Attention Scots! What do you really want?
Comments
-
Full Merckx wrote:I think I'm with Renton, lets sort ourselves out but for me that would be as part of the union
I confess that I can't read the Renton quote without letting out a belly laugh...0 -
Current situation in Scotland
SNP 62 seats
Labour 29 seats
Con 9 seats
LD 4 seats
Others 1 seat
3 to be declared.
Taking that SNP is basically a left wing party, that means I can't ever envisage Scotland being right wing.None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
Greg66 wrote:nation wrote:The only Scottish Bank that got money is RBS, and the (UK) government still owns the shares. It just needs to sell them to get the money back if it wants it (not that it could in practice, as doing so would immediately collapse the share price).
Bank of Scotland was part of HBOS, now part of Lloyds.
HMG owns a large chunk of Lloyds though, so indirectly owns BoS and directly owns RBS.
So, if the Scots became independent, their two major banks would be owned by a foreign Gov.
I predict a Mugabe-esque expropriation without compo...
Not true - we Scots as part of the UK also own the Banks, therefore we would get a portion of the Banks. Likewise the Navy, airforce and other moveable infrastructure. We would keep what is based here.... having a fleet of Nuclear Submarines (bought with Scottish oil money) may well be a good bargaining tool when it comes to independence talks..... 8)"Encyclopaedia is a fetish for very small bicycles"0 -
daviesee wrote:Current situation in Scotland
SNP 62 seats
Labour 29 seats
Con 9 seats
LD 4 seats
Others 1 seat
3 to be declared.
Taking that SNP is basically a left wing party, that means I can't ever envisage Scotland being right wing.
IIRC, back in the 80s Scotland was quite heavily conservative. Without resorting overly to national stereotypes, I would have thought Scotland would be naturally right wing rather than left - conservative with a small c on most matters, including (can't avoid this) spending money. I'm quite surprised that it has moved so far towards a party of profligacy and hand outs and stayed there, even if the prime mover was perhaps more a desire to move away from the tories.0 -
The Beginner wrote:Scotland has an inherently more socialist outlook than the rest of the union (correlation with the increased number on benefits?) so the Tories will always fair worse there than south of the border, combine that with the smaller (average number of voters per) constituencuies and they will always suffer at the hands of Scottish voters, although the %age of votes they get is nowhere near reflected in the number of seats they get.
Simon
Utter shite, there's a higher percentage of unemployed in London than there is in Scotland.
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=16060 -
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Wallace1492 wrote:Greg66 wrote:nation wrote:The only Scottish Bank that got money is RBS, and the (UK) government still owns the shares. It just needs to sell them to get the money back if it wants it (not that it could in practice, as doing so would immediately collapse the share price).
Bank of Scotland was part of HBOS, now part of Lloyds.
HMG owns a large chunk of Lloyds though, so indirectly owns BoS and directly owns RBS.
So, if the Scots became independent, their two major banks would be owned by a foreign Gov.
I predict a Mugabe-esque expropriation without compo...
Not true - we Scots as part of the UK also own the Banks, therefore we would get a portion of the Banks. Likewise the Navy, airforce and other moveable infrastructure. We would keep what is based here.... having a fleet of Nuclear Submarines (bought with Scottish oil money) may well be a good bargaining tool when it comes to independence talks..... 8)
I wouldn't bank on that.
I'm pretty sure that when (say) India or Rhodesia declared independence, they didn't get a share of the Empire's military resources, or an interest in its nationalised assets. I may be wrong about this, but I suspect that if you declare independence, it's a bit like being a teenager leaving home: you take the shirt on your back and set yourself up afresh. You're not being bought out as if you were a shareholder exiting a company, you're storming out the door.
Now you may have members of the UK armed forces on Scottish soil who choose to renounce British citizenship in favour of Scottish citizenship. You may also have some former UK assets on your territory, and if you could defend them, I guess you'd be able to keep them. But I think it may be wishful thinking to assume that your former co-home nations would hand assets over you to help you get going...
Anyway, it's certainly something you'd want to clarify before voting.0 -
As an Englishman I think we should also get a vote on Scottish independence, and if necessary I'd volunteer to help dig the trench. :twisted:You'll not see nothing like the mighty Quin.0
-
-
Greg66 wrote:Wallace1492 wrote:Greg66 wrote:nation wrote:The only Scottish Bank that got money is RBS, and the (UK) government still owns the shares. It just needs to sell them to get the money back if it wants it (not that it could in practice, as doing so would immediately collapse the share price).
Bank of Scotland was part of HBOS, now part of Lloyds.
HMG owns a large chunk of Lloyds though, so indirectly owns BoS and directly owns RBS.
So, if the Scots became independent, their two major banks would be owned by a foreign Gov.
I predict a Mugabe-esque expropriation without compo...
Not true - we Scots as part of the UK also own the Banks, therefore we would get a portion of the Banks. Likewise the Navy, airforce and other moveable infrastructure. We would keep what is based here.... having a fleet of Nuclear Submarines (bought with Scottish oil money) may well be a good bargaining tool when it comes to independence talks..... 8)
I wouldn't bank on that.
I'm pretty sure that when (say) India or Rhodesia declared independence, they didn't get a share of the Empire's military resources, or an interest in its nationalised assets. I may be wrong about this, but I suspect that if you declare independence, it's a bit like being a teenager leaving home: you take the shirt on your back and set yourself up afresh. You're not being bought out as if you were a shareholder exiting a company, you're storming out the door.
Now you may have members of the UK armed forces on Scottish soil who choose to renounce British citizenship in favour of Scottish citizenship. You may also have some former UK assets on your territory, and if you could defend them, I guess you'd be able to keep them. But I think it may be wishful thinking to assume that your former co-home nations would hand assets over you to help you get going...
Anyway, it's certainly something you'd want to clarify before voting.
I'm not sure I see the parallel between Scotland and former colonies. The Act of Union was an agreement freely entered into by both parties. It can be terminated too.
As far as your sabre rattling I'm not sure that's necessary. The SNP want Scotland to be politically independent from England but still a member of the EU. They'd probably want to join the euro too.
So less like India, more like Ireland (EDIT: without the rebellion, probably)
(Actually, Salmond used to hold Ireland up as the shining example of a small country doing well in Europe. Not sure if he's still using that one).0 -
Kurako wrote:
So less like India, more like Ireland (EDIT: without the rebellion, probably)
(Actually, Salmond used to hold Ireland up as the shining example of a small country doing well in Europe. Not sure if he's still using that one).
It wasn't intended to be sabre-rattling, just a response to an assumption that the nuclear subs would end up with the Scottish.
I see the more like Ireland point. A quick browse through wiki tells me that Ireland was subject to a union as well, but Irish independence grew from an uprising against the British. The British army ended up withdrawing from Ireland after independence, and part of the point of the declaration of independence was that the British were there as a foreign military on Irish sovereign land.
I find it quite interesting to speculate on how a termination of the Act of Union would operate practically. There's a difference between one nation ending it unilaterally and both ending it consensually. In the former case, the difference between a colony, the US or Ireland may be quite slight. In the latter, it may be more like Canada or Australia gained independence (must wiki that to see how, if at all, assets were divided).
I also wondered whether Scotland would retain Queenie as their head of state (they having shared their monarch with England prior to the Union) or become a republic with an elected head of state.
Once one gets into the detail of independence, there are a lot of questions that have to be answered before an informed decision can be made, it seems to me.
As to Ireland being held up as an example of small nation success, I suspect Salmond has a lump in his carpet where that's now hidden...0 -
Greg66 wrote:
I also wondered whether Scotland would retain Queenie as their head of state (they having shared their monarch with England prior to the Union) or become a republic with an elected head of state.
The crowns were unified so James VI (he of the bible) became James I of England. After a while they stopped counting seperately and just used the English system.
I'm sure having Elizabeth I, followed by Charles I and William I will be fine....0 -
You'd get to keep Scotland, out to the low tide mark. If you want anything more than that, raise your navy, and come get it.
But you don't have any ships, you say?
Er, have you seen the size of the Royal Navy of late? About 29 surface combatants isn't it? I contract to a Scottish offshore construction company which has more personel than the RN and more ships of a larger tonnage!
I don't think most of us want independence. We do expect a lot more power to be devolved to Edinburgh. But Scotland does have a different feel to south of the border. Even the well off up here won't vote Tory because they want the poor in society looked after to a greater degree. The Liberals have betrayed us by going in with the Tories.
The SNP have been a good government. We have 1000 more Police on the streets, free prescriptions, no tuition fees, make about 1/3 of our power from renewables (with a possibly over ambitious commitment to 100%) and a raft of other things. When I look at Alex Salmond I see a man I'd be happy to buy a used car from (always a good test of Politicians, Tony Blair can keep his Ford Galaxy). They came up with some ideas to reduce teenage drinking, the other parties voted them down basically because they weren't their ideas - quite a lot of folk have mentioned that one.
The Tories put a huge new tax on oil, some companies now pay over 80% tax. As a result they're cutting back on North Sea development and that directly affects jobs here. I work in the oil sector and can assure you that Scottish oil related companies now do more work outside the EU than in it (East Africa, Australia, Brazil, etc), we make a huge contribution to the balance of payments.
If I were English I'd look north of the border and ask why a minority government is doing a better job for it's people than Westminster is for you, despite the fact it only controls some of the powers in it's own country. I think many Scots including myself see today as the start of a new Golden Age for our country. There a very positive feeling about this.http://www.strathspey.co.uk - Quality Binoculars at a Sensible Price.
Specialized Roubaix SL3 Expert 2012, Cannondale CAAD5,
Marin Mount Vision (1997), Edinburgh Country tourer, 3 cats!0 -
The future of the UK is going to be more along the USA model. Each state being self governing (to a point) within the UK.
Scottish/ Welsh/ Ulster independance would be like seperating conjoined twins. The bigger stronger one with the important stuff like the heart and lungs will prosper.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
unixnerd wrote:If I were English I'd look north of the border and ask why a minority government is doing a better job for it's people than Westminster is for you,
More money per person maybe?Fixed gear for wet weather / hairy roadie for posing in the sun.
What would Thora Hurd do?0 -
Kurako wrote:(Actually, Salmond used to hold Ireland up as the shining example of a small country doing well in Europe. Not sure if he's still using that one).
So did George Osborne. There was another one too, either Portugal or Greece I think.
Ah well, at least these people don't have any power....oh....0 -
Greg66 wrote:Kurako wrote:
So less like India, more like Ireland (EDIT: without the rebellion, probably)
(Actually, Salmond used to hold Ireland up as the shining example of a small country doing well in Europe. Not sure if he's still using that one).
It wasn't intended to be sabre-rattling, just a response to an assumption that the nuclear subs would end up with the Scottish.
I see the more like Ireland point. A quick browse through wiki tells me that Ireland was subject to a union as well, but Irish independence grew from an uprising against the British. The British army ended up withdrawing from Ireland after independence, and part of the point of the declaration of independence was that the British were there as a foreign military on Irish sovereign land.
I find it quite interesting to speculate on how a termination of the Act of Union would operate practically. There's a difference between one nation ending it unilaterally and both ending it consensually. In the former case, the difference between a colony, the US or Ireland may be quite slight. In the latter, it may be more like Canada or Australia gained independence (must wiki that to see how, if at all, assets were divided).
I also wondered whether Scotland would retain Queenie as their head of state (they having shared their monarch with England prior to the Union) or become a republic with an elected head of state.
Once one gets into the detail of independence, there are a lot of questions that have to be answered before an informed decision can be made, it seems to me.
As to Ireland being held up as an example of small nation success, I suspect Salmond has a lump in his carpet where that's now hidden...
Remember, it is not like a teenage son leaving home, more like a bitter divorce and a upcoming cusody battle for the goods. We are not moving.... we are determining our own destiny be severing the strings from London and going our own way. (Should this indeed happen and this in no way represents my own opinion)
After all, we were forced into the union with England who spent years trying to conquer the lands to the north. Should the people decide that we leave this union, then we will be due our fair share of the mutual assets.
But I think we are good within the Union, but who knows what will happen."Encyclopaedia is a fetish for very small bicycles"0 -
As a person born and living in England, governed by a coalition nobody voted for, and represented by a tired worn-out out-of-government local MP who I couldn't vote for because she's long since given up on whatever principles she ever had, I'd vote SNP, or even an ENP, if it were an option.
It doesn't matter which side of which UK border you're associated with, what we've got now was never a democratic choice. It's a ''default'' arrived at in the absence of a democratic choice, and one that has left me feeling more disenfranchised than I've ever felt before. When so-called democracy delivers something that nobody wanted, I think we all have a crisis.0 -
Wallace1492 wrote:After all, we were forced into the union with England who spent years trying to conquer the lands to the north. Should the people decide that we leave this union, then we will be due our fair share of the mutual assets.
But I think we are good within the Union, but who knows what will happen.
I'm not big on the history but wasn't the country almost bankrupted by the Darien fiasco? Were they 'forced' or bailed-out?
http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/Sc ... Scheme.htm0 -
suzyb wrote:I don't want independence, I like being British. And feel whilst we would be able to stand on our own, why do so when we're stronger as part of Britain.
+1. Couldn't put it any better.0 -
I think you'll find that the Scottish Government already has 3 ships, which would make a start for a Navy:
I could be wrong but I think a couple of them might even be armed.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/marine/Compliance/resources/Vessels0 -
mercurykev wrote:I think you'll find that the Scottish Government already has 3 ships, which would make a start for a Navy:
I could be wrong but I think a couple of them might even be armed.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/marine/Compliance/resources/Vessels
I like that one of them is Polish :-)0 -
The big breakthrough has been the fact that the SNP formed the last government and did a pretty good job of it.
The old scare tactics from the other parties were not so effective this time, because people had the evidence in front of them. The other big difference, particularly with Labour was that the SNP fought a positive campaign, with a vision for the future whilst Labour fought a negative personal campaign.
There are so many myths and half-truths on this thread I could spend all day answering them, but here are a couple.
Political allegiances change - in the 50's Scotland was staunchly Tory for instance and could be again, though it doesn't look likely at the moment.
There are regional variations in the money spent in different parts of the UK, based on many factors. Overall Scotland gets less per person than London, and quite a bit less than Northern Ireland.
Finally, and this is an opinion rather than fact, Scotland has changed and developed quite a bit over the last few years, probably from around the time of devolution. There is more looking to ourselves for answers rather than others and more confidence in making our own future.
James0 -
I think Pigtail hit the nail on the head with that post.
I can't remember the last time I wanted a government to stay in because I thought they'd done a good job and had even more still to offer. There are good times ahead.http://www.strathspey.co.uk - Quality Binoculars at a Sensible Price.
Specialized Roubaix SL3 Expert 2012, Cannondale CAAD5,
Marin Mount Vision (1997), Edinburgh Country tourer, 3 cats!0 -
Before you make any decision, you might wish to consider the issue of Government spending as a percentage of GDP. Studies aren't always accurate, of course, but the last figure I saw (and this includes Wales and Northern Ireland) was hovering around the 60% mark - all those freebies enjoyed under the current system don't come cheap.....0
-
Kurako wrote:Wallace1492 wrote:After all, we were forced into the union with England who spent years trying to conquer the lands to the north. Should the people decide that we leave this union, then we will be due our fair share of the mutual assets.
But I think we are good within the Union, but who knows what will happen.
I'm not big on the history but wasn't the country almost bankrupted by the Darien fiasco? Were they 'forced' or bailed-out?
http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/Sc ... Scheme.htm
Since you're not big on the history, might I point you in the direction of the Duke of Hamilton? If you research his role in the decision making process, I think you will find that the Parliament was conned and the Scottish people had no say in the making of the decision. There was considerable unrest on t' streets as a result.0 -
cycladianpirate wrote:Before you make any decision, you might wish to consider the issue of Government spending as a percentage of GDP. Studies aren't always accurate, of course, but the last figure I saw (and this includes Wales and Northern Ireland) was hovering around the 60% mark - all those freebies enjoyed under the current system don't come cheap.....
You may be getting confused. Government spending per capita is currently about 46% of GDP (and falling). However, this is UK wide. The GDP per capita of Scotland is behind only London and the South East in the table of around the UK, indeed, Edinburgh is rated as having he third highest GDP per capita of any city in Europe, behind London and Zurich.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countries_ ... per_capita
We do spend a slightly higher amount per capita on public services like health and education, but then we do have Glasgow, so need to.
Scotland is actually a pretty thriving country.0 -
UndercoverElephant wrote:cycladianpirate wrote:Before you make any decision, you might wish to consider the issue of Government spending as a percentage of GDP. Studies aren't always accurate, of course, but the last figure I saw (and this includes Wales and Northern Ireland) was hovering around the 60% mark - all those freebies enjoyed under the current system don't come cheap.....
You may be getting confused. Government spending per capita is currently about 46% of GDP (and falling). However, this is UK wide. The GDP per capita of Scotland is behind only London and the South East in the table of around the UK, indeed, Edinburgh is rated as having he third highest GDP per capita of any city in Europe, behind London and Zurich.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countries_ ... per_capita
We do spend a slightly higher amount per capita on public services like health and education, but then we do have Glasgow, so need to.
Scotland is actually a pretty thriving country.
Yes, but once you factor in the provisions of the Barnett formula, you'll find that the UK wide figure of 46% is very different in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and certain regions of England.
As for Glasgow, I was under the impression that the metropolitan area of that city accounted for nigh on half the population of the entire country!! 0 -
Cyclopath wrote:Kurako wrote:Wallace1492 wrote:After all, we were forced into the union with England who spent years trying to conquer the lands to the north. Should the people decide that we leave this union, then we will be due our fair share of the mutual assets.
But I think we are good within the Union, but who knows what will happen.
I'm not big on the history but wasn't the country almost bankrupted by the Darien fiasco? Were they 'forced' or bailed-out?
http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/Sc ... Scheme.htm
Since you're not big on the history, might I point you in the direction of the Duke of Hamilton? If you research his role in the decision making process, I think you will find that the Parliament was conned and the Scottish people had no say in the making of the decision. There was considerable unrest on t' streets as a result.
It's definitely something I need to read up on. Sounds like Hamilton was definitely one of the movers and shakers. There was even a ship named after him. It also seems clear that investors in the trading company came from a broad base of Scottish society. It's easy to look for bogeyman in the whole episode but it strikes me as more a case of 'irrational exuberance' at the prospect of jumping on the colonial ladder in order to profit from trade between Europe and the Far East.
The first ships set off in spite of the fact that no-one had visited the site of the new colony and in the face of hostility from the Spanish and opposition from the English. If you're looking for it, it would be easy to read malice into the English refusal to support the colony but it looks more like a desire to protect their own commercial interests and not upset the Spanish (since Panama was seen as in their sphere of influence).
It's a great national tragedy no doubt and looks like it definitely hastened the Act of Union through the establishment of the Equivalent Fund.
http://special.lib.gla.ac.uk/exhibns/month/may2005.html
"While the loss of life caused by the Darien Scheme was great, it is not so certain that Scotland lost financially due to its failure. By the terms of the Act of Union, the Darien shareholders received out of the so-called Equivalent Money ( £398,000 ) as much as would repay every penny of their subscriptions, with 5 percent interest"
Anyways, this has definitely piqued my interest so I'm going to do some more reading. Just a few interesting sources I found. I'm sure there are more out there:0
