Scottish Independence

[GrantB]

Enough!!! If we must be governed by liars, cheats, and social climbers, I'd rather they were from closer to home!

 

Quote of the week.

[Allan Heron]

"nbsp" is just a typo when my attempt at quoting failed and I crashed my post.

 

I was just pointing out that the Tories in Scotland have a weird history. They were originally an Irish Unionist party that merged with English Conservatives. This is the reason that they are trying to ditch the word 'conservative' from their name but not, strangely, the word 'unionist'.

 

Here's some cut and pastes from Wiki:

 

"It was established in 1965, when the previously separate Unionist Party was merged into the Conservative Party of England and Wales, to form the basis of the modern UK Conservative Party."

 

"The Unionist Party, referred to as the Scottish Unionist Party outside of Scotland itself, was the main centre right political party in Scotland between 1912 and 1965. Use of the terms 'Unionist' and 'Tory', as opposed to 'Conservative', is a consequence of the Scottish Unionists eschewing the name 'Conservative' [1] until 1965."

 

"The origins of the Scottish Unionist Party lie in the 1886 split of the British Liberal Party with the emergence of the Liberal Unionists under Joseph Chamberlain. The 'Union' in question was the 1801 Irish Union, not that of 1707."

 

That doesn't make them an Irish Unionist party though. Joe Chamberlain split from Gladstone over what he saw as the latter's obsession with Irish Home Rule and those that followed him became known as Liberal Unionists. Nowt to do with the Orange Order as you were suggesting though. Chamberlain had build his considerable in local government in Birmingham.

 

Also worth mentioning that in Glasgow at least they went under the name Progressive Party way back when

[Guy Incognito]

How about asking how much is will really cost the people of Scotland to remain tied to an English-dominated parliament whose interests are (understandably) English first; to remain in a political situation which Scottish people never got the chance to vote for, and which has resulted in us being in the relatively miserable position that we have been led into?

 

It should be clear that there is little point in having aspirations for Scotland as long as we remain controlled by Westminster. We get lied to about everything, whether it's the cost of the Millenium Dome, how Eurostar will give fast, direct train access from Scotland to the continent (a huge lie), how Scotland could only survive due to handouts from Westminster (even they now know that was a lie),....God, they even made a public announcement lie about an historic agreement being reached with the SFA to allow team GB at the Olympics.

 

Enough!!! If we must be governed by liars, cheats, and social climbers, I'd rather they were from closer to home!

Especially to the last bit!

Edited October 27, 2011 by Guy Incognito

[Meister Jag]

Enough!!! If we must be governed by liars, cheats, and social climbers, I'd rather they were from closer to home!

 

Jaggernaut, good point well made. I can see a certain logic in what you've said! I think you've summed up the political class quite nicely.

[Mr Scruff]

How about asking how much is will really cost the people of Scotland to remain tied to an English-dominated parliament whose interests are (understandably) English first; to remain in a political situation which Scottish people never got the chance to vote for, and which has resulted in us being in the relatively miserable position that we have been led into?

If you give us a clear, detailed proposal for independence then we can have a meaningful debate about the relative merits of working with the status quo against that proposal. I can give you a whole lot of things that I think would make the UK a better (and hopefully more prosperous) place. We may disagree. But you're asking for demonstration that the current position is better than.... ? Sounds good, but it's not a debate until we see a proposal. Also the topic of this is Independence, can we make it? The norm would be for those proposing this to demonstrate what it entails first....

 

 

It should be clear that there is little point in having aspirations for Scotland as long as we remain controlled by Westminster. We get lied to about everything, whether it's the cost of the Millenium Dome, how Eurostar will give fast, direct train access from Scotland to the continent (a huge lie), how Scotland could only survive due to handouts from Westminster (even they now know that was a lie),....God, they even made a public announcement lie about an historic agreement being reached with the SFA to allow team GB at the Olympics.

We remain part of the UK. And part of the EU. I take it you don't want to be part of any Union? I understand that position, it's just not one I agree with.

 

I could go through poker analogies - I'll see your Millenium Dome with our Scottish Parliament building. I'll raise your Eurostar with our Edinburgh Trams and Glasgow Airport Link. But what's the point? Your view seems to be that Unions = bad, Scotland = good. In the absence of detail that's the only conclusion.

 

 

Enough!!! If we must be governed by liars, cheats, and social climbers, I'd rather they were from closer to home!

Wha's Like Us?

 

Anecdotal I know, but I've worked with Local Authorities and Central Government departments throughout the UK (and indeed Europe), and have formed a very strong impression of where the most (casually) corrupt actions take place. And where nepotism and political favour count more than integrity. I despise this anywhere, but particularly when it's 'close to home'.

Edited October 28, 2011 by Mr Scruff

[Jaggernaut]

If you give us a clear, detailed proposal for independence then we can have a meaningful debate about the relative merits of working with the status quo against that proposal. I can give you a whole lot of things that I think would make the UK a better (and hopefully more prosperous) place. We may disagree. But you're asking for demonstration that the current position is better than.... ? Sounds good, but it's not a debate until we see a proposal. Also the topic of this is Independence, can we make it? The norm would be for those proposing this to demonstrate what it entails first....

 

For every "positive" you think you could come up with as a reason for us to continue to be governed from Westminster, nationalists can counter with their own positives for Scotland regaining its political independence. The "proposal" you seek is just as transparent as any political manifesto. And has been said before, no political party actually demonstrates first; they put forward their arguments, and people decide who they trust most (or who they distrust least).

 

 

 

We remain part of the UK. And part of the EU. I take it you don't want to be part of any Union? I understand that position, it's just not one I agree with.

 

I have nothing against the concept of the EU, though I detest the corruption and wastefulness of much of the activities associated with it.

 

I could go through poker analogies - I'll see your Millenium Dome with our Scottish Parliament building. I'll raise your Eurostar with our Edinburgh Trams and Glasgow Airport Link. But what's the point? Your view seems to be that Unions = bad, Scotland = good. In the absence of detail that's the only conclusion.

 

I think you'll find that those Scottish projects were hatched by unionist parties. Thank you!

 

 

 

Wha's Like Us?

 

Anecdotal I know, but I've worked with Local Authorities and Central Government departments throughout the UK (and indeed Europe), and have formed a very strong impression of where the most (casually) corrupt actions take place. And where nepotism and political favour count more than integrity. I despise this anywhere, but particularly when it's 'close to home'.

Closer to home means more accountable. The Libyans dealt with Gaddafi their way, not the way others would have dealt with him, for example.

Edited October 28, 2011 by Jaggernaut

[Allan Heron]

Closer to home means more accountable. The Libyans dealt with Gaddafi their way, not the way others would have dealt with him, for example.

 

I don't think that's something that can be taken as read - being accountable is not increased simply because of proximity. It's a function of ethos/culture/process rather than geography.

[Jaggernaut]

I don't think that's something that can be taken as read - being accountable is not increased simply because of proximity. It's a function of ethos/culture/process rather than geography.

Not "rather than", but "as well as".

[Mr Scruff]

For every "positive" you think you could come up with as a reason for us to continue to be governed from Westminster, nationalists can counter with their own positives for Scotland regaining its political independence. The "proposal" you seek is just as transparent as any political manifesto. And has been said before, no political party actually demonstrates first; they put forward their arguments, and people decide who they trust most (or who they distrust least).

My view is that if we were asked to vote on an issue like independence we should at least know what we are voting for. Clearly you take a different view; your prerogative.

 

I think you'll find that those Scottish projects were hatched by unionist parties. Thank you!

Yes I thought we were debating the issue of independence and therefore you were contrasting UK policies with Scottish ones. Clearly we should have been debating the beauty of the SNP only and therefore my error.

[Jaggernaut]

My view is that if we were asked to vote on an issue like independence we should at least know what we are voting for. Clearly you take a different view; your prerogative.

 

 

Yes I thought we were debating the issue of independence and therefore you were contrasting UK policies with Scottish ones. Clearly we should have been debating the beauty of the SNP only and therefore my error.

Well, we'll clearly disagree on most issues, but what are you voting for every time you vote for your favoured party? You don't know the details of precisely what they will do if they get into power. All you know is what they basically stand for. Then you need to wait and see. It's the same if you vote for independence (which I recommend, when the time comes. )

 

As I've often said before, without getting any valid reply: Why is it that no country that has ever gained (or re-gained) its independence has ever decided to go back to being dependent? Real sovereignty must have something going for it, don't you think?

[jaggybunnet]

Well, we'll clearly disagree on most issues, but what are you voting for every time you vote for your favoured party? You don't know the details of precisely what they will do if they get into power. All you know is what they basically stand for. Then you need to wait and see. It's the same if you vote for independence (which I recommend, when the time comes. )

 

As I've often said before, without getting any valid reply: Why is it that no country that has ever gained (or re-gained) its independence has ever decided to go back to being dependent? Real sovereignty must have something going for it, don't you think?

 

no they have manifesto which they put forward how they would like things to happen, i have seen none of this from the snp so how am i to make a judgement...it cant be that hard for you to understand

 

name some of these countries and i will tell you

[Mr Scruff]

Well, we'll clearly disagree on most issues, but what are you voting for every time you vote for your favoured party? You don't know the details of precisely what they will do if they get into power. All you know is what they basically stand for. Then you need to wait and see. It's the same if you vote for independence (which I recommend, when the time comes. )

No. I do read their manifestos. It's not just a beauty parade for me. I realise that I'm in a minority.

 

If a party says 'tax the rich' in a manifesto, I look to see what that means. Does it mean imposing a 100% tax rate on anyone earning more than $5 a day (rich by some definitions). Or does it mean increasing the tax rate to 50% for those earning over £150K a year. The detail matters and I don't believe a party would be electable without it (though, again, I do realise I'm in a minority). It is worth contrasting manifestos from decades ago to those now, by the way (not that I'm that old I have to say....)

 

But this thread has been useful for me in one sense. I was agnostic to Independence at the start. I'm staggered as it has gone on to find out how little the argument boils down to, ie do we trust the SNP.

 

As I've often said before, without getting any valid reply: Why is it that no country that has ever gained (or re-gained) its independence has ever decided to go back to being dependent? Real sovereignty must have something going for it, don't you think?

Here's a thing. If we were an independent nation just now I'd be looking for a real, detailed justification from anyone proposing Union. It would be a difficult transition, as Independence will likely be.

 

An example - East Germany. A painful transition. And before we start debating whether the DDR was a sovereign nation independent from Germany, it would be worth listening to the excellent Radio 4 series currently playing re German history. I realise that it's on the BBC, but still excellent despite being from a UK broadcaster...

[GrantB]

no they have manifesto which they put forward how they would like things to happen, i have seen none of this from the snp so how am i to make a judgement...it cant be that hard for you to understand

 

name some of these countries and i will tell you

 

I wonder what the views of Croats, Bosnians, Slovenians, Montenegrans and Macedonians have about obtaining independence from the former Yugoslavia or Slovakia after breaking from Czezkoslovakia. Or the views of Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians, Moldovans, Belarusians, Ukranians, Georgians, Armenians etc about gaining independence from the Soviet Union.

 

I wonder if any of them wish to go back?

[alx]

Re: the details of independence. I might be wrong, but I've got it in my head that the referendum will generate a white paper first. There already is a white paper from the last time a referendum was suggested.

 

http://www.scotland....9/11/26155932/0

 

 

This White Paper sets out the options for constitutional reform in Scotland. It continues the debate started by the National Conversation.ISBNOfficial Print Publication DateNovember 2009Website Publication DateNovember 30, 2009

 

For those that really want to access information (I mean them that don't only want information that draws a target round their own unionist bullet hole!!!!) here's loads and loads of information.

 

The contents are:

 

1. THE NATIONAL CONVERSATION ON SCOTLAND'S FUTURE

Introduction

Current constitutional arrangements

Options for the future

The National Conversation

 

2. THE OPTIONS FOR SCOTLAND'S FUTURE

Introduction

Current position

Commission on Scottish Devolution

Full devolution

Independence

 

3. A WEALTHIER SCOTLAND

Overview

Economic and fiscal policy

Business and enterprise

Migration

Broadcasting

Conclusion

 

4. A FAIRER SCOTLAND

Overview

Welfare and benefits

Housing and regeneration

Equal opportunities

Conclusion

 

5. A GREENER SCOTLAND

Overview

Environment, agriculture and fisheries

Transport

Energy

Conclusion

 

6. A HEALTHIER AND SMARTER SCOTLAND

Overview

Health

Education and children

Conclusion

 

7. A SAFER SCOTLAND

Overview

Criminal and civil justice

Judiciary and the Courts

Human rights and responsibilities

Conclusion

 

8. A STRONGER SCOTLAND

Overview

Scotland in the world today

Scotland's future role

Conclusion

 

9. A MODERN SCOTLAND

Overview

Constitution and government

Elections

Conclusion

 

10. CHOOSING SCOTLAND'S FUTURE

Introduction

Involving the people

A national referendum

The next step

 

(Don't say I don't spoil you)

Edited October 28, 2011 by alx

[jaggybunnet]

I wonder what the views of Croats, Bosnians, Slovenians, Montenegrans and Macedonians have about obtaining independence from the former Yugoslavia or Slovakia after breaking from Czezkoslovakia. Or the views of Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians, Moldovans, Belarusians, Ukranians, Georgians, Armenians etc about gaining independence from the Soviet Union.

 

I wonder if any of them wish to go back?

 

so you are claiming that the UK is a dictatorship then.

 

i can only speak for what i know from some bosnians and serbs but yes (the ones i spoke to)they would rather be in union as down on the coal face it is not so nice now

 

also none of those had the choice as they came about due to there countries falling apart

Edited October 28, 2011 by jaggybunnet

[honved]

Two and a bit more years for each side to set out their stall with all of the paraphernalia of economic arguments, emotional arguments and whatever else they want to chuck into it.

 

For me, it's always been a mixture of both. We've always had our own legal and education systems and have always been a nation. We've also had the ability to invent, innovate and to work hard. We have an oil industry that is matched by only one other country in the world. We have land resources that other nearby countries don't. I don't see any compelling reason to be tethered in an artificial union that is going nowhere.

[GrantB]

I don't see any compelling reason to be tethered in an artificial union that is going nowhere.

 

Or pay for stuff like London 2012 or high speed rail links from London to Birmingham to name but two that have hee-haw to do with Scotland.

[jaggybunnet]

Or pay for stuff like London 2012 or high speed rail links from London to Birmingham to name but two that have hee-haw to do with Scotland.

 

 

do you want to be part of the euro parliament? or are well going it totally solo.

[Jaggernaut]

I wonder what the views of Croats, Bosnians, Slovenians, Montenegrans and Macedonians have about obtaining independence from the former Yugoslavia or Slovakia after breaking from Czezkoslovakia. Or the views of Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians, Moldovans, Belarusians, Ukranians, Georgians, Armenians etc about gaining independence from the Soviet Union.

 

I wonder if any of them wish to go back?

Thanks for that.

 

No doubt a vague reply will come from the usual suspects; something like "Aye, but apart from all of them!" That's about it in a nutshell, I'm afraid.

[GrantB]

do you want to be part of the euro parliament? or are well going it totally solo.

 

I'm all for Scotland taking her rightful place alongside our European neighbours as an equal rather than a region.

[jaggybunnet]

I'm all for Scotland taking her rightful place alongside our European neighbours as an equal rather than a region.

 

 

so you are happy to pay for greece, spain and the likes or are you working on them paying for us.

 

euro is the same arse just different cheek and its much bigger

[GrantB]

so you are happy to pay for greece, spain and the likes or are you working on them paying for us.

 

euro is the same arse just different cheek and its much bigger

 

Whoa! Dont get ahead of yourself here. I would only support joining the single currency if it was the right thing for Scotland. I take it you are on the side of the guys who are embarassing the Tory party (quite a feat) then?

[Jaggernaut]

Is it just me, or have some recent posts disappeared from here?

[jaggybunnet]

Is it just me, or have some recent posts disappeared from here?

 

 

no just you old age me thinks

[Meister Jag]

Whoa! Dont get ahead of yourself here. I would only support joining the single currency if it was the right thing for Scotland. I take it you are on the side of the guys who are embarassing the Tory party (quite a feat) then?

 

GrantB, so what currency would we have? This is why I raised the issue in an earlier post? Do we expose our economoy and possibly robust / fragile exchequer (in the absence of figures we haven't a clue what's in our coffers) to the minefields of the Euro Zone.

 

By Simon Johnson, Scottish Political Editor - 26 Oct 2011 -

 

Lawyers have told Coalition ministers that Scotland is only an EU member by virtue of being part of the United Kingdom and would lose this status following separation.

 

An independent Scotland would then have to join the EU as a new accession state, a process that could take up to three years, meaning the UK’s derogation from the single currency would not apply.

 

According to the official legal advice, Mr Salmond would then have to obtain his own opt-out from the euro but this “might not be easy to negotiate” with the existing members.

 

The official advice, prepared for the Government in preparation for the independence referendum, flies in the face of assurances the First Minister has given the Scottish public that they would be allowed to keep sterling.

 

It is one of a series of unsubstantiated claims in a booklet titled Your Scotland, Your Future that was unveiled at last weekend’s SNP conference and will be distributed to households across the country.

 

Until the fine detail is known, I'm inclined to sit tight. Much of this debate seems to involve those with tartan knickers getting ahead of themselves. The fact is that some would look to stay in the Union at all costs and positions could become entrenched, our friends with the bowler hats and sashes have hinted as much. So do we gain independence but then become a divided country with certain unionist strongholds emerging? Thinking Kilwinning, Larkhall, oh and Penicuik! That's probably a bad attempt at humour but take it as read that the dead heads would relish their chance at martyrdom (and I sincerely hope that none of this would ever involve acts of sabotage or violence). If independence is to be won, then the arguments must be won and we are nowhere near that stage as there is no fine detail to discuss.

 

The SNP did rather well in the May elections but there were contributory factors; not least the lack of credible voting options. Remember that this was a backlash vote against New Labour. Salmond remains a one-man band and, very capable politician though he is, lose him and the SNP would probably fall apart. I struggle to identify anyone capable of filling his considerable trousers! I also think that in terms of the SNP juggernaut going into overdrive, he is savvy enough to urge caution and will want to pick his moment to pose the big question carefully. This will probably be when Cameron has truly f***** the economy and sacked the last school dinner lady.

 

There is no doubt in my mind that Salmond has a remarkable ability to spin a positive case for his party and his country. But he is no fool and will also be putting the brakes on those who want independence overnight. Hate to say it guys, but you could have a long wait... so best put your Runrig albums back in their sleeves.

 

The unionists on the other hand needed to find a positive argument for staying in the union, rather than just relying on negative campaigning, as well as a leader to sell that message. Just now it's all one-way traffic and the standard of opposition in Scotland is making the job of the SNP rather easy.

 

I close by returning to my earlier point and that is that the SNP have yet to show that they are a genuinely left-wing party who would look to seize control of the means of production for the good of the Scottish people. With or without independence, it will be same old same old.

Edited October 28, 2011 by Meister Jag