on effects. It's just common sense that financial institutions will relocate their head offices and other key functions, to meet the needs of their customers and their shareholders.

 

Do customers (mostly living in England) really want their pensions and investments held in a foreign country? With an unproven regulatory framework? With a different currency perhaps? With a government that doesn't have the appetite or the resources to resolve the next crisis? The shareholders have similar concerns, and in the case of RBS the major shareholder is course the rUK government, who will do whatever is best to protect and control their substantial investment and that will involve having it based in their own jurisdiction.

 

This isn't scaremongering, it's just how business works. The fact that an English airline reckons it might make higher profit from its Scottish customers isn't really any consolation.

 

 

Most of them are not necessarily moving anything, though...whatever the impression being given by the MSM. Contingency plans don't indicate definitely but do indicate " just in case"  It's not a great deal different in 2014 than it was before the 1997 devolution referendum.....and Standard Life, who was threatening to leave then, have stuck around to threaten to leave again.....maybe. 

 

For large multinational Companies, like Shell, it is not uncommon to operate different companies in different countries, all under the one umbrella. It's perfectly natural and, in some countries, is actually a requirement. And Shell seems to be more worried abut the In/Out of the EU vote  which has been promised in 2017 than Scottish Independence.

 

we have started work to establish additional companies registered in England, in order to provide operational flexibility and to complement our existing business in Scotland."  Alliance Trust

 

: "If anything were to threaten this, we will take whatever action we consider necessary - including transferring parts of our operations from Scotland - in order to ensure continuity and to protect the interests of our stakeholders."  Standard Life

 

So if it wasn't for the NO to a Monetary Union from the Three Stooges, they wouldn't even be contemplating a flit. 

 

But, to be fair, the S&P Report appears to think that it would be a good idea for Scotland to lose some of the risky financial sector..so some movement south by parts of some financial services would perhaps not be as unwelcome as it appears on the face of it.

 

.

 

Not sure why you choose Shell Oddquine. They dont have headquarters in Scotland. Nor do BP They have offices to support their North Sea Operation and their biggest part of those operations was sold off before the SNP came to power. On saying that, and knowing all about the effects of Scottish Independence, niether of those two majors have stopped investing in Scottish waters. Indeed both have increased spending and have indicated they will continue to do so over the next five years. The Chinese, who bought over Canada's Nexon Corporation have also, recently, pledged more investment in Scottish waters. These alone should tell the world exactly why Westminster is so keen to hold on to us. And more especially why they lie through the teeth about the future prospects of North Sea Oil. There are enough known reserves around our shores to last a very long time. It just needs the technology development to retreave it from our deepwater, unpredictable seas. And thats not far away 

 

As for the banks, if they choose to move their headquarters then so be it. they still have custom in Scotland and they will still make profit from Scotland so they will still pay taxes in Scotland. And I'll wager that if currency union doesn't happen they'll all be creeping back to bid for the Central bank opportunity.

For all those institutions who are threatening to pull out there are as many happy to stay and many of those threatening will also stay for the reduced level of corporation tax that Charles omitted from his selective list a few posts ago.

 

 

Cited Shell a) because it was the only non-financial global company I could think of off the top of my head and b)  because it has been used as a stick of uncertainty to beat the YES campaign with ,on other forums, since it sold off the Anasuria, Nelson and Sean assets back in February, and has been resurrected  since the CEO mannie spoke about his personal preference that the UK doesn't leave the EU and Scotland doesn't leave the Union.

 

As for all the rest of your post, I concur.  Businesses will come/go/stay as long as they can make profit, regardless of the political and/or economic regime in a country..

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

 

For all those institutions who are threatening to pull out there are as many happy to stay and many of those threatening will also stay for the reduced level of corporation tax that Charles omitted from his selective list a few posts ago.

 

Alex... thank you very much for that welcome item of extra ammunitiion. :smile:

Because we can indeed add reduced corporation tax to the SNP wish list of incentives to vote yes - BUT which will (maybe?) only materialise IF an SNP election win in 2016 were to follow a yes vote. You need to make up your mind whether any re-election of the SNP in 2016 would be a good thing because in the event of a yes vote it might help the wish list towards a degree of reality, or a bad thing because an increasing number of people are seeing through them as this infinite campaign rumbles on.

CT is indeed yet another element of the SNP philosophy (yes... a cracker of an oxymoron I know :lol: ) which promises jam tomorrow.... but only if they can manage to get a van to deliver it (and the van doesn't break down).

I'm not so confident that a left-leaning Scottish administration would be all that rabidly keen hand the capitalists a CT offering like this which is probably already sticking in the throats of Nat lefties like Cunningham and "Photographergate" McAlpine.

But hey-ho! Let's just feed the masses with as much pie in the sky as we need to get them thinking the way we need them to for their 30 second stay in the polling booth. And let's not worry too much about what will actually be affordable (note this morning's further warnings on oil revenues) or deliverable post-any yes vote.... because that will be irreversible and by then we will have got the only thing we are interested in to the extent that we don't actually give a stuff about the consequences.

Edited by Charles Bannerman
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

For all those institutions who are threatening to pull out there are as many happy to stay and many of those threatening will also stay for the reduced level of corporation tax that Charles omitted from his selective list a few posts ago.

 

Alex... thank you very much for that welcome item of extra ammunitiion. :smile:

Because we can indeed add reduced corporation tax to the SNP wish list of incentives to vote yes - BUT which will (maybe?) only materialise IF an SNP election win in 2016 were to follow a yes vote. You need to make up your mind whether any re-election of the SNP in 2016 would be a good thing because in the event of a yes vote it might help the wish list towards a degree of reality, or a bad thing because an increasing number of people are seeing through them as this infinite campaign rumbles on.

CT is indeed yet another element of the SNP philosophy (yes... a cracker of an oxymoron I know :lol: ) which promises jam tomorrow.... but only if they can manage to get a van to deliver it (and the van doesn't break down).

I'm not so confident that a left-leaning Scottish administration would be all that rabidly keen hand the capitalists a CT offering like this which is probably already sticking in the throats of Nat lefties like Cunningham and "Photographergate" McAlpine.

But hey-ho! Let's just feed the masses with as much pie in the sky as we need to get them thinking the way we need them to for their 30 second stay in the polling booth. And let's not worry too much about what will actually be affordable (note this morning's further warnings on oil revenues) or deliverable post-any yes vote.... because that will be irreversible and by then we will have got the only thing we are interested in to the extent that we don't actually give a stuff about the consequences.

 

That be the same kind of jam tomorrow being muttered about if we vote NO, currently by Gordon Brown and Ming Campbell? .....ie more devo-something or other, if the parties can come to some agreement, and if they then manage to get that through a Westminster Parliament unscathed?

 

That be the same kind of jam tomorrow the Union is so kindly allowing us to have in 2015, via the Scotland Act 2012....the jam which is more irritating pips than juicy fruit?  The jam which has less sugar, as in our share of the currently flagged £25 billion in Coalition cuts, a probable £4 billion reduction in Barnett receipts, (if they even continue at all, going by Westminster MP rhetoric) partly through "realignment" and partly through continuing privatisation of public services like the NHS in the South, and by the use of Westminster "reserves" (as in our money) to pay for stuff like the Olympics, HS2, London's Sewage System, Crossrail etc in England......and the 10p in the pound cut to force the application of the Scottish Tax?

 

That the same kind of jam tomorrow which, for Scotland, continuing in the UK with the Scotland Act 2012, has the addition of rancid vinegar with the cuts which will have to be made in our spending to compensate for the reduction in the block grant, plus allow for the added cost of collecting the Scottish Tax, even if that does not vary from rUK levels..or which will require a tax increase to maintain even some of the devolution "perks" we have currently..and as a result will mean that either we won't be able to ameliorate the worst excesses of the policies instituted by Westminster, as currently happens, or we will probably have to become the most highly taxed country in the Union,( in order to ensure the Westminster Gravy Train and the City State of London can continue to live in the manner which UK borrowing levels have long entitled them.)

 

"Control" of Income Tax without any influence on fiscal levers to grow the economy is simply.....lets be honest, here...Westminster being more interested in isolating and trying to hamstring the SNP to try to head off another referendum, than in meeting the popular demand for more powers for Holyrood.......because if they really wanted Scotland to have more real power, they have had decades in which to hand them over....or alternatively, they could so easily have allowed the third option in the referendum...but that would have tied them into doing something meaningful......and they have no intentions of doing that. 

 

Is our future to be independence and the ability to make a kirk or a mill of it for ourselves, or eternally paying more taxes than the rest of the UK to try to "mitigate " Westminster policies where possible via Devo-something or other...or even, as has been mooted by some, a rolling back of devolution to become North Britain and a region again to teach us not to try to rock the UK boat?

 

Got a link to  this morning's further warnings on oil revenues.....and are they based on the incompetent OBR forecasts or the Oil and Gas companies themselves.......and do they take account or not of the the possible effects of the tax increase on the oil industry outlined in the Autumn Statement in December? 

 

Like the "Photographergate", btw.....almost clever......surprised it took you so long to find it!  I'm away to look for all the hunners of equivalents in our Westminster hierarchy to post on here to counteract it ..I may be some time, though....... I'm sure there will be a fairly long list!  :lol:

Edited by Oddquine
Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't suppose this will interest Charles.......but may interest others........Alex Salmond's  New Statesman Lecture.

 

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/03/alex-salmonds-new-statesman-lecture-full-text

 

Contrast it with the speeches from Westminster and by those in Better Together......please......and then vote YES in September! :smile:

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't suppose this will interest Charles.......but may interest others........Alex Salmond's  New Statesman Lecture.

 

Bang on OQ :lol:  When you see the word "lecture" in the same phrase as "Alex Salmond" you know this is something you need to avoid for your own sanity. :crazy:

But tell me something. When are the SNP going to start actually saying stuff which might have a chance of getting people to sit up and listen to their case? Since the 670 page publicly funded manifesto divebombed without trace, I'm just noticing nothing - apart from random defensive mutterings off the back foot in response to the now almost daily battering their stance is getting from all directions.

I do have to say that, although somewhat lengthy and sometimes a tad resentful, the contributions on here from your good self have been as good as I have seen - and have been like a veritable Nationalist Sermon On The Mount compared with what is coming from official sources.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Don't suppose this will interest Charles.......but may interest others........Alex Salmond's  New Statesman Lecture.

 

Bang on OQ :lol:  When you see the word "lecture" in the same phrase as "Alex Salmond" you know this is something you need to avoid for your own sanity. :crazy:

But tell me something. When are the SNP going to start actually saying stuff which might have a chance of getting people to sit up and listen to their case? Since the 670 page publicly funded manifesto divebombed without trace, I'm just noticing nothing - apart from random defensive mutterings off the back foot in response to the now almost daily battering their stance is getting from all directions.

I do have to say that, although somewhat lengthy and sometimes a tad resentful, the contributions on here from your good self have been as good as I have seen - and have been like a veritable Nationalist Sermon On The Mount compared with what is coming from official sources.

 

I don't think you can call over 100,000 copies of "Scotland's Future" dive bombed Charles. I think it goes to show that people are engaged with the debate and want to know more. Just because you think it's a waste of time doesn't make it so. I usually find that people who call the white paper a waste of money are usually the ones who fear the debate. They would prefer people stay uninformed in case they make an informed decision.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I know little about this  Scottish challenge but what I do know is that ..

 

"when you hear a man speak consider his interests."  Eh Chas?

 

When this phrase was coined I doubt if women even had the vote let alone being allowed to express themselves publicly.

 

So, Good on Yer, Oddquine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

:shrug02:

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

 

:shrug02:

 

 

That would be because we have no say at all in the Union which comprises the UK. To date, before the advent of the Coalition, the majority of Scottish MPs voted against the Poll Tax, the Iraq War, the replacement of Trident and other such (to quote Johann Lamont) "little things".  Since the Coalition came to power in the undemocratic UK FPTP system, the majority of Scottish MPs, voted against other "little things", like the Bedroom tax, the austerity cuts, the hike in VAT, the welfare cuts/caps contained in the Welfare Benefits "uprating", the privatisation of Royal Mail.

 

Even the Scottish Secretary, who, before 1999 was meant to be Scotland's man in Westminster, as opposed to his role now, which is Westminster's man in Scotland, was unable to stop all the draconian cuts to the Scottish budget, which was a consequence of the failed gerrymandered 1979 referendum, and which saw the Scotland Office budget cut by more than that of any other part of the UK.  Do you really think that attitude will change if we vote NO in September, given the rhetoric from Unionists in and out of Parliament?

 

If we were in the EU (which I personally would prefer not to be) we would at least have decided that for ourselves, and will not have to wait for rUK to decide if we are in or out along with them in 2017, whatever we think. And into the bargain, 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. Additionally, it is the UK which gets any money allocated to Scotland under, for example, the CAP awards, as they are the EU member currently, and .that means that they can do with it what they will, as has been seen with the sharing of the convergence payment to Scotland over the whole UK.

 

While negotiations would obviously have to take place, we would probably have direct representation in the likes of the Council of Ministers, the EU commission etc, which we do not have as part of the UK. I have read Unionists saying Scotland's voice in the EU would be very much diminished if we were independent..and I am really really struggling to work out just what voice they think we have, given that, as with Westminster, the Scots, even if they all sing from the same hymn sheet (which they don't) can't even make a whisper heard over the clamour of the rest of the UK

 

Had to laugh at 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.

 

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 it is not worse, is at least as bad, if only because of the bloated administration and the preponderance of MPs out only for their own self interest.  We will still have plenty in common with rUK after Independence, if the rUK doesn't decide to huff for Britain..........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.

 

Independence is not about fear, it's about hope.

It's not about the past, it's about the future.

It's not about tradition, it's about ambition.

It's not about wealth, it's about fairness.

It's not about Salmond or Cameron.

It's about your (and my) children and grand-children.

 

The Union, regardless of which colour of party is in power, nowadays, is about wastage, and war mongering, and the rich elite and corporate rule, and privatisation of the necessities of life for profit for business, with an eye to donations for the political parties and jobs for themselves after politics, and it is about the daemonising of the "underclassses" like the unemployed, the sick, the disabled, the working poor. It is about food banks and rolling the welfare state back to as near to the Victorian era as it can manage.

 

It is about a Government of millionaires, out of touch with the life of the ordinary citizen, and with connections to private companies awarded lucrative contracts in many public service areas, pandering to their own greed and sense of entitlement.

 

It is about borrowing to keep in with the USA Government Jones', and to maintain the nuclear chocolate teapot. It is about borrowing to allow the rich tax cuts, and tax avoidance/evasion. It is about borrowing to pay the interest on the accumulated debt, which will have doubled in the five years of this Coalition up to 2015 from the level it took NuLabour to achieve in their eleven years.

 

It is about borrowing to support banks in order to pay bankers extortionate salaries and ludicrous bonuses as a reward for giving the Government the excuse to roll back the welfare state and trash the "underclasses" under the cry of austerity, as they cap public service wages and benefit increases to 1% while being awarded themselves, what was it, a 16% increase, on salaries which are already between £65000 and £135000 plus expenses, gold-plated redundancy payments and pensions?

 

It is about borrowing to pay about 900 unelected placemen to ensure a place for those who don't manage to get sinecure directorships in a tobacco company or a financial institution, or get on the lecture circuit, so they will be able to continue to live in the manner to which they have become accustomed on our dime, and to reward the donors to their particular parties. Ermine comes expensive......as does Westminster Government as the level of National Debt and annual borrowing shows! 

 

Better Together? Yeah.....right!

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, Oddquine, are you saying that you dislike Westminster? Why didn't you mention this before?! :lol:

 

 

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 it is not worse, is at least as bad

 

Oh come off it, this was a sensible debate until you said that!

 

It's refreshing to see that you favour true independence, whereas the Yes campaign are obviously advocating EU membership (even if they still struggle to grasp the concept that Scotland will have to apply to join and will need all 28 current members to agree).

 

I recently got a Yes newspaper thing through my letterbox, which I did flick through before putting it in the recycling bin.  There was a 2 page spread on how fantastic Norway is and how we're suddenly going to be just like that (although it forgot to mention the recent survey which shows that the cost of living in Oslo is now higher than Tokyo).  Bit more importantly, it didn't mention that the comparison is somewhat invalid because Norway IS truly independent - it is not in the EU, and it has its own currency.  It makes all its own laws, sets its own interest rates, controls its own economy, makes all its own decisions (including participating in all these illegal wars you keep going on about) and has been pretty successful with that approach.

 

I can understand why people would want (true) independence, but not why they would choose instead to put themselves under the control of the army of unaccountable Belgian and German bureaucrats.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't think you can call over 100,000 copies of "Scotland's Future" dive bombed Charles. I think it goes to show that people are engaged with the debate and want to know more. Just because you think it's a waste of time doesn't make it so. I usually find that people who call the white paper a waste of money are usually the ones who fear the debate. They would prefer people stay uninformed in case they make an informed decision.

 

 

100,000 circulation represents around 2.3% (TWO POINT THREE PER CENT!) of the Scottish electorate. For goodness sake, the Scottish Sun SELLS 276,000 copies EVERY DAY... and you have to pay for that whereas this Toom Tome is FREE, funded by £1.25M of public money. Now of that 100,000 I'm sure a fair chunk will have been acquired by SNP ultras, all sycophantically hoping to get their free copy signed by Alex Salmond so I don't really think that this document has really set the heather alight.

As it happens I was actually referring to the content and its impact having divebombed, but indeed it does appear that its circulation has done just the same.

 

Since I'm on, I have to say I find the £4.4 billion (44%) fall in oil revenues over the last year quite interesting. Now, apart from the fact that this is part of an underlying trend of oil revenue decline, I do accept what Salmond says about some of that being attributable to oil companies not being taxed on investments they have made.

So at least two things become evident -

* Irrespective of the reasons for it, oil revenues are now shown to be perfectly capable of swinging by over £4 billion, year on year, and

* It has now emerged that the year on year public finances of a separate Scotland would to a large extent be determined by the investment strategies of oil companies. What kind of independence is that?

On the other hand, a British economy which is about 12 times the size of a Scottish one is far, far less easily threatened by fluctuations and declines like this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, Oddquine, are you saying that you dislike Westminster? Why didn't you mention this before?! :lol:

 

 

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 it is not worse, is at least as bad

 

Oh come off it, this was a sensible debate until you said that!

 

It's refreshing to see that you favour true independence, whereas the Yes campaign are obviously advocating EU membership (even if they still struggle to grasp the concept that Scotland will have to apply to join and will need all 28 current members to agree).

 

I recently got a Yes newspaper thing through my letterbox, which I did flick through before putting it in the recycling bin.  There was a 2 page spread on how fantastic Norway is and how we're suddenly going to be just like that (although it forgot to mention the recent survey which shows that the cost of living in Oslo is now higher than Tokyo).  Bit more importantly, it didn't mention that the comparison is somewhat invalid because Norway IS truly independent - it is not in the EU, and it has its own currency.  It makes all its own laws, sets its own interest rates, controls its own economy, makes all its own decisions (including participating in all these illegal wars you keep going on about) and has been pretty successful with that approach.

 

I can understand why people would want (true) independence, but not why they would choose instead to put themselves under the control of the army of unaccountable Belgian and German bureaucrats.

 

I'm away out shortly to deliver YES literature, so won't respond to your whole further post at this time, but hopefully, unless the debate has moved on, get back to it on my return.  In the meantime......

 

I notice you don't address any of my specific points......one of which I will repeat again, in different words, in the hopes you will at some stage respond cogently to  it.......you say of Scotland in the Union......where they have a strong voice are overrepresented in the democratic process. 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.

 

So how is Westminster any better waste-wise, corruption-wise and regarding the level of democracy than the EU?

 

Democratic deficit in the EU comprises the placemen of Governments in the EU bodies which are not directly elected....however,  most, if not all, those placemen were elected in their own countries, so at least have some small measure of legitimacy. In the UK, however, we have a completely unelected by anybody at all, second chamber of failed politicians, wealthy party donors and other party placemen, which has the ability to dicker with bills introduced by the elected house and amend them. Now, I'm not saying that from time to time they don't make a useful contribution, though I do query if that time to time contribution warrants the cost of their maintenance...when there is already a Parliamentary Committee system which could do much the same thing.

 

I agree that the EU is an expensive white elephant.....but it is a white elephant in charge of a herd of 28 disparate sovereign countries. The EU, according to the European Court of Auditors, wasted, in 2012, almost £6 billion (or 5% of its budget.) on erroneous projects....which cost the UK taxpayer over £800 million. But just consider that the UK Government wasted £45.3 billion due to public sector fraud, inefficient public sector procurement and poor use of outsourcing alone, in a country comprising four national "regions".it does kinda make one wonder if the EU is the most inefficient....or if it is our own Wastemonster which wears that crown.

 

Corruption in the EU is difficult to quantify given national governments, rather than EU institutions, are chiefly responsible for fighting it.  Despite the UK having the likes of the Bribery Act, it is also difficult to quantify in the UK, as many cases are settled out of court.  Interesting article here

http://news.sky.com/story/1205755/uk-defence-firms-vulnerable-to-corruption

 

However, I suppose that, without facts and figures, public perception is all.......and 64% of UK respondents believe that corruption is widespread in Britain.......whether it is or not......much like so many people believe that one chancer on benefits reported in the likes of the Daily Fail means all people on benefits are chancers....or mock referenda in one school district coming out against Independence means all 16-18 year olds in Scotland are against independence.

 

Corruption certainly exists.....and given the past furore of cash for questions, exists in the heart of government.......but I am pretty sure that it does in EU institutions, as well as in EU member countries.  I'd not have said the EU institution was corrupt, tbh....it was you who said EU and corrupt in the same breath... because I simply don't know....but in a free market economy, it would be a very foolish person who would say that no individual punter or politician, political party, businessman or corporate entity wasn't out to make a fast, easy buck in any way they can....legally or illegally......or using the dubious grey areas in between the two extremes.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

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.

 

:shrug02:

 

 

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. 

 

First the statement "we have no say at all in the Union which comprises the UK." is complete and utter nonsense.  Scotland has roughly 10% of MPs and 1% of MEPs.  That is 10 times the voice in the UK than in the EU.  Some of these MPs move to positions of prominence in the Government.  Gordon Brown (remember him?) became Prime Minister.  Do you really think that all these MPs who don't just happen to be SNP MPs go down to London to act against the interests of their constituents?  And, as demonstrated much earlier in this thread, historically Scotland usually votes for the party than wins the election.  Of course there will be things the UK Parliament decides which are not consistent with what we might want in Scotland as a whole but such is the way of democracy. You can't please all the people all the time. 

 

She goes on to say "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."  Again, and more explicitly, we have the extraordinary allegation that elected representatives of the Scottish people are abusing their position of trust and acting against the interests of the people who elected them.  Words fail me.

 

Next her hatred of all things Westminster is illustrated by reference to "the preponderance of MPs out only for their own self interest".  Again this is a pretty shameful thing to say.  Yes we know there is some behaviour which is not what we would expect, but the vast majority of MPs go into politics to serve the public and work very hard in doing so.  They work long hours and make significant financial and personal sacrifice and are under constant public and media scrutiny.  Many of these MPs give up secure well paid jobs in order to serve their constituents for considerably less money.    Her blanket allegation of the corruptness of Westminster politicians is pathetic.  It does, of course, also beg the question of why politicians will only be out for their own self interest when in a UK Government but will behave honourably in the public interest if elected to an independent Scottish parliament - or is it only English MPs who are shysters?

 

In addition she states "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?"  This is frankly laughable!  Firstly, you self evidently get a stronger voice than from 6 MEPs in a 750 seat European parliament.  Secondly, given that London and the South represents a minority of the UK it should be clear that collectively it is the regions and not London that has the power.  We all have a voice and democracy is about collective decision making for the collective good

 

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. : Terms of Use : Guidelines : Privacy Policy