|
|
Topic Originator: halbe
Date: Mon 22 Feb 10:55
So it’s a threadbare argument for the union. Is this the same first minister who has perhaps rightly for almost a year lectured every day about nothing being important as protecting the NHS and saving lives.
The vaccination program has prevented between 85-94% hospital admission. That is a lot of protection for the NHS and a lot of lives saved in Scotland. 25 % vaccinated in UK but under 5% and 6% in Europe. Do the maths - Sturgeon hasn`t.
I didn`t want to leave the EU but if there is ever a time, I have been relieved to be connected to England and places like Oxford University it is now.
Maybe at other times it might be a threadbare argument – but Sturgeons “threadbare” view of the union is saving lives every day just now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Mon 22 Feb 12:06
What has Oxford Uni got to do with it? Aren`t most of the vaccines actually produced in the EU?
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sadindiefreak
Date: Mon 22 Feb 12:43
Quote:
The One Who Knocks, Mon 22 Feb 12:06
What has Oxford Uni got to do with it? Aren`t most of the vaccines actually produced in the EU?
I think that since the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine was developed at Oxford University halberd thinks that is good enough reson to allow another country to rule over us.
This ignores the fact that an independent Scotland would still have connections to Oxford University through University programmes where our universities work with others around the globe. An independent Scotland could have chosen to invest in the development of the vaccine at Oxford. Also ignoring the fact astrazenica is also a Swedish/British multinational company and any country could have and is getting vaccines from them.
Infact it could be argued that as part of the UK the fact we plan to administer the vaccine to those not at risk here before high risk people in other countries get it is a moral outrage.
The president of the World Trade Organisation criticised the UK over that just this week.
Halberd is also conveniently ignoring that being oart of the UK meant Scotland could not close our borders and we all know the result of the UK government's inaction on this.
Plus as part of the UK we will need to contribute to the billions stolen from us by the Tories dishing out contracts to their pals at highly inflated prices.
But yes it's absolutely fantastic being part of this corrupt union.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Mon 22 Feb 12:51
The simple fact is that Scotland and England are too far apart in their political goals for a union to work.
Scotland's progressive vision for its future is more in keeping with that of the EU than it is the right wing populism that floats England's boat.
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
Post Edited (Mon 22 Feb 12:51)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Mon 22 Feb 13:20
It’s too early to start claiming victory on the vaccination front since the season is only a few weeks old.
The UK had a three week start on most EU countries in its vaccination programme which might be a cause for celebration. It might equally be that the UK was desperate to approve the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine since the country had one of the highest death rates in Europe. Countries like Finland and Norway have had the luxury of being more circumspect in their vaccination choices than the UK.
Putting ‘Oxford’ at the start of a product is designed to reassure the UK public in the same way that letters after a person name (or titles before) do. This does not work so well in other countries and there is some medical and consumer resistance to the Oxford jab, not so much about health dangers but concerning its effectiveness for certain groups.
The UK has pulled out the stops to cover the wall with a first coat of emulsion but the paint job has a long way to go yet.
sammer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: 1985Par
Date: Mon 22 Feb 14:04
"I think that since the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine was developed at Oxford University halberd thinks that is good enough reson to allow another country to rule over us."
What a childish response to the tactfully made OP.
As part of the UK we are being vaccinated quicker than we would otherwise have been. That`s an incontrovertible fact. Whether that influences an individuals thoughts on the constitution is down to the individual.
As for your " reason to allow another country to rule over us" - you make it sound like a primary school history lesson directed at a group of kids incapable of grasping the concept of a devolved parliament.
We`re part of the UK because we chose to be. Remember?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Mon 22 Feb 14:16
`We` didn`t choose to leave the EU though but we`re out of it. Surely that`s a huge disadvantage of being part of the UK?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: 1985Par
Date: Mon 22 Feb 14:41
wee eck - with respect, I find the EU argument a difficult one to swallow for these 2 reasons
1) In 2014 we were told that we should vote NO to secure our EU status. Much has been made of this promise. It is the bedrock of the current argument for independence. Yet it was ignored, totally, by every YES voter. Every YES voter either ignored it completely or was happy to gamble EU status.
2) Brexit wasn`t the reason for disregarding the 2014 vote. The result was being trashed long before the term Brexit was invented and long before the EU referendum was on the Horizon.
Besides, do you propose to mitigate the problems created by Brexit by having a trade Barrier and a hard border between us and the country with whom we do the vast majority of our trade? And how, exactly, will that aid the employment prospects of young Scots?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sadindiefreak
Date: Mon 22 Feb 14:42
Quote:
1985Par, Mon 22 Feb 14:04
We`re part of the UK because we chose to be. Remember?
No because people like you chose to be while others were duped by lies.
In 2014 I was voting Yes myself but was not getting involved.
Then one evening I can home from work.
I was renting a room in Aberdeen during the week and my landlady told me she had made up her mind how she was voting in the referendum.
I asked her how and she said she was voting No, some of the "better together" crowd had been round and had a chat with her.
She was deaf and she had asked about her disability benefits being cut they had explained to her that this was down to the Scottish government and she had to vote No.
I stopped her there and told her they had flat out lied to her and all benefits were a reserved matter.
She then broke down crying and told me how she had been speaking to them about a deaf friend of hers who had been put on the Workfare programme when they threatened to stop his benefits completely.
They found a position at a supermarket for him. He turned up and when they found out he was deaf they sent him home as the job they had was collecting trolleys in the car park. They decided this was a health and safety concern.
When he got home he took his own life in the belief his benefits would be halted.
She told the "better together " folk this same story and they had still insisted this was down to the Scottish government.
I've since heard of old people being told they would lose their pensions. The MOD sending out emails to servicemen and women that they had to vote No. Being involved in politics is expressly forbidden for serving personnel and the MOD are not permitted to get involved so military law was broken.
I then decided I was getting involved.
I will never stop fighting for Scotland's self determination and will not give in to liars and cheats.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: 1985Par
Date: Mon 22 Feb 14:57
"No because people like you chose to be while others were duped by lies."
Yes - it often comes back to this. This was the argument the day after the referendum, before it was the BBC`s and Tunnocks Teacakes fault.
Basically, in a nut shell, NO voters were duped. Duped by liars and cheats. Not as intelligent as your average YES voter.
If i can counter your wee story. My mentally handicapped cousin voted YES. Her cleaners told her that her sheltered accomodation was at risk if she voted NO. They kindly took her to the polling station as well, which was nice of them.
Still unable to find a good reason as to why you lost in 2014 - just say we were duped. Excellent analysis. Well done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Mon 22 Feb 15:13
1985Par, I wasn`t referencing my comment to the 2014 referendum. I was trying to point out that, despite what many may see as the benefits of being part of the UK, there is one overriding disadvantage which was illustrated by the outcome of the 2016 EU referendum. In a lop-sided union such as the UK the voice of the minority partners in that union will not be heard on crucial life-changing matters and may even be totally ignored. In the light of that I think many Scots will feel the current campaign to promote the union as being rather cynical.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sadindiefreak
Date: Mon 22 Feb 15:16
Quote:
1985Par, Mon 22 Feb 14:57
"No because people like you chose to be while others were duped by lies."
Yes - it often comes back to this. This was the argument the day after the referendum, before it was the BBC`s and Tunnocks Teacakes fault.
Basically, in a nut shell, NO voters were duped. Duped by liars and cheats. Not as intelligent as your average YES voter.
If i can counter your wee story. My mentally handicapped cousin voted YES. Her cleaners told her that her sheltered accomodation was at risk if she voted NO. They kindly took her to the polling station as well, which was nice of them.
Still unable to find a good reason as to why you lost in 2014 - just say we were duped. Excellent analysis. Well done.
What happened to your cousin is also despicable, however someone's cleaner is not an official representative of the campaign. Better together goons were.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Mon 22 Feb 15:39
The SNP position on EU membership in 2014 was a far stronger one than the later ‘oven ready’ claims made in 2016 by Brexiteers for one obvious reason: Scotland was already a member of the EU as part of the UK. The onus would have been on the EU to find a reason to boot Scotland out, rather than for Scotland to make a case for remaining a member under a different title.
The word ‘Brexit’ was coined in 2012- an adaptation of ‘Grexit’ when Greece was in conflict with the EU- although little used until 2016. The right wing media had been shouting to leave the EU for many years prior to that and even now the Daily Express announces the inevitable breakup of EU on a weekly basis. The strange thing is, as weak and pitiful as the EU is in the eyes of the Daily Express, it issues iron diktats from Brussels which have the power to impoverish the UK.
Such monstrous logic, alluded to by SIF, has been a feature of the unionist campaign to oppose Scottish independence. On the one hand Scotland is a basket case, subsidised up to the eyeballs from London and the inhabitants would be eating kelp on the beaches within a year of going solo. Yet, despite having to pour money into this backwater, for reasons never made very clear Westminster seems determined that Scotland continue to be a part of the UK. Maybe they just like being charitable.
sammer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: 1985Par
Date: Mon 22 Feb 15:48
"Westminster seems determined that Scotland continue to be a part of the UK"
Sammer - in 2014 they gave us the option of leaving. If we wanted to. We chose no to.
They`re perfectly entitled to be " determined for us to be part of the UK", just as the SNP are perfectly entitled to be determined for us to leave.
The 2 sides argued for a year, drew a line in the sand and had a vote on it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Mon 22 Feb 16:08
Any courtroom lawyer knows never to ask a question to which he does not know the answer. It`s the same with referenda. The whole point of them is to rubber stamp the government policy. They wouldn`t hold them otherwise.
Cameron offered a Scottish independence election in anticipation of a healthy `NO` vote. He was advised by wiser council to include a Devomax option- which would undoubtedly have carried the day- but was determined to kill of Scottish nationalism for a generation. At the time he announced his referendum I think votes for independence was polling around 30%. He made a mess of it but learned nothing.
For, come Brexit he tried the same scare tactics that had nearly lost him Scotland. He lost Europe. He was a calamity as a PM in terms of the UK state and the damage is still being felt today.
sammer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: desparado
Date: Mon 22 Feb 16:32
There is and always will be one good reason to be independent.
Independence.
Simple really.
Why when given the choice of running your own affairs or allowing others to do it for you , would you choose the latter?
U.K. derided India and Malta when they had the audacity to become independent.
The same scare stories were used. “ You will never survive without us “
Yet both have and are thriving.
Look at Ireland, one of the richest countries per GDP in the world now.
Why any self respecting Scot would still be happy having U.K. ministers look after our resources for us is beyond me, especially when it is blatantly obvious they are one of the most corrupt Governments in the developed world.
It is often said that politically Scotland and England are heading in different directions. Not necessarily true as Scotland is still a left of center and had been for a long time and possibly always will be.
It is England that is moving.....further and further to the right fuelled by English Nationalism.
If we don’t escape this rancid union we are done for, lock stock and barrel.
Not only will be handcuffing ourself to the right wing zealots, the cronyism the corruption, we will also be handing our country over, giving it away.
For make no mistake those in WM will ensure that we will never ever get to even discuss the possibility of Independence again ,they will also neuter the Scottish parliament and centralise power in WM, despite the fact that 75% of Scots were and still are in favour of having our own parliament. It won’t matter a jot to WM.
Scotland will become just a region of Britain ...aka England, for most in WM we already are just that.
And to think some Scots will be happy with that arrangement is utterly despicable.
What an opportunity we missed in 2014.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DBP
Date: Mon 22 Feb 17:42
1185:
1) In 2014 we were told that we should vote NO to secure our EU status. Much has been made of this promise. It is the bedrock of the current argument for independence. Yet it was ignored, totally, by every YES voter. Every YES voter either ignored it completely or was happy to gamble EU status.
Your argument is looking at the wrong group. I agree the yes voters didn’t believe that particular scare tactic, but many no voters did. Many eu nationals who were given the vote on Indy voted no for that very reason. Many people who work for companies were hearing concerns from their bosses about leaving the eu and voted no for that reason.
Now that decision had been taken against our will (against the vote of every single region of this country), like it or not/ use them or not - it has fundamentally changed all of our rights in regarding our European neighbours, it takes us off on a path to a destination we have demonstrated explicitly that want to go to and for me, highlights the differences in outlook, political direction and democratic deficit this union gives us
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par
Date: Mon 22 Feb 18:22
"Many eu nationals who were given the vote on Indy voted no for that very reason"
I`ve raised this on many occasions -
There were just over 150k EU citizens who voted in the referendum.
It is not unreasonable to assume that the vast majority voted `No` in order to stay in the EU, and also not unreasonable to assume that they would vote for an SNP government promising a swift return to the EU.
(Whether that is possible/probable is a different discussion!)
The final referendum tally was a 384k majority.
ONLY with reversing those 150k, takes it down to 84k.
(Apparently the number of EU citizens of voting age in Scotland is now estimated at 215k...)
My money would be on a large `Yes` vote at this time.
Boris`s only hope is to delay an Indyref2 long enough to hopefully have a big `Brexit dividend`.
It`s much easier to get people to vote to change a failing system than to exit from a successful one.
IF the UK in general, and Scotland in particular, is doing well, the chance of another `No` is there.
If it`s all going to hell - (and assuming that the EU is surviving/prospering), then the exit sings will be flashing...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Mon 22 Feb 18:31
Arguments based on the status quo (from both sides) are largely flawed. You cannot possibly know how the vaccination approach would work in an independent Scotland in the same way you can't know what Scotland's finances would look like.
The independence vote is not different to Brexit - vote yes if you want something different. It wasn't until AFTER the Brexit vote that it transpired how much of a mess it would be.
The same is likely true of Scottish independence. You won't have clarity until AFTER a yes vote. People can guess all day about trade, pensions, currency etc but they can't possibly know until we begin looking at a divorce agreement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Mon 22 Feb 19:04
"It wasn't until AFTER the Brexit vote that it transpired how much of a mess it would be."
It was written off as Project Fear but most of the issues around Brexit were flagged well in advance. The issues could have been greatly mitigated but the Tories had their red lines which meant we ended up with the scenario we have now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Mon 22 Feb 19:23
Quote:
Luxembourg Par, Mon 22 Feb 18:22
"Many eu nationals who were given the vote on Indy voted no for that very reason"
I`ve raised this on many occasions -
There were just over 150k EU citizens who voted in the referendum.
It is not unreasonable to assume that the vast majority voted `No` in order to stay in the EU, and also not unreasonable to assume that they would vote for an SNP government promising a swift return to the EU.
(Whether that is possible/probable is a different discussion!)
The final referendum tally was a 384k majority.
ONLY with reversing those 150k, takes it down to 84k.
(Apparently the number of EU citizens of voting age in Scotland is now estimated at 215k...)
My money would be on a large `Yes` vote at this time.
Boris`s only hope is to delay an Indyref2 long enough to hopefully have a big `Brexit dividend`.
It`s much easier to get people to vote to change a failing system than to exit from a successful one.
IF the UK in general, and Scotland in particular, is doing well, the chance of another `No` is there.
If it`s all going to hell - (and assuming that the EU is surviving/prospering), then the exit sings will be flashing...
Said the same thing as well in respect of EU nationals.
In terms of the psychology of which way the country would vote depending on how well the economy is doing, there is one theory based on stockmarket performance that has the reverse view:
https://www.whatinvestment.co.uk/scottish-independence-will-it-succeed-amid-brexit-turmoil-2616705/
I'm not sure if it's the most comprehensive piece of research and there's frequently a difference between cause and correlation that I'm not sure it completely covers off but it's main theory is that when the economy is doing well, the populous is more likely to take a chance on something like independence and when the economy is doing badly then folk are less likely to take a risk.
On top of the point about EU Nationals this polling suggests that of the people who didn't vote last time, they polled heavily to the Yes side so if they could be rallied to vote it could add impetus to the yes side too:
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2020/01/30/scottish-independence-yes-leads-remainers-increasi
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: BigJPar
Date: Tue 23 Feb 06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parboiled
Date: Tue 23 Feb 10:47
Would they still be shut a year later?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: BigJPar
Date: Tue 23 Feb 12:21
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parboiled
Date: Tue 23 Feb 14:21
And who do they share a border with?
Yet we share a border with a country that the vast bulk of our exports to Europe transit. And vice versa.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Tue 23 Feb 14:45
Yet we share a border with a country that the vast bulk of our exports to Europe transit. And vice versa.
A country which just left the world`s biggest market, dragging us with it.
Scotland`s people deserve the chance to decide which union we value more, now that both isn`t an option.
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: BigJPar
Date: Tue 23 Feb 14:58
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: LochgellyAlbert
Date: Tue 23 Feb 15:40
A ferry from Rosyth might be a good idea?🤔🏴🏴🏴
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parboiled
Date: Tue 23 Feb 17:25
The World`s biggest market is still trading with us, but it isn`t the market Scotland trades most with.
Don`t count on ferries either, been tried, subsidised and and sunk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sadindiefreak
Date: Tue 23 Feb 17:31
Quote:
Parboiled, Tue 23 Feb 17:25
The World`s biggest market is still trading with us, but it isn`t the market Scotland trades most with.
Don`t count on ferries either, been tried, subsidised and and sunk.
It is the market Scotland trades most with in terms of actual physical goods.
Most trade with England is financial services and the service industry which borders have very little influence over.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Wed 24 Feb 18:41
We only trade financial services with England because we share a currency. If we keep that currency we keep trading those things and if we adopt a different currency then we would be trading financial services in that currency.
The bottom line though is that Scotland has developed into a more Nordic-like nation which doesn`t sit well with the political and economic path that has been taken in Westminster for the past 40 years.
We have simply grown too far apart and it`s time for us to both move on whilst we can still have a modicum of affection and respect for each other.
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parboiled
Date: Wed 24 Feb 19:05
Quite right Wotsit, time to breakaway. First flight to Nordic I’m outa here
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: desparado
Date: Wed 24 Feb 21:53
Most reasonable thinking people are starting to realise that we have to leave the U.K.....well by that I mean those reasonable thinking people who voted NO in 2014.
There will always be those like halbe, MCT and others who come hell or high water want to be permanently chained to the U.K.
A U.K. that is fast becoming a right wing dictatorship, funnelling billions of pounds into their chums bank accounts, telling bare faced lies day in and out, putting Tory donors in to all the positions deemed necessary to control a nation. Parachuting unelected peers into governmental positions and all the while plotting and scheming to make even more money for themselves and their buddies .
Not to mention changing laws that will make it almost impossible to hold the U.K. gov to account.
The laugh, they sneer, they are getting to the point where they will soon be untouchable.
They don’t care a jot for Scotland or the average bloke in Scotland, heck they don’t even care about the average bloke in England.
How anybody in Scotland can put their trust in WM to run our affairs when we are perfectly capable of running our own affairs like Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, Ireland, Latvia. Lithuania, Estonia, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Malta, to name but just a few is utterly bewildering to me.
It can only be because of religious bigotry, an unhinged loyalty to a Labour Party that has screwed Scotland over countless times or some fanciful notion of Britishness. Or maybe just being a selfish Tory voting b@st@rd. Or of course a fear that we will crash and burn as an independent nation.
The last one never stopped any other country from becoming independent.
Scotland the Brave anyone ?
What an opportunity we missed in 2014.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Wed 24 Feb 22:03
I'm open minded and happy to be persuaded each way (currently I lean towards the yes camp but really want to see more detail).
What I find interesting is that both sides of the argument have a degree of blinkered nationalism (Scottish or British) but a lot of the British leaning ones seem to support a particular football team. I realise this shouldn't be surprising, but it's baffling that one team in particular should be the team for "Brits".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parboiled
Date: Thu 25 Feb 10:54
Don’t start that West of Scotland guff.
Been a Par for over six decades and British for seven.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Thu 25 Feb 13:15
You don`t appear to be addressing the facts any more Parboiled, rather you now appear to be lashing out and making sarcastic comments to those who are presenting said facts.
Just a wee observation :)
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: 1985Par
Date: Thu 25 Feb 14:43
Must be a very wee observation.
Struggling to find anything in Parboiled`s post that constitutes "lashing out or sarcasm"
I`ll read it again......
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parboiled
Date: Thu 25 Feb 15:26
Fair enough, sorry for the flippancy.
I have no idea what we have in common with Nordic countries, other than they appear, like Scotland, to be less ethnically diverse than our much more ethnically diverse neighbour over the border.
Then again I have never been in a Nordic city whereas I have spent time, through work and leisure, in quite a few English ones.
I have encountered a few Swedes and Norwegians on holiday in southern Europe, and they were nearly as boring as me so we got on quite well.
Post Edited (Thu 25 Feb 15:48)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Thu 25 Feb 17:11
Quote:
Parboiled, Thu 25 Feb 10:54
Don’t start that West of Scotland guff.
Been a Par for over six decades and British for seven.
"a lot of" not "all" 🙂
They appear more prominent as they're the more "passionate" ones.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Thu 25 Feb 19:36
When I talk about the Nordic countries what I mean is a more socially conscious and equal society where progressive taxation and government investment has raised the quality of life for the vast majority.
Where you aware, for example, that Nordic nations lead the global tables with regard to human rights, press freedom, educational attainment, happiness? Did you know that Finland has essentially ended homelessness? Guess how they did it? They gave people houses, the radicals!
Denmark is ethnically diverse. As is Sweden. Norway, Iceland and Finland not so much. They do have problems with racial tension too, just less intense because it isn`t being fed by poverty and alienation.
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Thu 25 Feb 21:53
Nordic countries certainly appear to have a social set up well in advance of anything in the UK.
However Parboiled’s point still stands. There are no obvious links between Scotland and Nordic countries save our size. Scotland has had a tendency to vote for left of centre parties but that was only the case during a 50 year period from around 1960. Before that the Scottish vote was mainly Unionist/Liberal, and recently has been overwhelmingly Nationalist. The notion of the ILP, Jimmy Maxton, Red Clydeside, Willie Gallacher, Jimmy Reid is still somewhere in Scottish consciousness but the reality is more prosaic: we are not a particularly socialist people. In contrast, the Social Democrats in Nordic countries have only rarely been out of power since WW2.
The SNP likes to imagine itself as a Nordic style government but the reality might be less Nordic and more Baltic. I have visited Estonia and Lithuania in the last few years and was unimpressed. Like Scotland throwing off the yoke of England, these countries threw off the yoke of the USSR. No doubt back in 1990 they too saw themselves aspiring to the Nordic model of prosperity, but what I saw was stagnation, particularly in Tallin which was a giant souvenir centre on the hill with Stalin era tramcars down below grinding through poorly lit streets. If you should ever become nostalgic for a spit and sawdust bar- and I’m fairly partial myself- then Tallin should provide your needs. Many of the educated younger people have left- I think Lithuania’s population is the fastest decreasing in Europe- and those remaining were still grumbling about Soviet rule although the EU was hardly winning any popularity contests either. As for human rights, some Russians born in Estonia have effectively been rendered stateless and are barred from voting.
sammer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Thu 25 Feb 22:55
To be fair Sammer, folk being left stateless is always something of a risk where imperialist colonialism is involved.
That the Baltic nations (who are closer to Helsinki than Moscow in both culture and geography) have successfully thrown off the Russian imperialist project is great. That Talin is now essentially a day trip destination for booze chasing young Finns is perhaps not what they had in mind, but it's better than what they had under the USSR's state capitalist empire.
The Northern Isles and Caithness beg to differ about there being no historical link with the Nordic nations:
From whose perspective was Sutherland named? Why are there so many folk with names like Pearson and Peterson in Scotland?
Why do you think Scottish people speak a dialect of English so distinctive that it can be, and often is, argued that Scots is a different language from English? All those "k" sounds and rolled Rs didn't just magic themselves into existence. Scotland goes from pretty historically Nordic at the top and fades into a more historically Germanic/Saxon heritage at the bottom in areas which were part of the Anglo Saxon Kingdom of Northumbria. The Northumbrian kingdom lost the Lothians to the Picts before the Danelaw was established, otherwise there would be an even greater Nordic influence.
Russia could learn a bit from Norway about how to successfully colonise a near neighbour.
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Fri 26 Feb 00:37
An impressive sweep of Scotland’s heritage from Wotsit, although Ireland seemed to be omitted. The links between Scotland and Ireland go back to ancient times yet Scotland after independence we are told will become like Norway rather than Eire. Which is a bit odd since Norway is not in the EU and Eire is.
As regards how successful a country is, I’ve never placed much faith in economic data from bodies like the World Bank. South Africa was flourishing under apartheid according to their criteria whilst the rest of Africa was a basket case. Any economy which follows neo-conservative economics and privatises everything in sight is lauded as a success in their eyes. The UK is often claimed to be the fifth largest in the world, which might raise a faint cheer down at the local foodbank.
Throwing off imperial projects is an attractive idea- until you find yourself part of the next one. Has the EU/NATO empire given a better life to people than the former USSR empire? In western media this question is merely dismissed, but in conversations with people in places such as Tallin and Budapest I’ve heard young people complaining that their grandparents had an easier life. That doesn’t mean they hanker after Soviet control but it shows disillusionment with what they felt independence and EU membership would bring. I’ve not visited Poland but I am sure a fair number of women are very unhappy about recent developments there.
So jettisoning Westminster rule is fine by me. But we can’t view our own country and the wider EU through rose tinted specs and assume we will become Norway.
sammer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Fri 26 Feb 15:20
although Ireland seemed to be omitted.
Sorry, I should have mentioned the many Norse settlements in Ireland. Dublin was the main one, but there were a few others.
You are, of course, right about the Scotland/Ireland link, which is just as important to the West of Scotland as is the Norse/Scots link in the north and the Saxon/Scotland link in the south. We have a unique and distinctive ethnic heritage, and that`s before we started to welcome people in from the EU and further afield.
I don`t expect that Scotland will become Norway by the way - just that Scotland is currently looking to move more towards that model whilst Westminster is seeking to follow a more neo-liberal/neocon path and these are not compatible, which would seem to make a split inevitable unless something changes.
It`s not so long ago that Thatcher, only half jokingly, said that Scotland would be independent when the SNP won a majority of Scottish Westminster seats, a view in which she was not alone. That no longer seems to be the prevailing attitude for some reason.
Post Edited (Fri 26 Feb 15:20)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parboiled
Date: Sat 27 Feb 11:32
Maybe because the Independence Party could win all the seats, but their votes would be outnumbered by the combined votes of the anti Indy parties.
Just like every seat they hold now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sadindiefreak
Date: Sat 27 Feb 12:10
Quote:
Parboiled, Sat 27 Feb 11:32
Maybe because the Independence Party could win all the seats, but their votes would be outnumbered by the combined votes of the anti Indy parties.
Just like every seat they hold now.
Are you aware that between 30 and 40% of Labour voters support independence?
To claim them as anti indy is disingenuous, in elections people vote on a myriad of issues . Independence being just one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: dafc
Date: Sat 27 Feb 12:25
Seriously no one voted Yes or No on the basis on being in EU of not in 2014. Certainly I am not aware of even one person whose decision was on basis of EU membership.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Sat 27 Feb 12:34
That`s a pretty sweeping statement but, if true, it was probably because no one thought we would be voted out of the EU within a couple of years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Sat 27 Feb 12:40
Quote:
dafc, Sat 27 Feb 12:25
Seriously no one voted Yes or No on the basis on being in EU of not in 2014. Certainly I am not aware of even one person whose decision was on basis of EU membership.
I do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DBP
Date: Sat 27 Feb 13:01
I know 10 people who voted no from work solely on that issue... they all apologised to me because they’re work friends and knew what way i was voting...
They’re all EU nationals who were given a vote because they live and work here in Scotland and were offered a say in its future
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Sat 27 Feb 14:42
I know a few people who voted No in 2014 mainly on the basis of EU membership and now openly regret it.
Maybe because the Independence Party could win all the seats, but their votes would be outnumbered by the combined votes of the anti Indy parties.
Just like every seat they hold now.
So change the system, it`s clearly dumb and not fit for purpose. What you can`t do in good conscience is keep the broken system when it suits you, but change the goalposts whenever you fancy.
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par
Date: Sat 27 Feb 17:10
"So change the system, it`s clearly dumb and not fit for purpose."
The `system` was already changed to prevent such a majority ever occurring.
The SNP majority is despite the system, not because of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Fri 5 Mar 16:16
The SNP doesn`t have a majority - it`s propped up by the Greens.
(Between 2007 and 2011 it was propped up by the Tories)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: moviescot
Date: Fri 5 Mar 21:40
Quote:
McCaig`s Tower, Fri 5 Mar 16:16
The SNP doesn`t have a majority - it`s propped up by the Greens.
(Between 2007 and 2011 it was propped up by the Tories)
SNP had a majority from 2011 to 2016 in a system that was set up to make it almost impossible for this to happen.
The current likely position for 2021 election is that SNP will again gain a majority government.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: pacifist
Date: Fri 12 Mar 17:21
I think there is only one party capable of running Scotland and that`s the SNP. At the moment - that may change if the other parties change their attitude. There is no sign of that though.
Labour are a divided mess, the tories are an utter joke, the libs are finished, and the greens are good to have as a conscience.
When it comes to Government they tend to get it right - time to start comparing with the charade in Westminster.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Malcolm Canmore
Date: Tue 16 Mar 21:59
Quote:
desparado, Mon 22 Feb 16:32
There is and always will be one good reason to be independent.
Independence.
Simple really.
Why when given the choice of running your own affairs or allowing others to do it for you , would you choose the latter?
U.K. derided India and Malta when they had the audacity to become independent.
The same scare stories were used. “ You will never survive without us “
Yet both have and are thriving.
Look at Ireland, one of the richest countries per GDP in the world now.
Why any self respecting Scot would still be happy having U.K. ministers look after our resources for us is beyond me, especially when it is blatantly obvious they are one of the most corrupt Governments in the developed world.
It is often said that politically Scotland and England are heading in different directions. Not necessarily true as Scotland is still a left of center and had been for a long time and possibly always will be.
It is England that is moving.....further and further to the right fuelled by English Nationalism.
If we don’t escape this rancid union we are done for, lock stock and barrel.
Not only will be handcuffing ourself to the right wing zealots, the cronyism the corruption, we will also be handing our country over, giving it away.
For make no mistake those in WM will ensure that we will never ever get to even discuss the possibility of Independence again ,they will also neuter the Scottish parliament and centralise power in WM, despite the fact that 75% of Scots were and still are in favour of having our own parliament. It won’t matter a jot to WM.
Scotland will become just a region of Britain ...aka England, for most in WM we already are just that.
And to think some Scots will be happy with that arrangement is utterly despicable.
This is a silly argument. Take it further and why wouldn’t Fife become independent of Scotland? Then, Dunfermline becomes independent of Fife.
The reason for not being independent is that we cannot afford it.
My dog eats meat
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Tue 16 Mar 22:11
In what way can't we afford it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Tue 16 Mar 23:23
As much as it's a flippant comment, Dunfermline SHOULD have more power than it does. The move away from District Councils may (not sure if it has) have saved money, but it's diluted local decision making.
I'm yet to see any robust evidence that Scotland could or could not afford independence. Kevin Hague can run off as many graphs as he likes, but his evidence is based on quite wild assumptions about the future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DBP
Date: Wed 17 Mar 21:46
Perhaps Dunfermline may have more relevance and therefore power if it had a true Scottish Parliament next door and was one of the main contributors of votes to said parliament...
In comparison, Dunfermline is very far away from Westminster and is very small compared to other English conurbations
|
|
|
|
|
|
