Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

In answer to your question, I am an Englishman so will give my opinion. Whilst I respect their right to choose, I will be hugely saddened if the Scots vote yes.

The Act of Union sealed in 1707 was just that; a Union whereby the people of Scotland have the same rights and freedoms as any Englishman. The United Kingdom is run from Westminster in England, but the MP’s that make up Parliament are representative of the population of the whole of the UK. I make this obvious statement as there are some that still seem to believe that the UK is some kind of Imperial Empire run by the English for the benefit of the English. It most certainly is not.

As an example I have two little warspites. As English children they do not have access to free University education, they do not have access to free medical prescriptions; their Scottish contemporaries do. And, by the way, the English are net payers to Scotland (just as London is a net payer to the English regions). But am I, as an English taxpayer, complaining about this? No, not at all.

If I pay for the Union why do I want it to remain within a larger United Kingdom?
I believe that the UK is a country greater than the sum of her parts. The people of the two Kingdoms (formerly three) a principality and a province have, together, been on the whole a force for so much that has been good (yes there have been not so great episodes just like with every other country). But together the British have out-punched their weight in the fields of science, literature, the arts, medicine, exploration, spreading democracy, not to mention getting rid of the odd tyrant or two. The Scots, like the Irish and the Welsh have played their part in all the above and more.

One of the things I find so puzzling about all this is that each of the four home nations has the best of both worlds. We have our own country, our own flag, our own national anthem – and there is varying degrees to which each country has its own parliament and rights to govern. We can hate and loathe each other on the football or rugby field (and really do!) and then work alongside each other as citizens of one country.

We have our own, very distinct identity, and yet we are also part of a wider United Kingdom. That larger body allows us certain strengths and privileges that will disappear if we separate. Make no mistake, all four countries will be worse off if the Union is broken up, but the people of Scotland will, I fear, be hit hardest.

The final thing I would say is that the way the No campaign has been run has been an utter disgrace. Waiting until the last moment to come out with statements to effectively frighten the people of Scotland into voting no is pathetic – and I wouldn’t blame any Scot for voting Yes just to show they are not intimidated. That said, the way Salmond has run the vote is equally disgraceful. Example: If you are a proud Scot, born and bred, but happen to be working (and thus living – albeit temporarily) in other parts of the UK or abroad, you get no vote on the future of your country.

But anyway, the vote will happen this week and then we will know. The people of Scotland are free to decide their future.

For me personally, if the answer is Yes, then it will be a sad day.

quote:

And, by the way, the English are net payers to Scotland (just as London is a net payer to the English regions). But am I, as an English taxpayer, complaining about this? No, not at all.

quote:

Example: If you are a proud Scot, born and bred, but happen to be working (and thus living – albeit temporarily) in other parts of the UK or abroad, you get no vote on the future of your country.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curious

I hope that the Scottish voters think with their intellects and not just their emotions on Thursday. Splitting off into a separate little country will be a hugh mistake for both Scotland and what's left of the UK. The rest of the world will be watching.

quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curious

I hope that the Scottish voters think with their intellects and not just their emotions on Thursday. Splitting off into a separate little country will be a hugh mistake for both Scotland and what's left of the UK. The rest of the world will be watching.

Can I suggest you are making the easy mistake of assuming anyone who shares your view is of course completely rational and anyone who doesn't must be working off emotion.

It really isn't that easy.

Crudely you can divide opinion in Scotland into 3 groups. One, lets say 20% believe that the only valid state of affairs is an independent Scotland. They don't care about anything else, its all secondary. Another, lets again say 20%, believe that there never can be an independent Scotland. Now in your categorisation, these people are voting with their 'intellects' and are rational.

Well? We had the joys of the Orange Order prancing around Edinburgh on Saturday urging a no vote. Why? Well a complex (& toxic) cocktail of fear of 'papacy' and that this would undermine the 1688 Settlement, as well as arguments derived from the more obscurantist bits of Calvinist Theology. You can rest assured, that chunk of the no vote ain't voting with their 'intellect'.

The rest of us, we're voting for what we believe is best for Scotland. That ranges from accepting the sort of argument that Warspite1 puts forward above to seeing, via independence, the door to a social democratic/socialist future. Now you may think this is wrong, but rest assured its no lack of 'intellect' gone into that argument.

If you look here, you'll see a set of policy papers prepared by the Jimmy Reid Institute (also known as the CommonWeal). There open in that they see independence as the opportunity to create a socially inclusive Scotland (as I say, this is not to say they are right, but they sure as hell have thought about it). Another set, here here by the Scotland Institute is more ambigious on the importance of independence but it too has put a lot of effort into an intellectual case either for Scotland post-independence or the future constitutional arrangements with the rest of the UK (& yes, I must confess, I am involved with it).

So please, its not 'intellect=no' (ie agree with you), emotion = yes (ie must disagree with you), there's no shortage of both on both sides of the debate.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Zap, there has already been one thread on this subject. The subject was calmly, sensibly and civilly debated by both sides - but was still locked as it was deemed political.

I suspect that this thread too will be locked, but until it is can I please ask you to amend the title? Asking if the Scots are free is a very strange thing to ask. The Scots, like the English, Welsh and Northern Irish, live in a democratic country. If they were not free peoples why do they have the vote? Why are they (some of them anyway Mr Salmond) being given the chance to vote on their future?

I know you mean no offence so can I respectfully ask you to change the title of the thread please?

quote:

ORIGINAL: parusski

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Zap, there has already been one thread on this subject. The subject was calmly, sensibly and civilly debated by both sides - but was still locked as it was deemed political.

I suspect that this thread too will be locked, but until it is can I please ask you to amend the title? Asking if the Scots are free is a very strange thing to ask. The Scots, like the English, Welsh and Northern Irish, live in a democratic country. If they were not free peoples why do they have the vote? Why are they (some of them anyway Mr Salmond) being given the chance to vote on their future?

I know you mean no offence so can I respectfully ask you to change the title of the thread please?

I always find the thread locks over "POLITICS" so odd. Since "War is a mere continuation of politics by other means", I don't understand how we can even talk of war.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: parusski

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Zap, there has already been one thread on this subject. The subject was calmly, sensibly and civilly debated by both sides - but was still locked as it was deemed political.

I suspect that this thread too will be locked, but until it is can I please ask you to amend the title? Asking if the Scots are free is a very strange thing to ask. The Scots, like the English, Welsh and Northern Irish, live in a democratic country. If they were not free peoples why do they have the vote? Why are they (some of them anyway Mr Salmond) being given the chance to vote on their future?

I know you mean no offence so can I respectfully ask you to change the title of the thread please?

I always find the thread locks over "POLITICS" so odd. Since "War is a mere continuation of politics by other means", I don't understand how we can even talk of war.

warspite1

Thanks for that von Clausewitz

Love this interchange - especially when he calls him von

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HnaBdYAqBw

quote:

ORIGINAL: BASB

How is this going to work the vote that is? Majority rules, 75% of the vote or the majority of voting electorates?

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

In answer to your question, I am an Englishman so will give my opinion. Whilst I respect their right to choose, I will be hugely saddened if the Scots vote yes.

The Act of Union sealed in 1707 was just that; a Union whereby the people of Scotland have the same rights and freedoms as any Englishman. The United Kingdom is run from Westminster in England, but the MP’s that make up Parliament are representative of the population of the whole of the UK. I make this obvious statement as there are some that still seem to believe that the UK is some kind of Imperial Empire run by the English for the benefit of the English. It most certainly is not.

As an example I have two little warspites. As English children they do not have access to free University education, they do not have access to free medical prescriptions; their Scottish contemporaries do. And, by the way, the English are net payers to Scotland (just as London is a net payer to the English regions). But am I, as an English taxpayer, complaining about this? No, not at all.

If I pay for the Union why do I want it to remain within a larger United Kingdom?
I believe that the UK is a country greater than the sum of her parts. The people of the two Kingdoms (formerly three) a principality and a province have, together, been on the whole a force for so much that has been good (yes there have been not so great episodes just like with every other country). But together the British have out-punched their weight in the fields of science, literature, the arts, medicine, exploration, spreading democracy, not to mention getting rid of the odd tyrant or two. The Scots, like the Irish and the Welsh have played their part in all the above and more.

One of the things I find so puzzling about all this is that each of the four home nations has the best of both worlds. We have our own country, our own flag, our own national anthem – and there is varying degrees to which each country has its own parliament and rights to govern. We can hate and loathe each other on the football or rugby field (and really do!) and then work alongside each other as citizens of one country.

We have our own, very distinct identity, and yet we are also part of a wider United Kingdom. That larger body allows us certain strengths and privileges that will disappear if we separate. Make no mistake, all four countries will be worse off if the Union is broken up, but the people of Scotland will, I fear, be hit hardest.

The final thing I would say is that the way the No campaign has been run has been an utter disgrace. Waiting until the last moment to come out with statements to effectively frighten the people of Scotland into voting no is pathetic – and I wouldn’t blame any Scot for voting Yes just to show they are not intimidated. That said, the way Salmond has run the vote is equally disgraceful. Example: If you are a proud Scot, born and bred, but happen to be working (and thus living – albeit temporarily) in other parts of the UK or abroad, you get no vote on the future of your country.

But anyway, the vote will happen this week and then we will know. The people of Scotland are free to decide their future.

For me personally, if the answer is Yes, then it will be a sad day.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wings7

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

In answer to your question, I am an Englishman so will give my opinion. Whilst I respect their right to choose, I will be hugely saddened if the Scots vote yes.

The Act of Union sealed in 1707 was just that; a Union whereby the people of Scotland have the same rights and freedoms as any Englishman. The United Kingdom is run from Westminster in England, but the MP’s that make up Parliament are representative of the population of the whole of the UK. I make this obvious statement as there are some that still seem to believe that the UK is some kind of Imperial Empire run by the English for the benefit of the English. It most certainly is not.

As an example I have two little warspites. As English children they do not have access to free University education, they do not have access to free medical prescriptions; their Scottish contemporaries do. And, by the way, the English are net payers to Scotland (just as London is a net payer to the English regions). But am I, as an English taxpayer, complaining about this? No, not at all.

If I pay for the Union why do I want it to remain within a larger United Kingdom?
I believe that the UK is a country greater than the sum of her parts. The people of the two Kingdoms (formerly three) a principality and a province have, together, been on the whole a force for so much that has been good (yes there have been not so great episodes just like with every other country). But together the British have out-punched their weight in the fields of science, literature, the arts, medicine, exploration, spreading democracy, not to mention getting rid of the odd tyrant or two. The Scots, like the Irish and the Welsh have played their part in all the above and more.

One of the things I find so puzzling about all this is that each of the four home nations has the best of both worlds. We have our own country, our own flag, our own national anthem – and there is varying degrees to which each country has its own parliament and rights to govern. We can hate and loathe each other on the football or rugby field (and really do!) and then work alongside each other as citizens of one country.

We have our own, very distinct identity, and yet we are also part of a wider United Kingdom. That larger body allows us certain strengths and privileges that will disappear if we separate. Make no mistake, all four countries will be worse off if the Union is broken up, but the people of Scotland will, I fear, be hit hardest.

The final thing I would say is that the way the No campaign has been run has been an utter disgrace. Waiting until the last moment to come out with statements to effectively frighten the people of Scotland into voting no is pathetic – and I wouldn’t blame any Scot for voting Yes just to show they are not intimidated. That said, the way Salmond has run the vote is equally disgraceful. Example: If you are a proud Scot, born and bred, but happen to be working (and thus living – albeit temporarily) in other parts of the UK or abroad, you get no vote on the future of your country.

But anyway, the vote will happen this week and then we will know. The people of Scotland are free to decide their future.

For me personally, if the answer is Yes, then it will be a sad day.

Robert, I feel the same way you do! I also feel the same way that Paul McCartney does about Ireland. Peace Brother!

Patrick

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:


Well that is a subject definitely best kept off the forum. Suffice to say that whatever decisions were/weren't made, it was a case of politicians dealing with a situation handed down from history - with polar opposites to contend with. I am quite sure there are very few, if indeed any, on either side of the religious (Catholic/Protestant) and nationalist (Irish/Northern Irish/British) divide that don't wish that things would have been dealt with differently by all parties. Sad thing of course is that there is little likelihood of agreement on how it should have been handled, even if we could turn back time to put things right

All we can do is move on. BTW I'm an English Protestant, Mrs W is from Irish Catholic decent. My little warspites are being brought up in the Catholic faith. There should be no reason we can't all get along - well except for Mr and Mrs W of course, there is no hope for peace there as we fight like cat and dog .

quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

quote:

And, by the way, the English are net payers to Scotland (just as London is a net payer to the English regions). But am I, as an English taxpayer, complaining about this? No, not at all.

I'm really sorry but this is not true. Scotland is a net contributor to the UK, what we get (the Barnett formula) is far less than we contribute.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

BTW I'm an English Protestant, Mrs W is from Irish Catholic decent ... we fight like cat and dog .

quote:

ORIGINAL: berto

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

BTW I'm an English Protestant, Mrs W is from Irish Catholic decent ... we fight like cat and dog .

Cat and Prot?

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: PipFromSlitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

quote:

And, by the way, the English are net payers to Scotland (just as London is a net payer to the English regions). But am I, as an English taxpayer, complaining about this? No, not at all.

I'm really sorry but this is not true. Scotland is a net contributor to the UK, what we get (the Barnett formula) is far less than we contribute.

That is incorrect. The Barnett formula applies only to public spending. When you factor in actual spending each scot gets ~ 2-3K more than they put in (depending upon how you decide oil revenue should be split).

For a good explanation try: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-16477990

The whole thing is making me very sad. Perhaps the new politics of division and "them vs us" is unstoppable if a prosperous nations like the UK can't resist it.

Cheers

Pip

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

...and the jobs that will go with them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

quote:

ORIGINAL: PipFromSlitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

quote:

And, by the way, the English are net payers to Scotland (just as London is a net payer to the English regions). But am I, as an English taxpayer, complaining about this? No, not at all.

I'm really sorry but this is not true. Scotland is a net contributor to the UK, what we get (the Barnett formula) is far less than we contribute.

That is incorrect. The Barnett formula applies only to public spending. When you factor in actual spending each scot gets ~ 2-3K more than they put in (depending upon how you decide oil revenue should be split).

For a good explanation try: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-16477990

The whole thing is making me very sad. Perhaps the new politics of division and "them vs us" is unstoppable if a prosperous nations like the UK can't resist it.

Cheers

Pip

Or this, which is much fuller:

http://scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Economy/GERS

As you say, at the moment oil is the key, but what is also missing is that if goods are produced in Scotland and exported via the rest of the UK they are shown as produced in England in the national accounts. Its complex, requires all sorts of assumptions, but the basic position stands.

Now, a very different question is whether or not Scotland, being relatively prosperous, should share its wealth with the poorer parts of the UK. For a long time that was a compelling argument, but increasingly many people here see the current usage of that wealth (trident, bankers bailouts, privatisation etc) as its wastage, not its usage for the commonweal.

Thats way the wider politics matters. Is not the issue of 'being ruled by Tories when we don't vote for them', oddly we can cope with that. Its almost fun to defy them by hanging onto a socially inclusive mindset rather than just give in. The problem is that up to New Labour, at least we could think we would be represented at Westminster (and I don't mean by this, the precise individuals, this is attitudinal) when Labour was in power. To many in Scotland now, they don't represent our values. In effect, the political norms of Scotland (social democrat) and that on offer at Westminster have gone well apart.

The reason we are having the independence vote is all down to the systemic failure of the Labour Party in Scotland. In our 2007 elections, a significant number of Labour voters (including me) deserted to the SNP in part at disgust at the Iraq War and the rest of the New Labour legacy and in part as the SNP (cleverly) disentangled voting for them in the Scottish Parliament from a vote for independence. In 2011, this trend continued as the SNP had, for the most part, governed well and Labour had got far worse.

The Scottish electoral system is designed to ensure that no party has a majority. Labour managed the situation so badly that the SNP actually won a majority (though they choose to then govern with the Greens and offer the Lib Dems a place). Since the independence vote was in their manifesto, thats how we are here today.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PipFromSlitherine


The fact that so many are willing to irrevocably destroy a centuries old union because they don't like today's politicians is part of what leaves many like me utterly despondent. I consider Scots to be my countrymen, and it appears that nearly half don't return the sentiment.

Cheers

Pip