Jump to content

The General Election 2015 Thread


Recommended Posts

 

No. In case you hadn't noticed. Despite not being a nation state, Scotland is a nation with many of the trappings of such. Notwithstanding their respective undoubted charms, The Highlands, Tayside, Greater Glasgow, The Western Isles et al, whilst constituent parts of Scotland, are not nations. Just how far do you propose to distill it down ? Are you proposing that Dalneigh should have a veto should it vote no or perhaps you wish to distill it down to the Bannerman household.

 

 

Strange how the nationalists tolerate subdividing down only to the unit they are obsessed about, which they attempt to justify through some fudged and bogus half-claim that it's effectively the nation state they would like it to be but which it isn't - as confirmed by the Scottish electorate last September.

This really does once again show us the complete mess which is nationalist thinking in this neck of the woods (others too, but let's keep this straightforward).

Because this is what we get from them -

* They want their own personally selected fragment of the British population to be able to veto the will of the majority on an issue where the relevant constitutional entity is Britain and only Britain - an institution of which the Scottish electorate confirmed its will to remain part as recently as seven months ago. One also suspects that enthusiasm for Europe is only the secondary reason here - well behind that SNP staple of creating further dissent, discontent and division.

* But at the same time they seem to object to the same principle applying to any subsequent Scottish referendum.

* They have been screaming for more post-referendum powers to be devolved to Scotland since September 19th (I think our irate OCD chum on the road through Dingwall now has "day #250" up on his/her front window. :laugh: )

* It therefore appears that the SNP is desperate for as much power as possible to be exercised as locally as possible.

* But at the same time they are content to hand a huge number of powers over to the EU.

* And in the other direction they have taken a huge number of powers, such as control over fire and rescue and policing and ability of councils to set Council Tax, away from local areas and focused them on Holyrood.

 

Now there's consistency for you!

 

You know, an interesting analogy with the Act of Union resides right on our front doors here in Inverness.

* In 1707 a small, failed state joined forces with a rather larger not, by modern standards, especially successful one and within decades the product was well on its way top becoming a major power.

* In 1994 a small struggling football club joined forces with a rather larger and not, by modern standards, especially successful one and within decades the product is in the Scottish Cup Final and Europe.

 

So I suppose that makes the SNP the sort of equivalent of the Jaggie Refuseniks!

Edited by Charles Bannerman
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 528
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Again the reports are inaccurate. Two well known individuals who have made a habit of following Jim Murphy and rudely and very vocally disrupting his meetings who were until yesterday among the 114,00

Achtung! I actually find it hilarious listening to to the British nationalists continually bleating about the referendum, which they won FFS, and how it's all the SNP are interested in. It goes s

Posted Images

You omitted to share your rather lopsided view of the Darien Scheme,,,,again.....However, while not necessarily the view of all supporters of independence, I tend to agree that for approximately two hundred years the Union was generally beneficial for Scotland even if that benefit was often on the back of ruthless and disgraceful exploitation and suppression of the true owners of the lands colonised on who's backs that financial benefit was based. Scots participated with more enthusiasm than most in those excesses many of which would be regarded matters for the International Court of Justice in current times.

 

Those days, for good and ill, were last millennium and, in case you hadn't noticed, the sun set on Empire long ago. New and more equitable and ethical relationships such as the European Union are being forged and smaller nations are thriving like never before, especially those richly blessed with natural resources. An increasing number of Scots want to join this new and modern World and embrace progress. At the last plebiscite very nearly half of Scots voted to do just that. I and,more to the point, the SNP,accept that more than half did not but simple demographics, given the age profiles of those who voted in different directions, would suggest that the next time, I predict in fifteen years or so, the result will be different.

Edited by Kingsmills
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You omitted to share your rather lopsided view of the Darien Scheme,,,,again

Yes, I know... those nasty bigger boys next door went and kicked poor Scots' snowman to bits during the night and forced them to help them build their one instead. :cry:

Nothing, of course, to do with sending not one but two fleets laden with junk to sell to central American indians living in a swamp.

It was stuff like this that kicked off the triple myth of Darien - Glencoe - Culloden (interestingly all titles of books by that nationalist apologist John Prebble) which the nationalist discontent factory has churned out for decades.

I've never been backward at coming forwards about the fact that I've never really done "Scottishness" and prefer to regard myself as a Highlander living within Great Britain.

I would suggest that Scotland had been pretty dysfunctional for a long time before Darien, which was something of a last throw of the dice to achieve viability.

I often wonder if we might have been spared all this whingeing about separation if they had made a proper job of joining us all together far more homogeneously post-1707 rather than leave all this wriggle room which the Nats keep trying to exploit. If that had happened, or if Edward II hadn't been such a downright inept commander at Bannockburn, nobody would care about all this stuff by now and we could just get on with our lives in peace.

 

Then, of course, you also wonder how things might have turned out if, in 1286, Alexander III hadn't had to utter those famous last words "You stupid bloody horse!!.... Ohhhhh shiiiiitt!""

 

Right.... that dreadful heresy should pretty well condemn me to become one of the founder members of Wee Nicola's St Kilda Gulag when she gets it up and running. :amazed:

Edited by Charles Bannerman
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Perhaps, before suggesting that Scotland should be treated as a mere region in much the same manner as Kent or Yorkshire you should familiarise yourself with the Terms of The Treaty of Union. The ancient nation of Scotland did not cede sovereignty but entered a bilateral contract to share it.

 

The Treaty of Union was cobbled together when the people had no democratic freedoms of the kind that have developed since then.  Rather than go back through the mists of time to a point in history which happens to suit your desire for independence, can you not respect the basic democratic rights of all citizens of the UK regardless of race, creed, colour, sex, intelligence or whatever and accept the basic tenet of democracy in a modern civilised society that everyone's vote is of equal worth? 

 

You complain about the larger partner nation dictating to the smaller ones but yet apparently see nothing wrong in one of the smaller nations dictating to everyone else!  But the issue of the EU referendum is not a case of Scotland being dictated to by its larger partner, it is about individuals within the UK expressing their view as individuals and having an expectation that each individual's vote is of equal value and that the view of the majority will prevail. 

 

Now I fully accept that if the overall result in the UK is significantly different from that in Scotland that might justify people in Scotland wishing to question their place in the Union again.  That would reflect Scotland's privileged status as a nation and would provide an option not open to the people of Yorkshire or London should the vote go against their wishes.  Why on earth can nationalists not acknowledge their privileged position instead of this constant whingeing and asserting that the votes of their fellow citizens south of the Border should only count if they vote the same way the Scots do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • 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