An independent Scotland?
- Clinton Huxley
- 19th century monkeybitch.
- Posts: 23746
- Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 4:34 pm
- Contact:
Re: An independent Scotland?
Re the above, I think a federal system would be workable. The Federation Of The Isles, to include Eire...
"I grow old … I grow old …
I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled"
AND MERRY XMAS TO ONE AND All!
http://25kv.co.uk/date_counter.php?date ... 20counting!!![/img-sig]
I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled"
AND MERRY XMAS TO ONE AND All!
- mistermack
- Posts: 15093
- Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
- About me: Never rong.
- Contact:
Re: An independent Scotland?
That's complete bollocks. It's emotional them/us nationalism, nothing more.ronmcd wrote:It depends what you mean. Nationalism as in religion or ethnicity, I agree. But that isn't the purpose here, it's simply about political control. Those who accuse the YES campaign of being "nationalists" often assume it's about being Scottish, but it isn't. It's the people who live in Scotland, Scots, English, EU citizens etc, making better (hopefully) decisions about this country than Westminister. Devolution goes so far, a federal system would go further, but only independence would give control over important areas such as taking part in wars or removing nuclear weapons.mistermack wrote:I don't like this referendum, and Cameron is an idiot, the way he has agreed to it.
Firstly, I just don't like nationalism. It's illogical, causes wars, and is on a par with religion as far as logic goes.
Westminister (esp Tory) politicians talk of nationalists in Scotland in disparaging terms, but can't see that they are considerably more nationalistic about the British state and it's place in Europe than those they accuse. Why is British independence ok, but Scottish not?
Devolution of decision-making isn't more efficient. It just SOUNDS better, when you say it quick.
In real life, it's often a disaster. Big institutions can afford better expertise.
British and Scottish independence don't exist. And never will again.
If the scots vote for separation, they won't be independent. And neither will the UK.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.
- Clinton Huxley
- 19th century monkeybitch.
- Posts: 23746
- Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 4:34 pm
- Contact:
Re: An independent Scotland?
Indeed they did - and North Sea oil production has received significant subsidies and tax breaks from the UK govt, over time. 3 billion quid this year to develop fields west of Shetland. Mostly "English" money.Feck wrote:Scotland as country would never vote the Cuntservatives in .That surely has to be the biggest point in favour !
Hux ,the oil revenue paid for Thatchers tax cuts ! while she killed every other industry north of Watford and turned Britain into a country totally dependant on the London financial 'industry' .
"I grow old … I grow old …
I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled"
AND MERRY XMAS TO ONE AND All!
http://25kv.co.uk/date_counter.php?date ... 20counting!!![/img-sig]
I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled"
AND MERRY XMAS TO ONE AND All!
Re: An independent Scotland?
I've searched every page on this thread. I can't seem to find anyone using the phrase "governed by London". Scotland is governed by Holyrood & Westminister, certainly. I'm not sure where the "bigotry" is though.Clinton Huxley wrote:This whole "governed by London" line is a barely concealed piece of bigotry, too. Governed by over-represented Scotland from London is more accurate.
One can only hope the people of Orkney and the Shetlands follow through on the the inevitable logic of this kind of thinking.
- Clinton Huxley
- 19th century monkeybitch.
- Posts: 23746
- Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 4:34 pm
- Contact:
Re: An independent Scotland?
It's the standard line of the the SNP that Scotland's woes are a result of being governed from London. Lets not pretend otherwise. Still, it'll be unicorns and free rainbows on the NHS after so called independence.ronmcd wrote:I've searched every page on this thread. I can't seem to find anyone using the phrase "governed by London". Scotland is governed by Holyrood & Westminister, certainly. I'm not sure where the "bigotry" is though.Clinton Huxley wrote:This whole "governed by London" line is a barely concealed piece of bigotry, too. Governed by over-represented Scotland from London is more accurate.
One can only hope the people of Orkney and the Shetlands follow through on the the inevitable logic of this kind of thinking.
"I grow old … I grow old …
I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled"
AND MERRY XMAS TO ONE AND All!
http://25kv.co.uk/date_counter.php?date ... 20counting!!![/img-sig]
I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled"
AND MERRY XMAS TO ONE AND All!
Re: An independent Scotland?
True. The oil money over decades has been spent, wasted you might say. Meanwhile Norway controlled itself and amassed an oil fund, which it is now using to invest in commercial real estate ... in the UK.Feck wrote:Scotland as country would never vote the Cuntservatives in .That surely has to be the biggest point in favour !
Hux ,the oil revenue paid for Thatchers tax cuts ! while she killed every other industry north of Watford and turned Britain into a country totally dependant on the London financial 'industry' .
Re: An independent Scotland?
So logically then, we are all just going to merge into larger and larger states, larger institutions will be better, central control will sort everything? NWO!mistermack wrote:That's complete bollocks. It's emotional them/us nationalism, nothing more.ronmcd wrote:It depends what you mean. Nationalism as in religion or ethnicity, I agree. But that isn't the purpose here, it's simply about political control. Those who accuse the YES campaign of being "nationalists" often assume it's about being Scottish, but it isn't. It's the people who live in Scotland, Scots, English, EU citizens etc, making better (hopefully) decisions about this country than Westminister. Devolution goes so far, a federal system would go further, but only independence would give control over important areas such as taking part in wars or removing nuclear weapons.mistermack wrote:I don't like this referendum, and Cameron is an idiot, the way he has agreed to it.
Firstly, I just don't like nationalism. It's illogical, causes wars, and is on a par with religion as far as logic goes.
Westminister (esp Tory) politicians talk of nationalists in Scotland in disparaging terms, but can't see that they are considerably more nationalistic about the British state and it's place in Europe than those they accuse. Why is British independence ok, but Scottish not?
Devolution of decision-making isn't more efficient. It just SOUNDS better, when you say it quick.
In real life, it's often a disaster. Big institutions can afford better expertise.
British and Scottish independence don't exist. And never will again.
If the scots vote for separation, they won't be independent. And neither will the UK.
I didn't say devolution of decision making is more efficient. But it can result in better decision making, for the area being represented. Surely? Otherwise, why is the UK the best level at which to make UK decisions? Why not Europe? Why not globally?
Re: An independent Scotland?
When the coalition came to power in 2010, the first thing Osbourne did was hike the taxes out of the blue ....... for oil companies. And so the exploration and investment fell, and is only now starting to recover AFTER Osbourne was forced to reverse his 2010 tax grab. Brilliant.Clinton Huxley wrote:Indeed they did - and North Sea oil production has received significant subsidies and tax breaks from the UK govt, over time. 3 billion quid this year to develop fields west of Shetland. Mostly "English" money.Feck wrote:Scotland as country would never vote the Cuntservatives in .That surely has to be the biggest point in favour !
Hux ,the oil revenue paid for Thatchers tax cuts ! while she killed every other industry north of Watford and turned Britain into a country totally dependant on the London financial 'industry' .
English money, eh? We non taxpaying wasters in the rest of UK are so grateful.
Re: An independent Scotland?
Sure, the SNP want independence, and believe that Scotland would be better off if it had control of it's own affairs. I'm not sure why that is "bigotry"? It's a political opinion held by many perfectly reasonable people of all political parties and none. Are there English hating nutcases? Sure. There are racists and murderers and rapists and fascists and assorted bigots too, just like every country. The attempt to paint a legitimate & social democratic political party as such is pretty pathetic though.Clinton Huxley wrote:It's the standard line of the the SNP that Scotland's woes are a result of being governed from London. Lets not pretend otherwise. Still, it'll be unicorns and free rainbows on the NHS after so called independence.ronmcd wrote:I've searched every page on this thread. I can't seem to find anyone using the phrase "governed by London". Scotland is governed by Holyrood & Westminister, certainly. I'm not sure where the "bigotry" is though.Clinton Huxley wrote:This whole "governed by London" line is a barely concealed piece of bigotry, too. Governed by over-represented Scotland from London is more accurate.
One can only hope the people of Orkney and the Shetlands follow through on the the inevitable logic of this kind of thinking.
On the NHS, it's already independent, and has been different from the rest of UK since it was created. There were no "foundation trusts" policies in the Blair years in Scotland, and hardly any private companies or hospitals, and the coalition health reforms do not apply in Scotland. So the NHS in an independent Scotland would likely be exactly as it is now.
- mistermack
- Posts: 15093
- Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
- About me: Never rong.
- Contact:
Re: An independent Scotland?
No. Not surely. Not at all.ronmcd wrote:I didn't say devolution of decision making is more efficient. But it can result in better decision making, for the area being represented. Surely? Otherwise, why is the UK the best level at which to make UK decisions? Why not Europe? Why not globally?
What's the difference? You make a better decision, that's more efficient.
You make a mistake, that's inefficient. Decisions are more efficient, if you have the expertise available to make the best one.
There is NO evidence that decisions made locally are better. You just get people USING the decisions they make, to try to get re-elected. Instead of trying to make the best decision, they try to make the vote-winning decision. There's a big difference.
People make this claim about devolution. It's bollocks.
If there is a problem, with remoteness of central government, then they should sort it by making sure they are not remote.
But not by promoting local big-mouths who don't know what they're doing.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.
Re: An independent Scotland?
Are you complaining that Investment in The west of Shetland field has tax breaks ? with the situation in the middle east and the price of oil do you not think that providing tax breaks (that come from the whole country BTW OBVIOUSLY !!!) is a prudent idea ?
I guess The money would be better spent on a new airport for London or another extension to the Tube network ?
I guess The money would be better spent on a new airport for London or another extension to the Tube network ?




Give me the wine , I don't need the bread
- Audley Strange
- "I blame the victim"
- Posts: 7485
- Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 5:00 pm
- Contact:
Re: An independent Scotland?
I find it interesting how vehement foreigners get about our nation's wish to govern itself.
"What started as a legitimate effort by the townspeople of Salem to identify, capture and kill those who did Satan's bidding quickly deteriorated into a witch hunt" Army Man
- mistermack
- Posts: 15093
- Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
- About me: Never rong.
- Contact:
Re: An independent Scotland?
Apparently not though. Current opinion polls show that scots don't want to split.Audley Strange wrote:I find it interesting how vehement foreigners get about our nation's wish to govern itself.
I think it shows a lot of common sense in Scotland. Which is what I would have expected.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.
Re: An independent Scotland?
If Scotland becomes independent and I get a Scottish passport will I not have to put up with the racism ?will people stop assuming I'm a 'Hun' ?Audley Strange wrote:I find it interesting how vehement foreigners get about our nation's wish to govern itself.





Give me the wine , I don't need the bread
Re: An independent Scotland?
It seems bizarre and illogical to think that there should be a particular level of government that is correct, and cannot be improved upon. In this case, you seem to be suggesting Westminister is the only correct level, but devolution - anything which represents devolution - is bad.mistermack wrote:No. Not surely. Not at all.ronmcd wrote:I didn't say devolution of decision making is more efficient. But it can result in better decision making, for the area being represented. Surely? Otherwise, why is the UK the best level at which to make UK decisions? Why not Europe? Why not globally?
What's the difference? You make a better decision, that's more efficient.
You make a mistake, that's inefficient. Decisions are more efficient, if you have the expertise available to make the best one.
There is NO evidence that decisions made locally are better. You just get people USING the decisions they make, to try to get re-elected. Instead of trying to make the best decision, they try to make the vote-winning decision. There's a big difference.
People make this claim about devolution. It's bollocks.
If there is a problem, with remoteness of central government, then they should sort it by making sure they are not remote.
But not by promoting local big-mouths who don't know what they're doing.
Why dont you close Westminister and move all powers to Brussels? Surely (dont call be shirley!) it's because the decisions they will make might not be best for the distant and disparate countries and communities they would serve.
So why is devolution within UK not the same?
Some suggest, as you appear to, that the quality of politician at the local level will be poor. Thats actually not a bad argument. "local big-mouths" indeed. But in the Scottish Parliament the 'big-hitters' from the SNP are there, not Westminister, as there are only a handful of MP's. One of the reasons the SNP have been seen as competent in government I think, compared to past Lib/lab coalitions where the bigger names saw Westminister as the ultimate career progression. If not the Lords!
Well, frankly, thats their problem. There are actually very good politicians in Holyrood, some on the Labour benches I have a lot of respect for, and a number in SNP, Greens. And it's self-fulfilling ... give the devolved parliament more powers, as is happening, and the power will mean those with quality will want to be there.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests