RE: Scots Are they free

RE: Scots Are they free (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion

Message

mind_messing -> RE: Scots Are they free (9/23/2014 4:41:49 PM)
quote: You can't have a single nation without a proper demos, as examples like Austro-Hungary provide. This constant low level resentment is because of that, and goes beyond your own particular tribe not being in charge at the moment, as is often going to be the case anyway in a democracy. For the precise same reason why the UK (or England) should leave the EU, Scotland should leave the UK. If Britain does vote to leave the EU, then there will almost certainly be another referendum over Scottish independence. Support for the EU is quite strong in Scotland, in contrast to the somewhat shakey support for the EU in England. http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3131/Scots-want-EU-referendum-but-would-vote-to-stay-in.aspx As EUBanana has pointed out, because of how the Union is organized, if England does one way, it drags the other British countries with it, regardless of their views on the matter. quote: ORIGINAL: IronDuke I suspect the question has been settled for all time now, to be honest. From what I'm seeing and hearing on the ground, I'm not so sure. It was the older vote that swung this election, and the strongest independence support came from younger voters. There's 45% of Scottish people who are outright unhappy with the situation at present, and no doubt there's a fair chunk of the 55% of No voters who're waiting for the promised powers. Depending on how (or if) these powers are delivered will determine if the demand for another referedum persists. Then you've the spectral issue of EU membership to consider in a few years time as well...

IronDuke_slith -> RE: Scots Are they free (9/23/2014 5:20:37 PM)
quote: From what I'm seeing and hearing on the ground, I'm not so sure. It was the older vote that swung this election, and the strongest independence support came from younger voters. There's 45% of Scottish people who are outright unhappy with the situation at present, and no doubt there's a fair chunk of the 55% of No voters who're waiting for the promised powers. Depending on how (or if) these powers are delivered will determine if the demand for another referedum persists. Then you've the spectral issue of EU membership to consider in a few years time as well... But this assumes that the young don't change as they get older... My understanding was that yes won amongst the 25-50 (ish) age group, but younger than that were evenly split. Those working age people will have a different slant on life in 25 years time, as it will be their pensions on the line etc. "Yes" never got a grip of the "its the economy, stupid" truism. Nobody doubted Scotland would survive and maybe even prosper, but is seemed clear it might come at the cost of a generation of economic birthing pains. It's older people in general who have no appetite for that, so current demographics showing 35 year olds are up for it, doesn't equate to saying they'll all be up for it in 25 years at 60. As I said, at that point, the end is nigh for the oil and Scotland has bigger fish to fry than they do now. As for the EU, Scotland has recently swung to yes, but I suspect that was partly because the country swung towards yes over independence. Scotland outside the UK is always going to see the EU as more attractive. Over the wider issue, if Cameron is returned, he'll renegotiate something, and probably win a vote to stay in. It will destroy the Tories, but attitudes are softer centre left where the majority is. Scotland would have a rethink if it was a vote to leave, but their core issue over the EU is Spain, not the UK, so I'd be surprised if that single issue re-galvanised the debate. I have never felt the EU as an issue ranked all that high for most people. UKIP's core issue is immigration amongst the grass roots. It is higher for the Leadership, but then the same is true for the Tories. It's a red line for parliamentary tories but further down the list for most voters. If Milliband is returned, or LIB-LAB get their act together and work something out, I doubt they'll actually be a vote, and if they take measures on immigration and the economy continues to recover, there won't be riots in the streets over it. Regards, IronDuke

warspite1 -> RE: Scots Are they free (9/23/2014 5:37:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mobius From a Scot over here says that the vote was skewed as many young Scots had to go to England to find work and could not vote. At the same time retired English people moved to Scotland and could vote. But her hometown of Dundee went 'Yes'. warspite1 Skewed? Well yes, except not in the way the Scot over there thinks. She is conveniently forgetting the Scots young or not that have moved to other parts of UK or elsewhere to find work and most certainly didn't want a Yes vote (why does she assume that all such would have voted Yes?). I can honestly say I know of no one - and I spoke to a great many Scots - who wanted a Yes vote. Not one. The best I got for the Yes vote was one who could not make up his mind - the others numbering around 30 were vehemently opposed.

EUBanana -> RE: Scots Are they free (9/23/2014 6:19:20 PM)
The EU is a classic example of how there is not a common demos, the views of Scotland and the views of England on this matter are diametrically opposed. The solution to this sort of thing is to have two states, which keeps everybody happy. I might point out that an independent Scotland is not the same thing as rebuilding Hadrians Wall and putting up the razor wire. There is no reason why we can't have an open border, free movement, mutual defence arrangements and so on. This sort of thing happened after Irish independence, and gawd knows if there was an excuse to put up razor wire it'd be that history. Didn't happen. Wouldn't happen after Scottish independence.

mind_messing -> RE: Scots Are they free (9/23/2014 6:56:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Mobius From a Scot over here says that the vote was skewed as many young Scots had to go to England to find work and could not vote. At the same time retired English people moved to Scotland and could vote. But her hometown of Dundee went 'Yes'. warspite1 Skewed? Well yes, except not in the way the Scot over there thinks. She is conveniently forgetting the Scots young or not that have moved to other parts of UK or elsewhere to find work and most certainly didn't want a Yes vote (why does she assume that all such would have voted Yes?). I can honestly say I know of no one - and I spoke to a great many Scots - who wanted a Yes vote. Not one. The best I got for the Yes vote was one who could not make up his mind - the others numbering around 30 were vehemently opposed. Anecdotal evidence is bound to be skewed. I can assure you that the common feeling where you live isn't the common feeling where I live. quote: ORIGINAL: IronDuke quote: From what I'm seeing and hearing on the ground, I'm not so sure. It was the older vote that swung this election, and the strongest independence support came from younger voters. There's 45% of Scottish people who are outright unhappy with the situation at present, and no doubt there's a fair chunk of the 55% of No voters who're waiting for the promised powers. Depending on how (or if) these powers are delivered will determine if the demand for another referedum persists. Then you've the spectral issue of EU membership to consider in a few years time as well... But this assumes that the young don't change as they get older... My understanding was that yes won amongst the 25-50 (ish) age group, but younger than that were evenly split. Those working age people will have a different slant on life in 25 years time, as it will be their pensions on the line etc. "Yes" never got a grip of the "its the economy, stupid" truism. Nobody doubted Scotland would survive and maybe even prosper, but is seemed clear it might come at the cost of a generation of economic birthing pains. It's older people in general who have no appetite for that, so current demographics showing 35 year olds are up for it, doesn't equate to saying they'll all be up for it in 25 years at 60. As I said, at that point, the end is nigh for the oil and Scotland has bigger fish to fry than they do now. See for yourself and judge - http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/20/scottish-independence-lord-ashcroft-poll The 18-24's exempt, the under 55's were all fairly solid in their support for independence. I'll not go in to the issue of the "end is nigh!" for the oil, because how long is left depends on who you ask. The only truth is that there's still deposits out there that haven't even been touched yet. I just hope that we can get a sovreign wealth fund set up for oil revenues while there's still time. quote: As for the EU, Scotland has recently swung to yes, but I suspect that was partly because the country swung towards yes over independence. Scotland outside the UK is always going to see the EU as more attractive. Over the wider issue, if Cameron is returned, he'll renegotiate something, and probably win a vote to stay in. It will destroy the Tories, but attitudes are softer centre left where the majority is. Scotland would have a rethink if it was a vote to leave, but their core issue over the EU is Spain, not the UK, so I'd be surprised if that single issue re-galvanised the debate. I have never felt the EU as an issue ranked all that high for most people. UKIP's core issue is immigration amongst the grass roots. It is higher for the Leadership, but then the same is true for the Tories. It's a red line for parliamentary tories but further down the list for most voters. If Milliband is returned, or LIB-LAB get their act together and work something out, I doubt they'll actually be a vote, and if they take measures on immigration and the economy continues to recover, there won't be riots in the streets over it. UK membership in the EU is the perfect issue to re-galvanise the debate! It sums up the issue most Scots have with the Union at present - England wants to leave the EU, Scotland doesn't. If it comes to a UK-wide referendum then the Scottish, Northern Irish and Welsh voices will be drowned out by those in England. Yes - that's how representative democracy works, but it's wrong for England to force the rest of the UK to follow it in the event that Scotland, Wales or NI disagree on the matter. I frankly don't know enough about EU law to comment on how things would work out if England does vote to leave the EU and Scotland doesn't. If Spain's opposition persists, there's nothing (and never was anything) to stop Scotland from voluntarily signing up to the EU treaties without actual formal membership (a la Norway, IIRC). I, for one, would think it a great shame if the UK was to decide to withdraw from the EU. The next year or two is going to be very interesting in terms of politics... quote: ORIGINAL: EUBanana The EU is a classic example of how there is not a common demos, the views of Scotland and the views of England on this matter are diametrically opposed. The solution to this sort of thing is to have two states, which keeps everybody happy. I might point out that an independent Scotland is not the same thing as rebuilding Hadrians Wall and putting up the razor wire. There is no reason why we can't have an open border, free movement, mutual defence arrangements and so on. This sort of thing happened after Irish independence, and gawd knows if there was an excuse to put up razor wire it'd be that history. Didn't happen. Wouldn't happen after Scottish independence. From the stance taken by the Westminister government in the run up to the referendum, that was sure what it sounded like!

IronDuke_slith -> RE: Scots Are they free (9/23/2014 6:57:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EUBanana There is no reason why we can't have an open border, free movement, mutual defence arrangements and so on. This sort of thing happened after Irish independence, and gawd knows if there was an excuse to put up razor wire it'd be that history. Didn't happen. Wouldn't happen after Scottish independence. All you need is a common enough Demos. Where do you stop? Cornwall? Yorkshire? Devolution has been driven by fear of the right in Scotland. It isn't hard to see that sort of movement start in Northern England or parts of the Midlands. We have a democratic right to a vote, but then a democratic obligation to abide by it. You don't split the country up because you don't like the current government. I disagree regarding open borders. SNP policy included a requirement to increase the influx of immigrants to make up for an aging population. England would not (indeed could not) have an open border with a country whose immigration policy was different to our own. Had the Scots gone on to join the EU, it is an open question whether they would have been obliged to apply the Schengen agreement (incorporated into EU LAW by the Amsterdam treaty as I understand it). We have an opt out, but would have been unable to compel Scotland to seek the same (I am not actually sure whether it is possible to opt out now). Border controls would have been open within months of official separation if not before. The position of Ireland doesn't support your argument, since they opted out of Schengen area because they understand opting in would have meant ending the common travel area with Britain because it had opted out. The Mutual defence arrangements were also a non starter. The Faslane issue would have poisoned any chance of that, and given the SNP have often been opposed to foreign intervention, the idea we could have had a common defence is a non starter. What if we had wanted to use the Army against IS but Scotland didn't? I think border controls were inevitable, and given the Scots were threatening to renege on the debt, this would have been a bitter separation that could have led to all sorts of things.

mind_messing -> RE: Scots Are they free (9/23/2014 7:01:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: IronDuke quote: ORIGINAL: EUBanana There is no reason why we can't have an open border, free movement, mutual defence arrangements and so on. This sort of thing happened after Irish independence, and gawd knows if there was an excuse to put up razor wire it'd be that history. Didn't happen. Wouldn't happen after Scottish independence. I think border controls were inevitable, and given the Scots were threatening to renege on the debt, this would have been a bitter separation that could have led to all sorts of things. The thing is, it didn't have to have been a bitter separation. The Westminister government decided to play the hardline - to contingency plans, no talks, no negotations. It was all posturing, you can be assured that it would have been an about-face in the event of a Yes vote - you just don't ignore the only other nation that shares a land border with you.

warspite1 -> RE: Scots Are they free (9/23/2014 7:08:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mind_messing quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Mobius From a Scot over here says that the vote was skewed as many young Scots had to go to England to find work and could not vote. At the same time retired English people moved to Scotland and could vote. But her hometown of Dundee went 'Yes'. warspite1 Skewed? Well yes, except not in the way the Scot over there thinks. She is conveniently forgetting the Scots young or not that have moved to other parts of UK or elsewhere to find work and most certainly didn't want a Yes vote (why does she assume that all such would have voted Yes?). I can honestly say I know of no one - and I spoke to a great many Scots - who wanted a Yes vote. Not one. The best I got for the Yes vote was one who could not make up his mind - the others numbering around 30 were vehemently opposed. Anecdotal evidence is bound to be skewed. I can assure you that the common feeling where you live isn't the common feeling where I live. warspite1 Where in England do you live?

loki100 -> RE: Scots Are they free (9/23/2014 7:09:35 PM)
We've now got enough data on the nature of the vote to offer some conclusions. Some opinion polls, some hard analysis of the actual votes. First, that Ashcroft poll (by age group) has to be treated with extreme concern due to very limited nos in the young (16-17) and old (65+) categories. A bigger poll indicates that only one age group voted yes (25-40). To me that makes sense as they are the generation who did all the things New Labour said to do, (get a degree et al), and have found that a decent stable standard of living has just constantly been denied them. Second, from the polls, there is a lot of confirmation that both Yes and No camps are divided into those who probably won't change their mind and a sizeable group who voted as they did because they thought it was for the best. Of note, 25% of those who voted 'No' did so primarily on the basis of the 'more powers' promise. That becomes a critical group for the stability of the current situation, especially as a lot of 'Yes' votes would have settled for a decent devolution settlement. Third, the SNP is caught between its past and its future. It is very telling that its old strongholds (basically Perthshire and NE Scotland) voted no, while it did well in the Central Belt of Glasgow-Stirling-Dundee. Some of this can be put down to individual SNP figures (Nicola Sturgeon in the south of Glasgow, Shona Robison in Dundee) but I think there is more to it than that. The official 'Yes Scotland' campaign was actually as dire as Better Together - lots of infighting, no real imagination. What pulled Yes along was the non-SNP elements, which were Green, feminist, anti-nuclear, socialist etc. Now the old SNP has the lable 'Tartan Tories' for a good reason, they were basically Tories who wanted Scottish Independence. My suspicion is a lot of them broke for no, in part due to the economic scare stories, but in part as a reaction against a campaign driven by the left. So the SNP has to decide whether to embrace its apparent future as a party of the left inclined parts of urban Scotland or its old past as a party of the rural right (who happened to want independence). That is not going to be easy to manage, especially as odds on most of the 10.000+ new members they have gained in the last week are from the new Yes alliance, not the old one. Some personal views beyond this. It would be a good idea for Yes supporters to stop insulting those who voted no. I assume we want them voting yes next time. Second, we need to take the promise of Home Rule seriously (even if we all seriously doubt the intention to deliver), for the moment that is the only game in town and it behoves a serious movement to engage fully. I'm old enough to have been here before. I worked for the old PCI when I lived in Italy and they got stuck at 35-38% of the vote for a number of years. When Enrico Berlinguer died, so did the imagination to try and build alliances and structures that would allow them to break out of that confine. From 84-91 their vote fell back to little beyond that of the party membership, so while its tempting to see this as a situation for 'one more push', it could equally be a generational high point. Finally I agree with EUBananana, if we are to be forced out of the EU on a UKIP-Conservative vote then all bets are off as to the stability of the current situation.

EUBanana -> RE: Scots Are they free (9/23/2014 7:20:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: IronDuke All you need is a common enough Demos. Where do you stop? Cornwall? Yorkshire? Devolution has been driven by fear of the right in Scotland. It isn't hard to see that sort of movement start in Northern England or parts of the Midlands. We have a democratic right to a vote, but then a democratic obligation to abide by it. You don't split the country up because you don't like the current government. It's not a question of not liking, it's a question of being ruled by what someone sees as a foreign power, which is going to get people's backs up. If your argument held sway nobody would ever secede, which is obviously false. And I got no problem with an independent Cornwall if enough Cornish wanted as much. Who is to tell them they shouldn't? And what happens then if they don't listen to you? Tanks over the Tamar? quote: I disagree regarding open borders. SNP policy included a requirement to increase the influx of immigrants to make up for an aging population. England would not (indeed could not) have an open border with a country whose immigration policy was different to our own. Had the Scots gone on to join the EU, it is an open question whether they would have been obliged to apply the Schengen agreement (incorporated into EU LAW by the Amsterdam treaty as I understand it). We have an opt out, but would have been unable to compel Scotland to seek the same (I am not actually sure whether it is possible to opt out now). The SNP would not necessarily be in charge of Scotland forever. Once independence was achieved the main purpose for their existence would be gone, in fact. Also I'm not seeing a difference with British policy here. [:D] quote: Border controls would have been open within months of official separation if not before. The position of Ireland doesn't support your argument, since they opted out of Schengen area because they understand opting in would have meant ending the common travel area with Britain because it had opted out. And no reason why Scotland can't do the same. Yes, I am aware of the treaties. The EU never really has done very well on being sticklers for procedure. Greece joined the Euro after all despite being in flagrant violation of the rules. With Scotland independent then deals would be made and rules bent, thats how the EU works. Bent, that is. [:'(] There's no way the EU would go out of its way to punish Scotland. On the contrary, the EU would be eager to gobble Scotland up. The Spanish can moan about it but once Scotland is independent their views are irrelevant, it would no longer be a potential to be afraid of, but a fact of life to live with. quote: The Mutual defence arrangements were also a non starter. The Faslane issue would have poisoned any chance of that, and given the SNP have often been opposed to foreign intervention, the idea we could have had a common defence is a non starter. What if we had wanted to use the Army against IS but Scotland didn't? Scotland would end up in NATO, so for wars that REALLY matter, ie wars of national survival, they would be there. Faslane, well, having our nuclear deterrent in a foreign country sounds crazy to me anyway, so yes, the nukes would have to be moved even from a friendly Scotland. Hardly the end of the world. quote: I think border controls were inevitable, and given the Scots were threatening to renege on the debt, this would have been a bitter separation that could have led to all sorts of things. If the Scots reneged on the debt then it would be 'on' as they say, at least for a while. Of course for there to be an amicable divorce both parties need to be sensible. If they were not sensible then whatever, their loss, 5 million Scots vs 55 million English in a dispute, I know where my bets are being placed. However, again look at Ireland. Civil war, bad blood aplenty, but relations were normalised very quickly. Mutual self interest will win out in the end.

EUBanana -> RE: Scots Are they free (9/23/2014 7:24:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mind_messing It was all posturing, you can be assured that it would have been an about-face in the event of a Yes vote - you just don't ignore the only other nation that shares a land border with you. Exactly.

warspite1 -> RE: Scots Are they free (9/23/2014 7:39:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: loki100 It would be a good idea for Yes supporters to stop insulting those who voted no. I assume we want them voting yes next time. Second, we need to take the promise of Home Rule seriously (even if we all seriously doubt the intention to deliver), for the moment that is the only game in town and it behoves a serious movement to engage fully. warspite1 Well isn't that the truth. We had a DEMOCRATIC referendum. The votes didn't go the way the Yes voters wanted. Right, tough - that's democracy - it's a bitch ain't it? But what the vote did do was promise the status quo was not going remain. Change was promised. So how about Yes voters quit moaning and moaning and moaning about the hideous English, the B***** Unionists, corrupt Westminster Blah Blah Blah and, as loki100 says, just get behind the positives won thanks to the referendum. As has been said. Doing nothing is not an option for the UK. Change will happen - if it doesn't then a referendum will be back on the cards within a couple of years - and then the waivering Yes/No voters will waiver no more. They will remember the lies and false promises and vote overwhelmingly for a Yes - and I for one would not blame them because it would have proved to them that democracy was not working.

IronDuke_slith -> RE: Scots Are they free (9/23/2014 7:43:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mind_messing quote: ORIGINAL: IronDuke quote: ORIGINAL: EUBanana There is no reason why we can't have an open border, free movement, mutual defence arrangements and so on. This sort of thing happened after Irish independence, and gawd knows if there was an excuse to put up razor wire it'd be that history. Didn't happen. Wouldn't happen after Scottish independence. I think border controls were inevitable, and given the Scots were threatening to renege on the debt, this would have been a bitter separation that could have led to all sorts of things. The thing is, it didn't have to have been a bitter separation. The Westminister government decided to play the hardline - to contingency plans, no talks, no negotations. It was all posturing, you can be assured that it would have been an about-face in the event of a Yes vote - you just don't ignore the only other nation that shares a land border with you. I disagree for two reasons. Firstly, there simply would never have been an agreement to a currency union. Salmond persisting with this "Well I know a Guy at the Guardian" thing was the most disingenuous piece of politicking I have seen. In that situation, Scotland would possibly have defaulted on their share of the debt, such was threatened. My challenge would be: How friendly would you be with someone who refused to pay you 100 billion pounds they owed? Secondly, even if Salmond had persuaded Westminster (I think this is a fantasy, but for argument's sake...) to enter a currency union, it would have sure had to go to a referendum this side of the border. Now, before the financial crisis, a popular Labour Government refused to enter the euro, in part, because they were never sure they would win a referendum on it. How much harder do you think attitudes to currency union in England would be now, having watched Germany and France spend eye watering amounts propping up Spain, Italy, Greece and Ireland? It simply would not have happened. At that point, Scotland was going to be very economically disadvantaged, and a bitter separation was inevitable.

JudgeDredd -> RE: Scots Are they free (9/23/2014 9:40:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Mobius From a Scot over here says that the vote was skewed as many young Scots had to go to England to find work and could not vote. At the same time retired English people moved to Scotland and could vote. But her hometown of Dundee went 'Yes'. warspite1 Skewed? Well yes, except not in the way the Scot over there thinks. She is conveniently forgetting the Scots young or not that have moved to other parts of UK or elsewhere to find work and most certainly didn't want a Yes vote (why does she assume that all such would have voted Yes?). I can honestly say I know of no one - and I spoke to a great many Scots - who wanted a Yes vote. Not one. The best I got for the Yes vote was one who could not make up his mind - the others numbering around 30 were vehemently opposed. erm? [:D]

JudgeDredd -> RE: Scots Are they free (9/23/2014 10:32:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: loki100 It would be a good idea for Yes supporters to stop insulting those who voted no. I assume we want them voting yes next time. Second, we need to take the promise of Home Rule seriously (even if we all seriously doubt the intention to deliver), for the moment that is the only game in town and it behoves a serious movement to engage fully. warspite1 Well isn't that the truth. We had a DEMOCRATIC referendum. The votes didn't go the way the Yes voters wanted. Right, tough - that's democracy - it's a bitch ain't it? But what the vote did do was promise the status quo was not going remain. Change was promised. So how about Yes voters quit moaning and moaning and moaning about the hideous English, the B*** Unionists, corrupt Westminster Blah Blah Blah and, as loki100 says, just get behind the positives won thanks to the referendum. As has been said. Doing nothing is not an option for the UK. Change will happen - if it doesn't then a referendum will be back on the cards within a couple of years - and then the waivering Yes/No voters will waiver no more. They will remember the lies and false promises and vote overwhelmingly for a Yes - and I for one would not blame them because it would have proved to them that democracy was not working. Given all the Scottish people you have personally spoken to were vehemently against independence bar one, I'd be interested in where you get this moaning from Yes campaigners? Please - for the love of god do NOT come back with "the media" [:'(] And I don't get (and actually don't really appreciate in this rather sedate thread) the anti English sentiment you slipped in there. I don't doubt for a second that there may well have been YES voters who held some anti-English sentiment - but given the bitching going on about the bloody jocks wanting to go..."*'em, let 'em go", "Kick em out - don't let them vote to leave" and "Why don't we get the vote on Scotland's sovereignty" were the general terms I saw amongst people I considered friends from the forces on Facebook. They weren't making them at me personally, but they were making them and as friends on FB I was totally privy to their writings. They were basically insulted that Scotland took it upon themselves to challenge the "establishment" and took it personally. They didn't actually grasp the fact that it was about sovereign rule (for the most part I would suggest) and something they should NOT vote in. BY the way - given the sentiment I have alluded to above, I'm all for a referendum presented to England, Northern Ireland and Wales on whether you want to allow Scotland to remain part of the UK [:'(]

Mobius -> RE: Scots Are they free (9/24/2014 12:07:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Mobius From a Scot over here says that the vote was skewed as many young Scots had to go to England to find work and could not vote. At the same time retired English people moved to Scotland and could vote. But her hometown of Dundee went 'Yes'. warspite1 Skewed? Well yes, except not in the way the Scot over there thinks. She is conveniently forgetting the Scots young or not that have moved to other parts of UK or elsewhere to find work and most certainly didn't want a Yes vote (why does she assume that all such would have voted Yes?). I can honestly say I know of no one - and I spoke to a great many Scots - who wanted a Yes vote. Not one. The best I got for the Yes vote was one who could not make up his mind - the others numbering around 30 were vehemently opposed. Yeah, they'll probably tell you that. You're English, right? Every Scot I've ever talked to over many years wanted an independent Scotland. Not one. Not one ever wanted to be ruled by the English.

EUBanana -> RE: Scots Are they free (9/24/2014 12:21:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mobius Yeah, they'll probably tell you that. You're English, right? Every Scot I've ever talked to over many years wanted an independent Scotland. Not one. Not one ever wanted to be ruled by the English. I imagine if you're dealing with expats you'll get a rather odd viewpoint. Every expat American I know hates living in America, I think that's not exactly the norm though. [:D] I mean the vote is in, clearly most of the Scots actually in Scotland are in favour of remaining in the union. For now, anyway. ...and, "ruled by the English"? They are part of a union with the English - and with a devolved government on top which the English do not have the luxury of, so they are hardly hard done by - just another oddity which tells me that it's an imperfect union which is good for nobody. Is Virginia "ruled by" Michigan? Not really, though they may have not been in favour of a union with them at one point... old Normski and Fronswa over at maddogs are both Scots - Scots in Scotland even - and both unionist ones. I was arguing with normski about it the other day, so much for his subjugation. [:D][:D][:D]

warspite1 -> RE: Scots Are they free (9/24/2014 1:51:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mobius quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Mobius From a Scot over here says that the vote was skewed as many young Scots had to go to England to find work and could not vote. At the same time retired English people moved to Scotland and could vote. But her hometown of Dundee went 'Yes'. warspite1 Skewed? Well yes, except not in the way the Scot over there thinks. She is conveniently forgetting the Scots young or not that have moved to other parts of UK or elsewhere to find work and most certainly didn't want a Yes vote (why does she assume that all such would have voted Yes?). I can honestly say I know of no one - and I spoke to a great many Scots - who wanted a Yes vote. Not one. The best I got for the Yes vote was one who could not make up his mind - the others numbering around 30 were vehemently opposed. Yeah, they'll probably tell you that. You're English, right? Every Scot I've ever talked to over many years wanted an independent Scotland. Not one. Not one ever wanted to be ruled by the English. warspite1 That comment shows you don't understand [&:] Scotland is not ruled by the English [8\|] England and Scotland are in a voluntary Union. The seat of UK Government happens to be in Westminster, England. The MP's that make up Parliament are representatives from all over the UK including 59 MP's from Scotland. England happens to be the largest of the four Home Countries, so will have proportionally more MP's. That's democracy. Oh and by the way, a majority of Scots have just voted to remain part of that United Kingdom.

warspite1 -> RE: Scots Are they free (9/24/2014 1:54:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Mobius From a Scot over here says that the vote was skewed as many young Scots had to go to England to find work and could not vote. At the same time retired English people moved to Scotland and could vote. But her hometown of Dundee went 'Yes'. warspite1 Skewed? Well yes, except not in the way the Scot over there thinks. She is conveniently forgetting the Scots young or not that have moved to other parts of UK or elsewhere to find work and most certainly didn't want a Yes vote (why does she assume that all such would have voted Yes?). I can honestly say I know of no one - and I spoke to a great many Scots - who wanted a Yes vote. Not one. The best I got for the Yes vote was one who could not make up his mind - the others numbering around 30 were vehemently opposed. erm? [:D] Warspite1 [;)] I was talking about those I have spoken to personally [;)]

warspite1 -> RE: Scots Are they free (9/24/2014 2:19:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: loki100 It would be a good idea for Yes supporters to stop insulting those who voted no. I assume we want them voting yes next time. Second, we need to take the promise of Home Rule seriously (even if we all seriously doubt the intention to deliver), for the moment that is the only game in town and it behoves a serious movement to engage fully. warspite1 Well isn't that the truth. We had a DEMOCRATIC referendum. The votes didn't go the way the Yes voters wanted. Right, tough - that's democracy - it's a bitch ain't it? But what the vote did do was promise the status quo was not going remain. Change was promised. So how about Yes voters quit moaning and moaning and moaning about the hideous English, the B*** Unionists, corrupt Westminster Blah Blah Blah and, as loki100 says, just get behind the positives won thanks to the referendum. As has been said. Doing nothing is not an option for the UK. Change will happen - if it doesn't then a referendum will be back on the cards within a couple of years - and then the waivering Yes/No voters will waiver no more. They will remember the lies and false promises and vote overwhelmingly for a Yes - and I for one would not blame them because it would have proved to them that democracy was not working. Given all the Scottish people you have personally spoken to were vehemently against independence bar one, I'd be interested in where you get this moaning from Yes campaigners? Please - for the love of god do NOT come back with "the media" [:'(] And I don't get (and actually don't really appreciate in this rather sedate thread) the anti English sentiment you slipped in there. I don't doubt for a second that there may well have been YES voters who held some anti-English sentiment - but given the bitching going on about the bloody jocks wanting to go..."*'em, let 'em go", "Kick em out - don't let them vote to leave" and "Why don't we get the vote on Scotland's sovereignty" were the general terms I saw amongst people I considered friends from the forces on Facebook. They weren't making them at me personally, but they were making them and as friends on FB I was totally privy to their writings. They were basically insulted that Scotland took it upon themselves to challenge the "establishment" and took it personally. They didn't actually grasp the fact that it was about sovereign rule (for the most part I would suggest) and something they should NOT vote in. BY the way - given the sentiment I have alluded to above, I'm all for a referendum presented to England, Northern Ireland and Wales on whether you want to allow Scotland to remain part of the UK [:'(] warspite1 Given that I don't personally know any Yes voters then yes, it's the media I'm afraid, and more accurately, frustration with a few specific comments that hurt and frustrate in equal measure - and especially so since they have been made post vote when people should be working together. I fully take on board your point though re the �&@) aired about Scotland by others. I hope my last paragraph in that earlier post confirms to you where my sympathies lie with regard to promises made to the people of Scotland - and what should happen if reneged on.

JudgeDredd -> RE: Scots Are they free (9/24/2014 6:39:10 AM)
^ Yes - it did. I wasn't trying to invalidate your point - simply point out that there were and continue to be idiots on both sides. One other thing - to everyone. Don't mistake the violence in Glasgow for anything other than football hooligans getting mixed up in it. It's that nasty sectarian split in Glasgow showing it's ugly head again. The fact that it wasn't displayed anywhere else is proof that it was linked to that sectarian divide. The Rangers football club in that city have strong links to the Union, the Queen, the Crown and to things like the Battle of the Boygne. The violence was not indicative of YES/NO voters. I was ashamed to be Glaswegian on Saturday night - but I wasn't surprised. As a Catholic in Glasgow (called William...I think my mother was trying to make subtle in-roads to peace!!) I saw that nasty sectarian side every single day of my youth. As everyone else has said - the only offer on the table is new powers. I was extremely sceptical, as I was back when they were offered, about their honesty (part of the reason I wanted Scotland to be shot of Westminster) and even more so now watching the bickering going on and Cameron trying to tie it to something that hasn't been sorted in a hundred years...and he thinks he can do it in 4 months??

EUBanana -> RE: Scots Are they free (9/24/2014 9:56:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd even more so now watching the bickering going on and Cameron trying to tie it to something that hasn't been sorted in a hundred years...and he thinks he can do it in 4 months?? In fairness the Tory line seems pretty easy to me, and gives the most to Scotland. No Scottish MPs voting on English affairs, and only defence and foreign affairs retained by Westminster. You could sum that up in a pretty short bill, and I think pretty much everybody both sides of the border wants that. Here the Labour Party intrudes, as they don't want to lose their Scottish MPs ability to legislate on purely English matters, and they don't want Scotland to get into tax competition with the rest of the UK and thus exert a downward pressure on taxes. Hence the wrangling over what tax powers are to be ceded. IMO Cameron should get off his arse and make sure all this is done and dusted before the next election, because if Miliband was calling the shots on it we'd be being stitched up on both sides of the border.

JudgeDredd -> RE: Scots Are they free (9/24/2014 10:11:04 AM)
That's a fair point. I've always had a distaste in my mouth that Scottish MP's have a say in English affairs. However - there is an underlying problem on what issues Scottish MP's would have a say in, or not. The reason that underlying issue is there goes again back to the "pocket money" Scotland gets from it's "parent". As an example, just because a law is being passed regarding the NHS or Education does NOT mean it won't impact Scotland depending on that issue. If there's a financial implication, then it could most definitely have an impact on Scotland - but as it's classed as "an English only issue", then Scottish MP's wouldn't be able to vote...therefore preventing the effect from rebounding across the border. I am all in favour of English only laws to be voted on by English MP's - but the meat of that will have to be very carefully looked at and defined...the inherent problem being because Westminster gathers all funds from it's constituent parts and distributes funds, I'm skeptical of what laws and rules the Scotland would not be affected by. And please can I make a request. Can the Act of Union please stop being brought up. It was assimilation by peaceful means. There was alot of bribery going around - the Scottish Parliament was always going to sell out. Plus Scotland was ripe for the picking at the time. So enough of the Act of Union being some sort of democratic joining of the two parliaments. On the face of it, yes...it was as there was no blood spilled, but it was essentially some (ex) rich people who needed cash due to Scotland's failed attempt to "build an empire" or at least spread and create trade routes and sold out. End of [:D]

JudgeDredd -> RE: Scots Are they free (9/24/2014 10:11:46 AM)
By the way EUBanana - I love Spitfire - very nice beer [:)]

EUBanana -> RE: Scots Are they free (9/24/2014 10:22:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd However - there is an underlying problem on what issues Scottish MP's would have a say in, or not. The reason that underlying issue is there goes again back to the "pocket money" Scotland gets from it's "parent". IMO if Scotland gets its own tax raising powers, as it should do, then the relationship can (and should) be reversed, in that Scotland will be charged for defence and foreign affairs by the rest of the UK. Exactly how it is charged is going to be a source of some wrangling, but taking the defence and intelligence budget, and the cost of the foreign office, and then splitting it by population seems fair to me as a start point. Bear in mind that we can always tweak things afterwards. We don't have a written constitution so the UK is infinitely malleable - hence why it could be ended on a simple majority vote. quote: As an example, just because a law is being passed regarding the NHS or Education does NOT mean it won't impact Scotland depending on that issue. If there's a financial implication, then it could most definitely have an impact on Scotland - but as it's classed as "an English only issue", then Scottish MP's wouldn't be able to vote...therefore preventing the effect from rebounding across the border. This is true. But the solution is for the Scottish institutions to be separated from the British ones. Which would have to happen anyway in the event of full independence. There will be a Scottish NHS, which Scotland will pay for. It will be nothing to do with the rest of the UK. I mean thats what devo-max is going to mean in practice. The end result is that we will have very few institutions in common - the armed forces and the foreign office. quote: I am all in favour of English only laws to be voted on by English MP's - but the meat of that will have to be very carefully looked at and defined...the inherent problem being because Westminster gathers all funds from it's constituent parts and distributes funds, I'm skeptical of what laws and rules the Scotland would not be affected by. Yup, the solution is to charge Scotland for what few British services they actually want, not to allocate pocket money.

EUBanana -> RE: Scots Are they free (9/24/2014 10:25:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd By the way EUBanana - I love Spitfire - very nice beer [:)] Most awesome adverts on TV as well. [:D][:D][:D] http://vimeo.com/45578684

JudgeDredd -> RE: Scots Are they free (9/24/2014 10:45:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EUBanana quote: ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd However - there is an underlying problem on what issues Scottish MP's would have a say in, or not. The reason that underlying issue is there goes again back to the "pocket money" Scotland gets from it's "parent". IMO if Scotland gets its own tax raising powers, as it should do, then the relationship can (and should) be reversed, in that Scotland will be charged for defence and foreign affairs by the rest of the UK. Exactly how it is charged is going to be a source of some wrangling, but taking the defence and intelligence budget, and the cost of the foreign office, and then splitting it by population seems fair to me as a start point. Bear in mind that we can always tweak things afterwards. We don't have a written constitution so the UK is infinitely malleable - hence why it could be ended on a simple majority vote. quote: As an example, just because a law is being passed regarding the NHS or Education does NOT mean it won't impact Scotland depending on that issue. If there's a financial implication, then it could most definitely have an impact on Scotland - but as it's classed as "an English only issue", then Scottish MP's wouldn't be able to vote...therefore preventing the effect from rebounding across the border. This is true. But the solution is for the Scottish institutions to be separated from the British ones. Which would have to happen anyway in the event of full independence. There will be a Scottish NHS, which Scotland will pay for. It will be nothing to do with the rest of the UK. I mean thats what devo-max is going to mean in practice. The end result is that we will have very few institutions in common - the armed forces and the foreign office. quote: I am all in favour of English only laws to be voted on by English MP's - but the meat of that will have to be very carefully looked at and defined...the inherent problem being because Westminster gathers all funds from it's constituent parts and distributes funds, I'm skeptical of what laws and rules the Scotland would not be affected by. Yup, the solution is to charge Scotland for what few British services they actually want, not to allocate pocket money. What you are speaking of is total fiscal autonomy for Scotland...and I'm not sure that was on offer. If it was, I concede the point that Scotland would be self sufficient and even English policies with a financial implication would not affect Scotland - but again, I'm not sure that's what is on offer. (I hope it is) In fact - and I could be wrong - Scotland was being offered tax raising powers - the key word being "raising". They were not going to be allowed to have full control over taxation - just raising the level, hence why I believe the Barnett formula was going to stay. But - I could be wrong If the Barnett formula stays and IF Scotland only has tax "raising" powers, then the NHS spending in the rest of the UK would most definitely have an effect on the NHS in Scotland. Not directly, but indirectly. Scotland gets a percentage of the money spent on the NHS in England. If that money is being siphoned off for private health care then it's less money going into the NHS and therefore Scotland's percentage, whilst syaing the same as a percentage, in real terms drops. Now Scotland DOES have total control over the NHS - but if the true value of that percentage drops, then so too does the money Scotland can assign to it's NHS - or it keeps the same level but hits some other aspect of life in Scotland financially. That's at least as I understand it. Of course - again - if full fiscal autonomy is what is on offer then these issues will be non issues...but as I said, I don't think that's what was on offer. We'll see. I'll actually give up drinking for a year if they come up with the goods as even a framework for an acceptable bill by January. Wait and see is the name of the game.

JudgeDredd -> RE: Scots Are they free (9/24/2014 10:48:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EUBanana quote: ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd By the way EUBanana - I love Spitfire - very nice beer [:)] Most awesome adverts on TV as well. [:D][:D][:D] http://vimeo.com/45578684 Very good!

EUBanana -> RE: Scots Are they free (9/24/2014 10:52:00 AM)
Thats the only way I can see it working re. the English votes for English MPs. Given I heard Miliband squeaking about Scotland only varying taxation by plus or minus 15% I made the assumption that the Tories were offering greater tax freedom, possibly erroneously on my part. I think the Tories will be Scotlands biggest buddies on this one though, now the English only MPs thing has been publicly mooted. They want that prize. And it seems to me a confederal system will keep the Tories happy (armies, flags, no northern socialists) and the Scots happy (near as dammit independence). So with luck, thats what we'll end up with!

Mobius -> RE: Scots Are they free (9/24/2014 11:59:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 warspite1 That comment shows you don't understand [&:] Scotland is not ruled by the English [8\|] England and Scotland are in a voluntary Union. The seat of UK Government happens to be in Westminster, England. The MP's that make up Parliament are representatives from all over the UK including 59 MP's from Scotland. England happens to be the largest of the four Home Countries, so will have proportionally more MP's. That's democracy. Oh and by the way, a majority of Scots have just voted to remain part of that United Kingdom. As to what Scots opinions are. A business in Scotland that is part of the UK would have an advantage over one that is in an independent Scotland if it has international sales. An independent Scotland would be a large complication for them as one CEO of a large Scotch Whiskey maker said. As for Scots working in England like the ones you meet they too have a better chance of working when Scotland is part of the UK. They are talking their book, so to speak. Scots over here in the US don't have any cause to support a UK-Scotland bond so an independent Scotland is more theoretical for them.

Page: << < prev 6 7 8 [9] 10 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.859375