Scotland "FREEDOM!!!" and a Republic of Jamaica?

suzyb

leodis75 wrote:

bails87 wrote:

leodis75 wrote:

I really don't mind as its up to the Scots themselves just as long as UK taxpayers are not funding it.

UK taxpayers.....like the people in Scotland, you mean?

I meant people in the UK England, Wales & NI who would be left in the UK.

As a Scottish tax payer who doesn't want a referendum why should I have to pay for it.

Tax in general means you pay for plenty of stuff you don't want and/or that wont have any effect on your life. This referendum is just another one of those things.

daviesee wrote:

Nice water up here :P

And there's plenty of it.

cooldad

bails87 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Depending on what kind of independence is achieved, Scotland might lose some defence that it had under the union.

Not sure when Scotland was last invaded, by anyone other than the English, anyway

Doesn't Scotland already have an army?

daviesee

Edit:- In response to Rick.

Regardless of policies, Alex Salmond is a damned fine politician.
I reckon any party down south with him as leader would win the next election.

That doesn't mean he will be successful in his attempts though. Or that it would be good for the Country but I can assure you that he would convince that it would.

daviesee

Rick Chasey wrote:

Joining the EU?

It gets more and more complicated the more you look at it.

That is probably my biggest bugbear with "independance".
What is the point in replacing Westminster with Brussels?

On the other hand, if Westminster gets in tighter with the EU why not cut out the middle man.
I have a lot of thinking to do. It will hurt.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Rick Chasey wrote:

I've got a friend who works in Holyrood and his lot can't quite believe how good Salmond is. He says his party is basically a cross section of the political spectrum, purely unified by Scottish independence. Given that he has to make decisions on other stuff, that he keeps it all together is a small miracle.

Says my mate.... But I trust him. Smart guy.

Interesting. If true, I would say that bodes rather badly for Scotland, if it were to gain independence.

Once you remove the common unifying element if independence, those disparate groups will turn to their individual interests. I'd be surprised if the SNP would then be able to survive more than a few months.

And since the Scots seem to have form for adopting the "never forget, never forgive" approach to political parties that fall out of favour, it's rather unclear who or what would fill the vacuum left by a shattered SNP.

rick_chasey

What incentive does Cameron have to a) bring it forward and b) play hardball to remove the devo-max option?

I can't work it out.

daviesee

Greg66 wrote:

Once you remove the common unifying element if independence, those disparate groups will turn to their individual interests. I'd be surprised if the SNP would then be able to survive more than a few months.

What may come as a surprise down south is that the SNP got elected on the strength of their policies (and leader).
Independance was way down on the electorates priorities.
SNP = somewhere between Labour and Liberal but with a bit of (Tory?) business realism. And more than a fair whack of the Greens. All the "major" parties thought the SNP would flounder once given the responsiblility of leadership but they appear to be coping better than expected. And a lot better than the bickering in Westminster.

mudcow007

besides England losing out on some buttery biscuits, who will lose/gain from Scotland Leaving!?

will England save or lose? or is it not as simple as that?

daviesee

Rick Chasey wrote:

What incentive does Cameron have to a) bring it forward and b) play hardball to remove the devo-max option?

I can't work it out.

He can't lose.

An independant Scotland means the rest of the UK losing a lot of Labour seats = more chance of him winning.
A United Britain gets rid of a distraction.

DonDaddyD

Rick Chasey wrote:

What incentive does Cameron have to a) bring it forward and b) play hardball to remove the devo-max option?

I can't work it out.

Unless he is trying to appease the far right Tories, back benches and take a wedge out of potential Labour/Lib seats I don't know. I'm not even sure there is any financial gain.

Maybe the ego has gotten to him because he runs the risk of being remembered as the man who got played by the French (Sarkozy), who turned England's back on Europe, destroyed the NHS (the last GREAT British institution) and public sector and the man who said f-off to the Scots.

All this and he seems unfazed nor worried about public/general perception of him. Seriously, when was the last time Cameron had a big or even quick win (except the digs at 'Milliband the Lesser' and Balls)? Gotta admire his ability to make the ugly decision though.

rick_chasey

daviesee wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

What incentive does Cameron have to a) bring it forward and b) play hardball to remove the devo-max option?

I can't work it out.

He can't lose.

An independant Scotland means the rest of the UK losing a lot of Labour seats = more chance of him winning.
A United Britain gets rid of a distraction.

Why not let it play out? It was heading towards a referendum anyway.

It wouldn't be as simple as labour losing a load of seats either, as rjsterry noted.

W1

Do we get a vote as to whether we want to keep the Scots?

cjcp

Rick Chasey wrote:

There will be (is) a big argument about the sovereignty of the North Sea oil.

That's a big and complicated argument.

Scotland would presumably have to respect pre-sovereignty agreements as part of any sovereignty deal. They couldn't go all Chavez on everyone.

What about Scotland offering tax incentives for companies to set up there and high-worth individuals setting up home there? Ok, the weather's a bit on the dodgy side, but it could offer much more space than other tax havens. A bit like the Isle of Man, just bigger.

daviesee

Rick Chasey wrote:

Why not let it play out? It was heading towards a referendum anyway.

It wouldn't be as simple as labour losing a load of seats either, as rjsterry noted.

I will assume that he is a unionist and that a quick referendum will remove any appeal of Scotland joining the EU/Euro as it stands. A standalone Scotland on a world stage would probably be a hard sell on a financial basis. Iceland? That was one of his arguements pre-bust.
Given enough time, the Euro may recover and give Alex salmond just the platform to entice the electorate that everything in the (Euro) garden is lovely.

rick_chasey

cjcp wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

There will be (is) a big argument about the sovereignty of the North Sea oil.

That's a big and complicated argument.

Scotland would presumably have to respect pre-sovereignty agreements as part of any sovereignty deal. They couldn't go all Chavez on everyone.

What about Scotland offering tax incentives for companies to set up there and high-worth individuals setting up home there? Ok, the weather's a bit on the dodgy side, but it could offer much more space than other tax havens. A bit like the Isle of Man, just bigger.

I don't think the oil argument is that straightfoward - though I don't know much about it.

Scotland could very well do what Ireland did re-taxes.

SimonAH

The biggest problem with the increasing trend toward devolution is massive duplication of base services which is not a cost effective way of doing things. Split up the UK and you need three passport offices, three probation services, three tax offices, three command structures for army navy and airforce etc etc all of which have to be paid for. You also get far smaller a presence on the world stage.

The problem is that it's largely about willy waving and 'National Identity' which, by and large, the English have lost and don't give two hoots about anyway. Typically the smaller and more impotent a nation is the more nationalistic and jingoistic it becomes (well, with the exception of our 'merkin cousins of course, out shootin' bears for God in a stars n' stripes bandanna).

Instead of "Great Britain and Ireland" we are looking to shortly become "Great England and the Falklands"

This from a half English, half Estonian with an American childhood living in Wales.....

cjcp

Rick Chasey wrote:

cjcp wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

There will be (is) a big argument about the sovereignty of the North Sea oil.

That's a big and complicated argument.

Scotland would presumably have to respect pre-sovereignty agreements as part of any sovereignty deal. They couldn't go all Chavez on everyone.

What about Scotland offering tax incentives for companies to set up there and high-worth individuals setting up home there? Ok, the weather's a bit on the dodgy side, but it could offer much more space than other tax havens. A bit like the Isle of Man, just bigger.

I don't think the oil argument is that straightfoward - though I don't know much about it.

Scotland could very well do what Ireland did re-taxes.

Ah, I didn't say it was straightforward.

cjcp

SimonAH wrote:

The biggest problem with the increasing trend toward devolution is massive duplication of base services which is not a cost effective way of doing things. Split up the UK and you need three passport offices, three probation services, three tax offices, three command structures for army navy and airforce etc etc all of which have to be paid for. You also get far smaller a presence on the world stage.

The problem is that it's largely about willy waving and 'National Identity' which, by and large, the English have lost and don't give two hoots about anyway. Typically the smaller and more impotent a nation is the more nationalistic and jingoistic it becomes (well, with the exception of our 'merkin cousins of course, out shootin' bears for God in a stars n' stripes bandanna).

Instead of "Great Britain and Ireland" we are looking to shortly become "Great England and the Falklands"

This from a half English, half Estonian with an American childhood living in Wales.....

Btw, as you're there, could you remind me what the Welsh Assembly does?

mudcow007

cjcp wrote:

Btw, as you're there, could you remind me what the Welsh Assembly does?

Bill Bailey wrote:

Right. Good morning. Later this morning we'll look at financial restructuring in the Rhondda, but first we've got a nice policeman here who's going to give a little talk on road safety.

Bill Bailey talking about the Welsh Assembly

il_principe

Blue Meanie wrote:

Scotland's also a net exporter of water and electricity to England.
With ref. to defence: I'd put Ponitus' Bodyguards up against Lancers any day, who made up the Thin Red Line?
You never know, maybe it would be Scotland marching South?

The Scottish marching? More like wheezing. Be great to get them of the NHS bill.

It'll never happen anyway.

SimonAH

cjcp wrote:

SimonAH wrote:

The biggest problem with the increasing trend toward devolution is massive duplication of base services which is not a cost effective way of doing things. Split up the UK and you need three passport offices, three probation services, three tax offices, three command structures for army navy and airforce etc etc all of which have to be paid for. You also get far smaller a presence on the world stage.

The problem is that it's largely about willy waving and 'National Identity' which, by and large, the English have lost and don't give two hoots about anyway. Typically the smaller and more impotent a nation is the more nationalistic and jingoistic it becomes (well, with the exception of our 'merkin cousins of course, out shootin' bears for God in a stars n' stripes bandanna).

Instead of "Great Britain and Ireland" we are looking to shortly become "Great England and the Falklands"

This from a half English, half Estonian with an American childhood living in Wales.....

Btw, as you're there, could you remind me what the Welsh Assembly does?

Utterly stupid self justifying and un-thought through things like forcing all shops to charge 5p for carrier bags (good) but then ensuring that this also covers brown paper bags (dumb) and doesn't apply to expanded polystyrene take-away containers and McDonalds boxes (stupid)

Net result? As 5p isn't significant most people don't bother re-using the much tougher, heavier, more plastic intensive 'bags for life' that the supermarkets now supply and the streets of the cities are still littered with non biodegradeable chip trays.....

But sections of Wales feels far more important for having it's own assembly in a big, posh, expensive willy waving building as this of course makes them much more important on the world stage

daviesee

SimonAH wrote:

But sections of Wales feels far more important for having it's own assembly in a big, posh, expensive willy waving building as this of course makes them much more important on the world stage

Oh come on . If you could award yourself with a much better working enviroment, a large screen TV & Sky at someone else's expense you would. Wouldn't you? That about sums up politician's attitudes to these buildings.
World stage? More concerned by their own circumstance :evil:

rjsterry

Not as dumb as you'd think: paper bags take more energy to produce, take up more space and are heavier to transport than plastic. They biodegrade, which means they don't end up stuck in trees or bobbing around in the sea, but they certainly aren't carbon neutral.

Are you suggesting people take their own tupperware to the kebab shop after a night out?

rick_chasey

Re plastics bags - pretty sure the Dutch banned them.

Once bought a whole load of shopping in the albert hein (no waay) and realised.

Was a tricky walk home...

il_principe

Was in Munich over the new year. Noticed that Supermarkets there will not give you a bag unless you buy one. All the German shoppers had their own (mostly) non plastic ones. Coming back to the UK I despair at how much better the germans do so many things compared to us. The PT system in Munich is utterly fantastic.

rick_chasey

W1 wrote:

Do we get a vote as to whether we want to keep the Scots?

Seems your question isn't as flippant as I first thought.

Re the constitution of Scotland, the UK etc:

Some lawyers have argued that this means that a referendum would have to open to the entire UK population and not Scotland. Aidan O'Neill QC made this argument in the Guardian at the end of last year.

However, the SNP says it could establish an indicative but not legally binding referendum without Westminster approval which, if they secured a yes vote, would be politically hard for Westminster to ignore.

TheStone

Moving slightly off topic, but I'm still totally unconvinced by the plastic bag thing.

It's encouraging people to leave the bags in the back of the 4x4 and drive to supermarket. It discourages those just popping in during their walk home from the station.

Isn't one drive worse than a year's plastic bags?

SimonAH

Absolutely, we must have the best part of fifty bags for life in the house for exactly this reason. Every impulse dinner buy on the way home from the office on the bicycle equals at least one bag.

Paper sacks are not carbon neutral, but a) re-usable and b) hard to carry. Go to the states and you'll find that everyone without a car goes to the supermarket with a shoulder bag because only paper is on offer.

It is also recyclable and rapidly biodegradeable.

rjsterry

You never know where a thread will go.

Plastic bags are recycleable and reusable too. I've always wondered why Americans don't think to put handles on their bags.

Pub trivia: the paper shopping bag was invented in America in the 19th century.

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

Do we get a vote as to whether we want to keep the Scots?

Seems your question isn't as flippant as I first thought.

Re the constitution of Scotland, the UK etc:

Some lawyers have argued that this means that a referendum would have to open to the entire UK population and not Scotland. Aidan O'Neill QC made this argument in the Guardian at the end of last year.

However, the SNP says it could establish an indicative but not legally binding referendum without Westminster approval which, if they secured a yes vote, would be politically hard for Westminster to ignore.

It wasn't supposed to be (entirely) flippant.

Why should the Scots get a unilateral vote? I can't think of a good reason why it should be solely their choice. The Union impacts on all of the UK - therefore the whole of the UK should be allowed to vote on it.

In my view, give them independence if they want it, or the status quo if they don't - not some halfway house that means the Scots can have their cake and eat it.