|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Thu 16 May 09:15
`Confirms`? Are they planning to do away with elections? Hasn`t there been `bad governance` in other parts of the UK? Is it all down to devolution?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Andrew283
Date: Thu 16 May 14:23
Jack`s really been bumping his gums this week. Absolute irrelevance
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Thu 16 May 17:07
He`s a typical arrogant, patrician Tory as evidenced by his appearance at the UK Covid enquiry. He`ll be off to join his Unionist chums in the House of Lords after the General Election.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Thu 16 May 18:21
But he`s right? No danger are we having an SNP government in Scotland after 2026
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Thu 16 May 18:50
I`m not sure about that anymore. I think the Swinney/Forbes ticket might yet turn it around. The question is should incompetence really be rewarded with another term?
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Thu 16 May 19:00
Well according to the Tories and Labour the SNP have given us 17 years of chaotic government yet in that time they`ve won four elections. What`s competence got to do with it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Thu 16 May 19:14
And what do you think the SNP have said about the Westminster government in that time despite the fact the Conservatives have won three elections in that same time frame?
Edit: Actually it was four election victories.
Post Edited (Thu 16 May 19:17)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Thu 16 May 19:22
The last two Westminster elections were about one issue - Brexit. All other issues were pushed to the side. One thing I`ve never seen explained is how the majority of the Scottish electorate saw the folly of Brexit and of electing somebody like Boris Johnson as PM but the bulk of the voters in England didn`t.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: red-star-par
Date: Thu 16 May 19:32
Quote:
wee eck, Thu 16 May 19:22
The last two Westminster elections were about one issue - Brexit. All other issues were pushed to the side. One thing I`ve never seen explained is how the majority of the Scottish electorate saw the folly of Brexit and of electing somebody like Boris Johnson as PM but the bulk of the voters in England didn`t.
I think that`s probably down to the fact that people in England tend to be a lot more easily led, and not as intelligent as their neighbours to the north
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Thu 16 May 19:53
Sadly, I think it`s more that Scots are simply more cautious whereas English are more gung ho.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Thu 16 May 19:55
Ok but the last four Holyrood elections have been dominated by one thing. Independence and other issues were very much secondary hence the incompetent job done in government.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Thu 16 May 20:00
Quote:
The One Who Knocks, Thu 16 May 19:55
Ok but the last four Holyrood elections have been dominated by one thing. Independence and other issues were very much secondary hence the incompetent job done in government.
Not really incompetent. The SNP have had to massively cut budgets as a result of austerity. Has money been wasted? Yes. Have they made some arguably poor decisions? Yes. Are they incompetent? Meh.
There are some slightly exaggerated figures going about regarding Labour PFI. I recall when I worked in the council the payments for DEBT were enormous and cut massive chunks out of budgets just to service them. A lot of that was to pay for all the lovely PFI schools.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Thu 16 May 20:51
So Scots voted in the last four Holyrood elections mainly on the issue of independence and that`s why the SNP won most seats? Here we are in 2024 and the cognoscenti have already made up their minds that in 2026 voters will make their choice on the SNP`s record in government rather than independence, support for which is still hovering around 50% according to polls. Does that not suggest voters were generally happy with the SNP`s overall competence in the previous four elections, not that they ignored it in favour of independence?
A lot of the stuff that`s making Scots voters unhappy just now is also affecting voters in the other parts of the UK - the state of the NHS, the cost of living, mortgage rates, the lack of affordable housing. We`re now hearing overcrowded prisons are an issue on both sides of the border. The Unionist parties like to highlight specific issues where they think Scotland is failing like education, the ferries and drug deaths but there are other issues where Scotland is relatively superior which don`t get mentioned like water supply, child poverty, free travel for young and old, free prescriptions etc. Overall I`m not convinced we are suffering unduly from poor government administration in Scotland. I think there will always be problems when there is a unionist party in charge at Westminster and an independence party in charge at Holyrood. I suspect that was never envisaged when devolution was approved and Westminster is now encroaching on Holyrood`s powers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tad Allagash
Date: Thu 16 May 23:59
‘I think that`s probably down to the fact that people in England tend to be a lot more easily led, and not as intelligent as their neighbours to the north’
If that were a fact Red Star, then you’d be able to construct a proper sentence using commas and full stops correctly.
As for wee Eck’s question:
Technically the majority of the Scottish electorate didn’t vote Remain. Most who turned up did, but the turnout was on the low side in Scotland. Also, Boris Johnson got more votes than Jeremy Corbyn in Scotland in 2019, so that bit is not true either.
Anyway, nitpicking aside, I think at least some of it comes down to demographics.
English cities voted the same way as similar sized Scottish cities. In Scotland, Glasgow and Edinburgh dominate, but in England you’ve got a large population in rural areas or small market towns which tends to balance out the metropolitan vote.
Consider the politicians who were around at the time.
The Scottish Tory leader (Ruth Davidson) went all-in for remain. The Tory remain campaign in England was led by the likes of George Osborne, Theresa May, and Liz Truss. Enough said.
The Labour Party was led by Jeremy Corbyn, who was less than enthusiastic about remain.
And finally, the Europhile Lib Dems had been wiped out after their coalition ended in 2015.
Another question is: why Scots were more likely to vote leave than the rest of the UK in the original 1975 referendum?
And who represents the 38% of Scottish voters who did vote for Brexit? This includes at least 30% of SNP voters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Fri 17 May 00:32
I love it when folk twist the results of a straightforward election to suit their own position to the point of including the `votes` of people who weren`t bothered enough to turn out to vote. How easily led voters are to be influenced by the politicians involved rather than the issues. Boris Johnson might have got more votes than Jeremy Corbyn in Scotland but his party didn`t get a majority of the seats which is how Westminster elections are decided.
What`s 1975 got to do with it? The 38% of Scots voters who voted for Brexit were represented by being on the winning side. It`s the 62% who voted to stay in who weren`t represented. What a load of tosh!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DBP
Date: Fri 17 May 05:28
Quote:
jake89, Thu 16 May 19:53
Sadly, I think it`s more that Scots are simply more cautious whereas English are more gung ho.
I agree with that, I don’t think the majority of Scotland is overly tension or even wildly pro EU…
I think what they are at the macro level, are a majority of people who voted for the status quo on both referendums!
Too timid to throw the dice, too worried about remotely upsetting the apple cart in case it potentially impacts them in any way…
I think we can write off any image we have of ourselves about being bold, brave etc because I’d wager collectively we’re more risk averse, submissive, lack belief in our own ability and will willingly get a large spoon to consume whatever any project fear feeds us
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Fri 17 May 06:34
I don`t know how many times it needs said, but you vote for your MSP/MP, not the leader of the party. Only party members vote on that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: alwaysaPar
Date: Fri 17 May 09:02
Quote:
jake89, Fri 17 May 06:34
I don`t know how many times it needs said, but you vote for your MSP/MP, not the leader of the party. Only party members vote on that.
Welcome to the modern day Popular voting society, sometimes they would be as well just having a phone vote like Love Island or Britain`s got Talent because unfortunately that`s how today`s parties set up to get your vote
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Fri 17 May 09:06
We Scots must have more stereotypes given to us than any other nation and a lot of them are contradictory. Depending on circumstances we can be canny or gallus, dour or party-loving, mean or generous.
When it comes to independence I think `feart` is as good an adjective as any. Some Scots are looking for a degree of certainty it`s impossible to give and one which cannot be given in regard to any form of government but the old adage `better the devil you know than the one you don`t know` seems to apply for some.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Fri 17 May 12:38
As much as Scotland is "feart", England is "daft". They blame Labour for the economy and migration but ignore it`s been far worse under the Tories.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: hurricane_jimmy
Date: Fri 17 May 13:58
From my experience of living and working in England, the simple truth is that they have a remarkably high opinion of thenmselves, largely due to the fact that they have never been forced to reflect on their own Imperialism. The same can be said of Contemporary Russia and their actions toward the Ukrainians. Funnily enough, they like to call anyone who tells them their system is ridiculous "entitled".
I found much more in common with my fellow Swedes and the Danes across the water, the Germans and the Dutch than I ever found in common with the English. Nae doubt though in the eyes of dinosaurs like Parboiled and Tad Allagash that will make me "anglophobic" but we can live in certainty that their world view is dying out, which is all the better for humanity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tad Allagash
Date: Fri 17 May 15:37
‘I found much more in common with my fellow Swedes and the Dane’s’
Let me guess - the raping and pillaging?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: hurricane_jimmy
Date: Fri 17 May 16:46
Oh, the old defensive quip - very telling! 😂Surprisingly not though Tad - more a sense of humanistic decency which is acutely absent from Imperialist British Nationalists like yourself!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Sat 18 May 15:20
You`d think a Nat-C like Tad would be more cautious about broaching the subject of historical atrocities.
"Who you are and what you feel comes not just from inside you, but from where you are in the power structure"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: hurricane_jimmy
Date: Sat 18 May 18:57
Oh, but Wotsit my dear fellow, it`s far more satisfying for their egos to focus on the mistakes of the Scottish Government and engage in a propaganda campaign. While it is absolutely right to scrutinise government, let`s make no mistake that this is simply intended to distract attention from their leaders` own ties and vested interests regarding Russian Oligarch money, weapons supplies to the Saudis, cronyism in domestic public contracts etc etc.
I`m based in Hong Kong at the moment and the Imperialist attitude that you get among a lot of the English ex-pats out here is just...unreal. Even the Americans here are far more grounded!
Then you have Rishi Sunak trying to say that supporters of Scottish Independence are on the same level as Putin and the CCP. It really does make one think that these folk are a special type of special. Then, when you see Orange Lodge men wae law degrees like Murdo Fraser in the Scottish Tory ranks, it simply confirms the hypothesis.
I saw a clip of Jacob Rees-Mogg was on GB News the other day begging Nigel Farage and Richard Tice to enter into negotiations with the Tories so as not to split the right vote with ReformUK. But this is apparently because the changes to the constituency borders have put his seat at risk. Gotta smile!
If we do end up with a Labour minority or Labour/Lib Dem coalition in Holyrood again in a year or two, I reckon Scots will see very little change and quickly realise that a lot of the problems in Scotland are down to the overarching economic failures of the UK. Scotland would do far better to stand with the collective might of 450Mn of the EU27 than to continue to deal with a UK in terminal decline, hamstrung by England voting to economically sanction itself out of ill-founded nationalist pride. The sad thing is the amount of time being wasted delaying the inevitable and the effect this will have on future generations of young Scots.
Do folk like Parboiled and Tad Allagash care? Naw because they`re awright! Genuinely shameful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tad Allagash
Date: Sat 18 May 19:35
WTF is a Nat-C Wotsit? A Google search comes up with a vitamin supplement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Sat 18 May 20:16
Just a shortning of "National Conservative" Tad.
"Who you are and what you feel comes not just from inside you, but from where you are in the power structure"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Sat 18 May 22:47
Quote:
Wotsit, Sat 18 May 20:16
Just a shortning of "National Conservative" Tad.
Next question - what`s a national conservative? 😂
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Sat 18 May 22:59
Nat-C-ism is faction of the right wing in many countries which focuses on "traditional values."
Reform and a significant faction of the Tories represent those values here.
"Who you are and what you feel comes not just from inside you, but from where you are in the power structure"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tad Allagash
Date: Sun 19 May 00:34
Let’s just hope the Chinese Communist Party aren’t monitoring Hurricane Jimmy’s posts whilst he’s in Hong Kong 😂
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: PARrot
Date: Sun 19 May 00:59
Quote:
wee eck, Thu 16 May 19:00
Well according to the Tories and Labour the SNP have given us 17 years of chaotic government, yet in that time they`ve won four elections. What`s competence got to do with it?
When you suddenly, unexpectedly find yourself in a situation where you desperately need the services they are supposed to provide, you realise sharply how important competence is.
I voted for SNP regularly over the past 10 years or so.
Not the next time, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Sun 19 May 01:11
What makes you think any of the alternatives will be any more competent? The Tories at Westminster and Labour in Cardiff aren`t doing a great job. Maybe there are other forces at play.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: hurricane_jimmy
Date: Sun 19 May 06:33
Oh dear Tad, like all Tories, you are desperate to deflect from the point wherever possible. How about actually addressing some of the corruption within your party? Or are you suddenly "not associated" with them?
I guess you`re also showing your age there when you`re not aware of VPNs! 😂
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parboiled
Date: Sun 19 May 11:23
Separatists in retreat in Catalonia and have collapsed in Quebec , the oldie votes dying out...
Same here methinks!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: hurricane_jimmy
Date: Sun 19 May 17:46
I guess Parboiled expects us all to ignore the English separatists who ostracised us from our European friends and caused untold economic damage. These are the same folk who are now greetin about the SNP apparently failing to address a "Cost of Living Crisis" that they created...
Deflect, deflect, deflect - Nothing to see here!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Sun 19 May 19:19
I remember Parboiled proudly boasting he didn`t have a a millilitre of Scottish blood in his veins but that hasn`t stopped him being infected with the Scottish cringe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par
Date: Sun 19 May 20:48
Quote:
Parboiled, Sun 19 May 11:23
Separatists in retreat in Catalonia and have collapsed in Quebec , the oldie votes dying out...
Same here methinks!
Exact opposite here…
Oldie votes dying out will positively affect the Yes vote.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parboiled
Date: Mon 20 May 06:32
What is the Scottish cringe? Symptoms? Is it curable ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Mon 20 May 10:21
The main symptom is that those who suffer from it don`t realise they`ve got it. Until they do there`s no chance of a cure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parboiled
Date: Mon 20 May 10:31
Can’t be worse than Indy is deid denial…
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Mon 20 May 11:08
We`ll know it`s deid when you stop posting about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Wed 22 May 19:54
I would have thought that many inflationary pressures were global – things like the war in Ukraine causing increases to energy prices and CoVid causing disruptions to supply chains and giving rise to deferred consumption. And of course one-off shocks will come out of the index after a year.
Given this, it’s difficult to assign most of the blame for inflation going up, just as it is difficult to award credit for it coming back down again. (And the independent Bank of England notionally retains responsibility for managing inflation to its target of 2% p.a.)
There also seems to be some revisionism with regards to “austerity” – assuming this to mean (relative) cuts to public spending. I seem to remember all parties were in favour of cuts – just differing over the timing and extent. (And don’t forget Kate Forbes’ joint authorship of the Sustainable Growth Commission report which advocated long-term austerity, a report that seems to have been quietly binned.)
Regarding wee eck’s point about different voting behaviours, particularly with regard to Europe, the Scottish Exceptionalist argument would be that the English are naturally inferior. Obviously I would disagree with that argument; instead I think that many people simply picked the populist and nationalist option most available to them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Thu 23 May 12:08
`Regarding wee eck’s point about different voting behaviours, particularly with regard to Europe, the Scottish Exceptionalist argument would be that the English are naturally inferior. Obviously I would disagree with that argument; instead I think that many people simply picked the populist and nationalist option most available to them.`
Where exactly did I put forward a `Scottish Exceptionalist argument` that suggested the English are `naturally inferior`? For some reason Unionists just can`t entertain the possibility that folk north of the border have a different outlook on certain political issues from our neighbours to the south. It`s not `superior` it`s just `different`. Besides the Brexit vote, how else do you explain the fact that the Tories haven`t won any election up here since the 1950s whilst they have dominated Westminster elections in that time? What exactly does `I think that many people simply picked the populist and nationalist option most available to them` actually mean and why did they choose that option?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: desparado
Date: Thu 23 May 14:40
The narrative being pushed about the Scottish Gov (SNP ) being incompetent is from the Unionist press, who never ever have a good news story. It’s bad bad bad all the time, so it’s no wonder it has an effect on voting intentions. The Scottish gov have made a horses a** of a few things as all governments do but generally they do a good job trying to mitigate the worst of the Tory policies foisted upon us…..at a cost of c £600 million pa.
There is a democratic deficit in Scotland due to the fact that our neighbours down south have 80% of the voters. Scotlands votes very rarely count and they won’t at this GE either. If nobody in Scotland voted there will still be a Labour Gov.
Will it make any difference in the big scheme of things? Of course not. Starmer will be allowed to win, just as Tony Blair was and Corbyn never could.
Labour/Tory……No difference, they both pander to the people who really pull the strings.
One, maybe two terms of a Labour Gov, then the Tories are back in again and round and round we go in a never ending cycle.
Nothing will change. WM is essentially the English Parliament and Scotland and Wales will always be an after thought.
If people in Scotland are happy with this arrangement, well, hell mend us. We deserve everything we get and not much of it will be good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: MikeyLeonard
Date: Thu 23 May 16:56
Quote:
desparado, Thu 23 May 14:40
The narrative being pushed about the Scottish Gov (SNP ) being incompetent is from the Unionist press, who never ever have a good news story. It’s bad bad bad all the time, so it’s no wonder it has an effect on voting intentions. The Scottish gov have made a horses a** of a few things as all governments do but generally they do a good job trying to mitigate the worst of the Tory policies foisted upon us…..at a cost of c £600 million pa.
There is a democratic deficit in Scotland due to the fact that our neighbours down south have 80% of the voters. Scotlands votes very rarely count and they won’t at this GE either. If nobody in Scotland voted there will still be a Labour Gov.
Will it make any difference in the big scheme of things? Of course not. Starmer will be allowed to win, just as Tony Blair was and Corbyn never could.
Labour/Tory……No difference, they both pander to the people who really pull the strings.
One, maybe two terms of a Labour Gov, then the Tories are back in again and round and round we go in a never ending cycle.
Nothing will change. WM is essentially the English Parliament and Scotland and Wales will always be an after thought.
If people in Scotland are happy with this arrangement, well, hell mend us. We deserve everything we get and not much of it will be good.
Exactly how I see things too Desparado 😕
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Thu 23 May 19:47
Quote:
desparado, Thu 23 May 14:40
The narrative being pushed about the Scottish Gov (SNP ) being incompetent is from the Unionist press, who never ever have a good news story. It’s bad bad bad all the time, so it’s no wonder it has an effect on voting intentions. The Scottish gov have made a horses a** of a few things as all governments do but generally they do a good job trying to mitigate the worst of the Tory policies foisted upon us…..at a cost of c £600 million pa.
There is a democratic deficit in Scotland due to the fact that our neighbours down south have 80% of the voters. Scotlands votes very rarely count and they won’t at this GE either. If nobody in Scotland voted there will still be a Labour Gov.
Will it make any difference in the big scheme of things? Of course not. Starmer will be allowed to win, just as Tony Blair was and Corbyn never could.
Labour/Tory……No difference, they both pander to the people who really pull the strings.
One, maybe two terms of a Labour Gov, then the Tories are back in again and round and round we go in a never ending cycle.
Nothing will change. WM is essentially the English Parliament and Scotland and Wales will always be an after thought.
If people in Scotland are happy with this arrangement, well, hell mend us. We deserve everything we get and not much of it will be good.
The Scottish people certainly aren't happy about this arrangement. They`ve voted the SNP into power for 16 years on the promise the SNP would deliver Independence, which is sitting at 50%+ . sadly, the SNP are comfortable to sit in Holyrood with a devolutionist mindset, and the natives are now getting restless, and the SNP will find out in 6 weeks time what damage they've done.
But it doesn`t really matter because if the SNP get 5 or 45 into Westminster its not going to make any difference because asking for a s30 has ran its course and the public know it.
The public deserve to be independent running their own country its the political party that's let them down.
Vote SNP and all we're going to get is more devolution.
Post Edited (Thu 23 May 19:57)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Thu 23 May 19:54
It`s not at 50%+ and hasn`t been for some years now.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Thu 23 May 20:11
Quote:
The One Who Knocks, Thu 23 May 19:54
It`s not at 50%+ and hasn`t been for some years now.
Wishful thinking on my part....Ipsos Scotland November 2023 independence polling at 51%.
Now polling at 46%. It's got worse even with the blue tories in government.
Post Edited (Thu 23 May 20:15)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: LochgellyAlbert
Date: Thu 23 May 21:06
Quote:
Tenruh, Thu 23 May 20:11
Quote:
The One Who Knocks, Thu 23 May 19:54
It`s not at 50%+ and hasn`t been for some years now.
Wishful thinking on my part....Ipsos Scotland November 2023 independence polling at 51%.
Now polling at 46%. It`s got worse even with the blue tories in government.
Will be if they keep polling south of the border!🤔😲
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Dave_1885
Date: Thu 23 May 22:21
Quote:
Tenruh, Thu 23 May 19:47
Quote:
desparado, Thu 23 May 14:40
The narrative being pushed about the Scottish Gov (SNP ) being incompetent is from the Unionist press, who never ever have a good news story. It’s bad bad bad all the time, so it’s no wonder it has an effect on voting intentions. The Scottish gov have made a horses a** of a few things as all governments do but generally they do a good job trying to mitigate the worst of the Tory policies foisted upon us…..at a cost of c £600 million pa.
There is a democratic deficit in Scotland due to the fact that our neighbours down south have 80% of the voters. Scotlands votes very rarely count and they won’t at this GE either. If nobody in Scotland voted there will still be a Labour Gov.
Will it make any difference in the big scheme of things? Of course not. Starmer will be allowed to win, just as Tony Blair was and Corbyn never could.
Labour/Tory……No difference, they both pander to the people who really pull the strings.
One, maybe two terms of a Labour Gov, then the Tories are back in again and round and round we go in a never ending cycle.
Nothing will change. WM is essentially the English Parliament and Scotland and Wales will always be an after thought.
If people in Scotland are happy with this arrangement, well, hell mend us. We deserve everything we get and not much of it will be good.
The Scottish people certainly aren`t happy about this arrangement. They`ve voted the SNP into power for 16 years on the promise the SNP would deliver Independence, which is sitting at 50% . sadly, the SNP are comfortable to sit in Holyrood with a devolutionist mindset, and the natives are now getting restless, and the SNP will find out in 6 weeks time what damage they`ve done.
But it doesn`t really matter because if the SNP get 5 or 45 into Westminster its not going to make any difference because asking for a s30 has ran its course and the public know it.
The public deserve to be independent running their own country its the political party that`s let them down.
Vote SNP and all we`re going to get is more devolution.
You keep peddling this line that the SNP are happy to be a devolutionist party, but still cant tell us the legal route to independence that they could have taken in the last 10 years…….
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Thu 23 May 23:14
He probably blamed Santa when he didn`t get a unicorn for Christmas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Fri 24 May 06:02
Quote:
Dave_1885, Thu 23 May 22:21
Quote:
Tenruh, Thu 23 May 19:47
Quote:
desparado, Thu 23 May 14:40
The narrative being pushed about the Scottish Gov (SNP ) being incompetent is from the Unionist press, who never ever have a good news story. It’s bad bad bad all the time, so it’s no wonder it has an effect on voting intentions. The Scottish gov have made a horses a** of a few things as all governments do but generally they do a good job trying to mitigate the worst of the Tory policies foisted upon us…..at a cost of c £600 million pa.
There is a democratic deficit in Scotland due to the fact that our neighbours down south have 80% of the voters. Scotlands votes very rarely count and they won’t at this GE either. If nobody in Scotland voted there will still be a Labour Gov.
Will it make any difference in the big scheme of things? Of course not. Starmer will be allowed to win, just as Tony Blair was and Corbyn never could.
Labour/Tory……No difference, they both pander to the people who really pull the strings.
One, maybe two terms of a Labour Gov, then the Tories are back in again and round and round we go in a never ending cycle.
Nothing will change. WM is essentially the English Parliament and Scotland and Wales will always be an after thought.
If people in Scotland are happy with this arrangement, well, hell mend us. We deserve everything we get and not much of it will be good.
The Scottish people certainly aren`t happy about this arrangement. They`ve voted the SNP into power for 16 years on the promise the SNP would deliver Independence, which is sitting at 50% . sadly, the SNP are comfortable to sit in Holyrood with a devolutionist mindset, and the natives are now getting restless, and the SNP will find out in 6 weeks time what damage they`ve done.
But it doesn`t really matter because if the SNP get 5 or 45 into Westminster its not going to make any difference because asking for a s30 has ran its course and the public know it.
The public deserve to be independent running their own country its the political party that`s let them down.
Vote SNP and all we`re going to get is more devolution.
You keep peddling this line that the SNP are happy to be a devolutionist party, but still cant tell us the legal route to independence that they could have taken in the last 10 years…….
That`s for the SNP to tell us surely? They keep promising it before a GA to harvest up the votes.
Go show me what the SNP have done to convince you they are totally committed to Independence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Dave_1885
Date: Fri 24 May 09:17
Quote:
Tenruh, Fri 24 May 06:02
Quote:
Dave_1885, Thu 23 May 22:21
Quote:
Tenruh, Thu 23 May 19:47
Quote:
desparado, Thu 23 May 14:40
The narrative being pushed about the Scottish Gov (SNP ) being incompetent is from the Unionist press, who never ever have a good news story. It’s bad bad bad all the time, so it’s no wonder it has an effect on voting intentions. The Scottish gov have made a horses a** of a few things as all governments do but generally they do a good job trying to mitigate the worst of the Tory policies foisted upon us…..at a cost of c £600 million pa.
There is a democratic deficit in Scotland due to the fact that our neighbours down south have 80% of the voters. Scotlands votes very rarely count and they won’t at this GE either. If nobody in Scotland voted there will still be a Labour Gov.
Will it make any difference in the big scheme of things? Of course not. Starmer will be allowed to win, just as Tony Blair was and Corbyn never could.
Labour/Tory……No difference, they both pander to the people who really pull the strings.
One, maybe two terms of a Labour Gov, then the Tories are back in again and round and round we go in a never ending cycle.
Nothing will change. WM is essentially the English Parliament and Scotland and Wales will always be an after thought.
If people in Scotland are happy with this arrangement, well, hell mend us. We deserve everything we get and not much of it will be good.
The Scottish people certainly aren`t happy about this arrangement. They`ve voted the SNP into power for 16 years on the promise the SNP would deliver Independence, which is sitting at 50% . sadly, the SNP are comfortable to sit in Holyrood with a devolutionist mindset, and the natives are now getting restless, and the SNP will find out in 6 weeks time what damage they`ve done.
But it doesn`t really matter because if the SNP get 5 or 45 into Westminster its not going to make any difference because asking for a s30 has ran its course and the public know it.
The public deserve to be independent running their own country its the political party that`s let them down.
Vote SNP and all we`re going to get is more devolution.
You keep peddling this line that the SNP are happy to be a devolutionist party, but still cant tell us the legal route to independence that they could have taken in the last 10 years…….
That`s for the SNP to tell us surely? They keep promising it before a GA to harvest up the votes.
Go show me what the SNP have done to convince you they are totally committed to Independence.
Im guessing you missed the part where they went to the Supreme Court about the laws regarding an Indy Ref then…….
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Fri 24 May 09:25
Quote:
Dave_1885, Fri 24 May 09:17
Quote:
Tenruh, Fri 24 May 06:02
Quote:
Dave_1885, Thu 23 May 22:21
Quote:
Tenruh, Thu 23 May 19:47
Quote:
desparado, Thu 23 May 14:40
The narrative being pushed about the Scottish Gov (SNP ) being incompetent is from the Unionist press, who never ever have a good news story. It’s bad bad bad all the time, so it’s no wonder it has an effect on voting intentions. The Scottish gov have made a horses a** of a few things as all governments do but generally they do a good job trying to mitigate the worst of the Tory policies foisted upon us…..at a cost of c £600 million pa.
There is a democratic deficit in Scotland due to the fact that our neighbours down south have 80% of the voters. Scotlands votes very rarely count and they won’t at this GE either. If nobody in Scotland voted there will still be a Labour Gov.
Will it make any difference in the big scheme of things? Of course not. Starmer will be allowed to win, just as Tony Blair was and Corbyn never could.
Labour/Tory……No difference, they both pander to the people who really pull the strings.
One, maybe two terms of a Labour Gov, then the Tories are back in again and round and round we go in a never ending cycle.
Nothing will change. WM is essentially the English Parliament and Scotland and Wales will always be an after thought.
If people in Scotland are happy with this arrangement, well, hell mend us. We deserve everything we get and not much of it will be good.
The Scottish people certainly aren`t happy about this arrangement. They`ve voted the SNP into power for 16 years on the promise the SNP would deliver Independence, which is sitting at 50% . sadly, the SNP are comfortable to sit in Holyrood with a devolutionist mindset, and the natives are now getting restless, and the SNP will find out in 6 weeks time what damage they`ve done.
But it doesn`t really matter because if the SNP get 5 or 45 into Westminster its not going to make any difference because asking for a s30 has ran its course and the public know it.
The public deserve to be independent running their own country its the political party that`s let them down.
Vote SNP and all we`re going to get is more devolution.
You keep peddling this line that the SNP are happy to be a devolutionist party, but still cant tell us the legal route to independence that they could have taken in the last 10 years…….
That`s for the SNP to tell us surely? They keep promising it before a GA to harvest up the votes.
Go show me what the SNP have done to convince you they are totally committed to Independence.
Im guessing you missed the part where they went to the Supreme Court about the laws regarding an Indy Ref then…….
How stupid was that....Why did it take 10 years to go to a made-up court setup by Tony Blair to stiffle independence, they could have gone there in 2015 , at least going to it got rid of Sturgeon.
40+ SNP MPs in Westminster for 10 years doing nothing other than taking the wages.what has that achieved for Scotland?
Post Edited (Fri 24 May 09:29)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Fri 24 May 09:37
At least the folk who voted them in know they are still loyal to the SNP, unlike your pals in Alba.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Fri 24 May 10:57
I think this is a dilemma. Despite their faults, I think the SNP have Scotland`s best interest at heart, particularly those in Holyrood. However, I can see the attraction of change. But voting Labour will be an absolute disaster for Scotland. Sarwar is one of the weakest leaders in Holyrood and "Scottish" Labour MPs and MSPs will be forced to dance to the tune of Keir Starmer who is probably the least Labour-like MP to have ever walked the Earth.
I`ve said already I don`t think I can vote Green again. It feels like they`ve forgotten about green issues and independence and are transfixed by trans issues. I`m not denying there are issues for trans people but we are talking about a tiny proportion of the Scottish public and most of their issues are a result of our-dated processes and IT systems that can`t cope with someone who is biologically a woman being recorded as being a man with a "Mr" prefix. From that tiny proportion of people there is an even tinier group of people who take it to the extreme.
I`d be keen to hear from Alba but I don`t think Dunfermline has a candidate. I`d also prefer they were led by someone like Salmond despite his tarnished past as he`s still a very intelligent and articulate leader IMO.
Anyone STILL voting Tory needs their heads checked IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parboiled
Date: Fri 24 May 11:59
I suppose all you fervent Seps will be donating to the SNP election fighting fund?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Fri 24 May 12:43
Quote:
wee eck, Fri 24 May 09:37
At least the folk who voted them in know they are still loyal to the SNP, unlike your pals in Alba.
Could you please break that down a bit as I`m lost in what you`ve wrote.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Fri 24 May 13:23
Could you translate your question into English to give me a chance of understanding it? You`ll get Scottish education a bad name.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Dave_1885
Date: Fri 24 May 15:56
Quote:
Tenruh, Fri 24 May 09:25
Quote:
Dave_1885, Fri 24 May 09:17
Quote:
Tenruh, Fri 24 May 06:02
Quote:
Dave_1885, Thu 23 May 22:21
Quote:
Tenruh, Thu 23 May 19:47
Quote:
desparado, Thu 23 May 14:40
The narrative being pushed about the Scottish Gov (SNP ) being incompetent is from the Unionist press, who never ever have a good news story. It’s bad bad bad all the time, so it’s no wonder it has an effect on voting intentions. The Scottish gov have made a horses a** of a few things as all governments do but generally they do a good job trying to mitigate the worst of the Tory policies foisted upon us…..at a cost of c £600 million pa.
There is a democratic deficit in Scotland due to the fact that our neighbours down south have 80% of the voters. Scotlands votes very rarely count and they won’t at this GE either. If nobody in Scotland voted there will still be a Labour Gov.
Will it make any difference in the big scheme of things? Of course not. Starmer will be allowed to win, just as Tony Blair was and Corbyn never could.
Labour/Tory……No difference, they both pander to the people who really pull the strings.
One, maybe two terms of a Labour Gov, then the Tories are back in again and round and round we go in a never ending cycle.
Nothing will change. WM is essentially the English Parliament and Scotland and Wales will always be an after thought.
If people in Scotland are happy with this arrangement, well, hell mend us. We deserve everything we get and not much of it will be good.
The Scottish people certainly aren`t happy about this arrangement. They`ve voted the SNP into power for 16 years on the promise the SNP would deliver Independence, which is sitting at 50% . sadly, the SNP are comfortable to sit in Holyrood with a devolutionist mindset, and the natives are now getting restless, and the SNP will find out in 6 weeks time what damage they`ve done.
But it doesn`t really matter because if the SNP get 5 or 45 into Westminster its not going to make any difference because asking for a s30 has ran its course and the public know it.
The public deserve to be independent running their own country its the political party that`s let them down.
Vote SNP and all we`re going to get is more devolution.
You keep peddling this line that the SNP are happy to be a devolutionist party, but still cant tell us the legal route to independence that they could have taken in the last 10 years…….
That`s for the SNP to tell us surely? They keep promising it before a GA to harvest up the votes.
Go show me what the SNP have done to convince you they are totally committed to Independence.
Im guessing you missed the part where they went to the Supreme Court about the laws regarding an Indy Ref then…….
How stupid was that....Why did it take 10 years to go to a made-up court setup by Tony Blair to stiffle independence, they could have gone there in 2015 , at least going to it got rid of Sturgeon.
40 SNP MPs in Westminster for 10 years doing nothing other than taking the wages.what has that achieved for Scotland?
Its actually painful trying to have a conversation with you on this…….
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Sat 25 May 16:03
wee eck
Thanks for your response – I fear this forum had become a little moribund; you may be pleased to have opinions to discuss, although the recent actions of Messrs Sunak and Swinney have been helpful in this regard.
You asked a question, I attempted to answer it (you probably don’t like my answer, but that is par for the course). In fact, I proposed two answers, one (which I termed “the Scottish Exceptionalist” explanation) I rejected. Note I didn’t accuse you of this, but perhaps you will agree this is an argument frequently used by others. The English are “not as intelligent” as the Scots and “have a high opinion of themselves” (not an accusation that could be levelled at any of us…) “Scottish voters saw through the lies of the Brexit campaign … but the majority of English voters didn`t”.
Have the Tories “dominated” Westminster elections? How many GEs have there been since and including 1955? 18? Of which the Tories won 9, Labour 6 and no clear winner in 3. The score was 7-6 until the last decade or so.
But why the difference in voting behaviour? There will be many reasons. One factor may be the predominance of electors in urban rather than rural areas. For some reason they tend to vote Labour (or did – I suspect a lot will swing back this time). Why do you think there is a difference? I’m not sure what point you are trying to make here.
Note there are plenty of Tory voters in the shires, and plenty of fiscal and social conservatives in the SNP – look how popular Kate Forbes is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Sat 25 May 16:06
Second, the point about populism/nationalism.
In broad terms, when people are satisfied with their lot, they vote for the status quo. When not, they seek change (even if the change would objectively make them worse off).
After 60 odd years of almost continuous improvements to living standards (perhaps unparalleled in history) we’ve met a few bumps in the road – principally the global financial crisis, but also more laterally the pandemic and the war in Ukraine. This leaves people vulnerable to promises of “instant cures”. An easy fix. Lay the blame on others.
Scexit and Brexit are/were essentially popular solutions that appear superficially attractive. Would you admit there are similarities?
But why the difference in Brexit voting? Well, maybe we’re different. Maybe we saw through the lies better, (But why?). But I think the difference is probably more due to being a function of notional party loyalty – the Tories were neutral, so their votes split. Labour in England were a bit ambivalent. The Lib Dems were pro-Europe. The SNP a bit half-heartedly pro-Europe. Some voters would have voted on “party” lines. But I think there is a second factor – we’ve been told we’re different for so long that we begin to believe the propaganda, that we are more “pro-Europe”. Or whatever England isn’t. (I strongly suspect that if England looked like voting “remain” there would have been more of a temptation to vote “leave”.) And of course 45% were happy to leave the EU in 2014 so their commitment to the EU is questionable.
But this is an interesting phenomenon – if you tell people they are different for long enough do they become different? Or do they just think they are?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Sat 25 May 17:27
I admire your indefatigability but, frankly, I`m not so much interested in why Scots vote differently than the fact that they do which means that being part of the Union takes us in directions we don`t really want to go in. On the question of who has been in control of the UK since 1955 I would simply look at the number of years since then each of the major parties has been in power and I reckon it`s 45 years of Tory governments and 24 years of Labour governments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tad Allagash
Date: Sat 25 May 22:15
So you ask a question umpteen times, but you’re ‘not interested’ in the answer. 😂
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Sat 25 May 22:33
I don`t find any of the explanations convincing and I don`t think MCT does either. They are just desperate stabs in the dark eg we vote differently from England just to be different! If we vote differently because of more urbanisation then why shouldn`t our government reflect that? Why should it reflect the make up of the population of our much larger neighbours?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: hurricane_jimmy
Date: Sun 26 May 05:54
I find it interesting the inference that it is only those that support Independence that have been "subject to propaganda" and "conditioned into thinking they are different".
Have people like McCaig, Parboiled and Tad Allagash not been conditioned all of their long lives into believing they are "the same" as the English/British? Is this not the message of much of the mainstream media in Scotland now? What is that if not conditioning?
The simple historical facts are that the Kingdom of Scots traces its history back to 843, while the state of England dates back to 927. Scotland therefore outdates England by the best part of a century. Beyond that, Scotland was a politically Independent state up until 1603 or 1707 depending on your perspective which is either 760 or 864 years as an Independent state. Certainly far longer than the 317 years that we have been part of a United Kingdom. To say that Scotland and the Scottish people and their culture did not evolve separately from England is just absolute nonsense, particularly when you consider the even finer lines between the likes of (for example) Sweden and Norway and NOBODY tries to claim that they not "different". Sweden is a good bit younger than Scotland too having only recently celebrated its 500th birthday and you`ll find a lot more of the viking texts talk about Danes and Norwegians, yet nobody tries to gaslight them into thinking they are "the same". But yeah, let`s ignore the historical facts and precedents that make up the fundamental principals of our legal system!
Frankly, trying to force Scots to believe they/we are the same as the English, is quite reminiscent of what the Russians` narrative regarding the Ukrainians. Only the overtly arrogant will refuse to acknowledge the parallels.
The reality is that we`ve had 25 years of governance from Edinburgh and, for those under 55 or so, it is unthinkable that this institution would be removed. Good luck to anyone that tries to push that agenda or tries to strip if of any power!
As for the notion that Scotland would have been out of the EU in 2014, this is absolute conjecture as McCaig well knows. Moreover, its factually wrong as there was to be a negotiation period of 2 years with the rUK, during which time Scotland would have been legally negotiating a separate membership from within. Especially now with the Ukraine war and considering the strategic importance of Scotland to both NATO and the EU it is almost inconceivable that Scotland would not be a member of both organisations. Prior to Putin attacking Ukraine, I would not have favoured the former and would have been open to a more Swiss- or Norwegian/Icelandic- relationship with the EU. Not now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Sun 26 May 13:32
I`m sure we`re all grateful to you for bringing some historical perspective to the debate, hj! Independence is normal!😊😊😊
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parboiled
Date: Sun 26 May 14:34
…hysterical more like!
🇬🇧 forever!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: LochgellyAlbert
Date: Sun 26 May 15:24
Quote:
Parboiled, Sun 26 May 14:34
…hysterical more like!
🇬🇧 forever!
Is that you finished for today, your carer got you back home?🤭🤣
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Sun 26 May 15:55
I bet Parboiled`s wishing he was 18 again so he could do his National Service!
Post Edited (Sun 26 May 16:36)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: hurricane_jimmy
Date: Sun 26 May 17:58
I`m still genuinely torn on whether Parboiled is a deluded extremist or simply a horrifically bad troll.
Genuinely funny that he was a Scotland Office stooge though! 🤣
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Sun 26 May 21:17
Have I suddenly become Saddam Hussein in this thread?
wee eck – sorry, I didn’t realise “how else do you explain the fact that the Tories haven`t won any election up here since the 1950s whilst they have dominated Westminster elections in that time?” was meant to be rhetorical. But I always think that if you perceive that there is a problem to solve, it’s good to understand the cause first. It seems like independence is offered as a solution when it may not be appropriate. The weather’s rubbish, but it’s sunny in Antigua. Which is independent. So let’s have indy, the weather will improve…
But if you are suggesting that a parliament is needed to reflect different voting behaviour, then what’s that building at Holyrood? And presumably there is a case to be made for parliaments in the North of England or London – they seem to vote differently – not to mention Aberdeenshire, the Borders, the Highlands or the islands. But you’ve never previously entertained this argument for some reason.
HJ – fair point about conditioning, but are you saying that some are immune from this, and others are taken in? And are you saying being English and being British are the same?
Thanks for the history lesson – I’m not sure what point you are making. Being older is better, perhaps? But here’s a question – if someone comes from England to live in Scotland do they become Scottish? A “new Scot” perhaps? And would the opposite happen?
Regarding the EU, you are also speculating as to the results of putative negotiations. There are theoretically severe financial conditions to be met (and although the EU might have broken their own rules – although given Putin was yet to invade Ukraine, that point is moot) it is not clear that there is or was sufficient appetite to meet those criteria. People have gone off the idea of austerity. But you acknowledge that Scotland is of strategic importance to the EU and to NATO, And also to the UK, presumably?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Back_oh_the_net
Date: Mon 27 May 00:23
Quote:
jake89, Sat 18 May 22:47
Quote:
Wotsit, Sat 18 May 20:16
Just a shortning of "National Conservative" Tad.
Next question - what`s a national conservative? 😂
A sugarcoated version of a national socialist 😂
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Mon 27 May 00:45
MCT, your responses get more and more desperate. You`ve now resorted to the old chestnut that, if Scotland were granted independence because it votes differently from other parts of the UK, then so should any region of England or Scotland. It`s not the first time you`ve suggested this and it doesn`t even merit a response.
And now you`re telling us we already have a Parliament at Holyrood which kind of denies there is an issue at all doesn`t it? The democratic issue is that we are locked into a union with no provision as to how one party can withdraw from it if its citizens wish to, unless they receive permission from the government of the largest party to the union to have a vote on it. It`s yet another scandal in a country which seems to specialise in them. I don`t see it being an issue in the General Election though. The media certainly won`t raise it. The attitude will be -
`Let`s just ignore it and maybe it`ll go away`.
Post Edited (Mon 27 May 00:46)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: hurricane_jimmy
Date: Wed 29 May 10:21
MCT - It was actually you that was talking about people being conditioned into believing they are different - I didn`t raise that point. You`ve attempted to make quite a point on here over the years that Scotland and England are basically the same and this is why we should be part of the UK. The historical points show that Scotland actually has a longer history as an independent state than as part of the UK and thus that the Scottish people and culture evolved for a longer time and separately from that of England.
Personally, I would say that to be Scottish you really need to grow up in the country and learn the culture that way. As someone who naturalised as a Swede but grew up in Scotland, I would say that I will never be Swedish in the same way that I am Scottish nor would I ever say that I was "more Swedish than Scottish". My son is half Japanese and I have spent considerable time in Japan, but I will never be and could never be Japanese, regardless of how well I might be able to speak the language.
Scotland is of course strategically important the UK, namely because of oil, gas, water and electricity. I`m glad to see that you finally acknowledge that, as quite a lot of us know that our country is being stripped of resources by England and seeing less return than in should. Why else would they want to keep Scotland?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Wed 29 May 12:04
I`d suggest being any nationality is hard to say anymore given how much more transient the world`s population is. What matters is where you reside. If you live, work/study in Scotland then you have a say on how the country is run.
Westminster doesn`t represent Scotland`s best needs IMO. I`m not suggesting Holyrood does either but WOULD suggest it`s more representative than Westminster. It`s just my view but I`d like to see more strategic thinking from our national bodies. What I see is massive wastage as multiple local authorities and health boards compete for money to do very similar things. Why not pool this funding and resource to develop national solutions and approaches? Of course, what works in the central belt may not work in the Highlands and that`s fine. Just stop having it so the like of Fife Council pays £1m to implement a solution whilst Dundee are paying it up again.
I digress but I suppose what I`m saying is you need effective national oversight that encourages coordinated local decision making. We have that at Holyrood though it could be improved. We don`t have that at Westminster.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Wed 29 May 12:46
I saw an interview on STV last night with an FT journalist, Michael Peel, who has recently published a book called `What Everyone knows about Britain (except the British)`. He has spent much of his working life away from the UK so was able to take a more detached view of what`s been happening here.
He reckoned that one of the main reasons for the UK`s decline was the failure to invest the proceeds from the discovery of oil and gas in the 1970s in a sovereign wealth fund as happened in Norway and Saudi. Instead, the Thatcher government simply spent it on current expenditure with no thought to the future. He said one reason for this was that the UK government didn`t want to draw attention to it as it might encourage ideas of Scottish independence. Of course this was borne out by the publication in 2005 of the McCrone Report which had been prepared in 1974 but suppressed for that reason. It only came to public attention after the Freedom of Information Act came into force. The Report stated :-
"It must be concluded therefore that revenues and large balance of payments gains would indeed accrue to a Scottish Government in the event of independence provided that steps were taken either by carried interest or by taxation to secure the Government `take`. Undoubtedly this would banish any anxieties the Government might have had about its budgetary position or its balance of payments. The country would tend to be in chronic surplus to a quite embarrassing degree and its currency would become the hardest in Europe with the exception perhaps of the Norwegian kroner. Just as deposed monarchs and African leaders have in the past used the Swiss franc as a haven of security, as now would the Scottish pound be seen as a good hedge against inflation and devaluation and the Scottish banks could expect to find themselves inundated with speculative inflow of foreign funds. "[
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tad Allagash
Date: Wed 29 May 23:00
‘The simple historical facts are that the Kingdom of Scots traces its history back to 843’
So not as old as the Kingdom of Fife then. Where’s our referendum to escape from our Weegie overlords?
‘Why else would they want to keep Scotland?’
Who says they want to keep us? Has England had a referendum on chucking us out? That might actually be your best chance.
It’s interesting that you rail against religion but put so much stock in an imaginary line on a map.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Wed 29 May 23:12
That`s an interesting intervention. How would England earn the right to have a referendum on Scottish independence?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: hurricane_jimmy
Date: Thu 30 May 00:27
Tad - I do like the level of attempted conflation there - kinda reminds me of how the Israelis propagate the myth that "Jewish" is an ethnicity when it is in fact a faith with 4 distinctive ethnicities that practice it. Your silence about the actions of Likud really is just tacit approval of genocide - I guess you must be a WASP.
Personally, I value the "Supremity of Law" but with that in mind, the basis of reasoning for creating laws must be reasonable.
In my view, many of the injustices both contemporary and history in our legal system (such as inequality for women, criminalisation of homosexuality etc) stem from the fact that Scots law was - and arguably still is - based on Canon Law which finds its origins in the Church.
If you study Chemistry or Physics to any decent level then you realise two key things: (i) The sheer scale of the Universe (ii) The timelines outlines in the Talmud, Bible and Quran are simply impossible. A little bit of Astrophysics combined with a bit Chemical Kinetics and Thermodynamics shows quite clearly that the likelihood of the Abrahamic religions being "the truth" is nigh on zero. These religions are mythologies and should be treated as such, pure and simple. They should be nowhere near bodies with legislative power.
Thankfully, in Scotland, Christianity is getting the elbow rather quickly and is dying out in the same way as British Unionism, albeit probably quicker.
Unlike religion, Scotland is a tangible entity that has evolved and been defined over a period of time longer than a Millenium, whether you like it or not.
Can something not be said about the faith you place in a failing state that willingly voted to economically sanction itself? I
If we`re talking faith, then personally I have faith that Scotland would do far better standing with the 450Mn of the EU than a declining England of 55Mn. In honesty though, that is more a hypothesis based on reason rather than faith, unlike your position which really isn`t grounded in reality.
Post Edited (Thu 30 May 00:38)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tad Allagash
Date: Thu 30 May 13:42
‘I guess you must be a WASP.’
You guess wrong.
‘Scotland is a tangible entity’
No, Scotland is defined by an imaginary line on a map. The island of Great Britain is a tangible entity unless you’re a geography denier.
Your pro EU (established 1993) argument is odd when you’ve dismissed the UK on the basis that it’s only been around since 1707.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Thu 30 May 13:52
Aren`t most of the nations in the world defined by `imaginary lines on a map`? Apart from points scoring I don`t see what that adds to the debate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Thu 30 May 14:09
Not desperate wee eck – bemused and a little frustrated perhaps.
One of the arguments for devolution was a response to the notional democratic deficit – so now we can have our own policies on healthcare and education and so on (and have our very own scandals, like choosing to prosecute and convict lots of innocent post-masters and -mistresses and do nothing about it for years – but I guess we could have done that without devolution).
But we seem to be arguing over two similar propositions:
The first states:
“if a part of a country consistently votes differently from the rest then that part has the option of independence as a solution to this democratic deficit”.
The second states;
“if a part of a country consistently votes differently from the rest then that part has the option of independence as a solution to this democratic deficit”.
Now, you seem to be advocating for the first (or possibly the second) but were I to propose the other, you find it impossible to engage, deeming it unworthy of a response. Do you see my point?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Thu 30 May 14:13
HJ
I was crediting you with making a point but it turns out it was me after all. Well done me. Are you saying that some people are prone to conditioning and others are largely immune?
I think my point is rather that the Scots and the English are very similar, and that any differences are no longer enough on their own to justify independence. But I think your argument is that people who live in Scotland are significantly different from those who live in England?
I know I’m old but I don’t remember much of the pre-union days. It seems such a long time ago now – but some of their influence must have dissipated.
I note your argument on Scottishness; I tend to agree, but perhaps it’s one of those things that is up to the individual. And as an aside, I’ve never particularly understood the “half-Scottish” argument – if both your parents are English and you are born and raised in Scotland are you 100% English? Does grand-parentage come into it?
I’ve always maintained that Scotland is of strategic importance to the UK, but more in a geographical way. I don’t see why NATO should be particularly interested in the economics for example. But you are introducing the “England steals our resources” argument. Who is England here? Is there a secret English government sending people over the border, stuffing their vans full of our wind and smuggling it south under cover of darkness?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Thu 30 May 14:58
`But we seem to be arguing over two similar propositions:
The first states:
“if a part of a country consistently votes differently from the rest then that part has the option of independence as a solution to this democratic deficit”.
The second states;
“if a part of a country consistently votes differently from the rest then that part has the option of independence as a solution to this democratic deficit”.
Now, you seem to be advocating for the first (or possibly the second) but were I to propose the other, you find it impossible to engage, deeming it unworthy of a response. Do you see my point?`
I presume this is your clever (?) way of restating your argument that Scotland voting differently from England is no different from any region of the UK voting differently (from what? What would you consider the norm?) which should entitle them to independence. I don`t remember this argument being put forward during the 2014 referendum or since. Maybe even the most fervent Unionist recognises it as nonsense as these regions aren`t parties in their own right to the Treaty of Union which is the basis of our `precious union` of equals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parboiled
Date: Thu 30 May 16:18
Education, Health, agriculture, fisheries and other matters were never devolved, they were always fully under control of the old Scottish office.
And managed a hell of lot better than now…
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Thu 30 May 16:35
The public complains about these departments throughout the UK though, not just in Scotland. Doesn`t that suggest devolution isn`t the main problem? In some parts of England they seem to think devolution is part of the answer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: LochgellyAlbert
Date: Thu 30 May 16:44
Hasn`t the unelected Foreign Secretary, Cameron not just stuck his nose in some fisheries agreement between Scotland and Ireland?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tad Allagash
Date: Thu 30 May 19:12
Yes Eck, most of the nation states in the world are indeed defined by imaginary lines on a map.
For instance, it’s not all that clear where Belgium ends and the Netherlands begin, and in that case there are enclaves on either side of the arbitrary border.
And I’m sure you don’t consider Berwick Rangers a foreign football team.
Yet nationalists act like borders came down on a tablet from Mount Sinai and every other argument they make else is downstream of that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Thu 30 May 19:22
Berwick has been in England for my lifetime and seems happy to be there. What exactly is the point of arguing about that? In my experience Unionists come up with all sorts of spurious arguments to deny folk who live in Scotland the exclusive right to vote on who should govern them. I once had a guy tell me that the Darien Scheme proved that Scots were unable to run their own affairs!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Thu 30 May 20:35
Scotland has a very clearly defined boundary and has done for longer than anyone on this forum has been alive. However, there does appear to be confusion between the original Scottish boundary, which was largely north and west modern Scotland and what Scotland is now, which combines areas that were part of the Pictish Kingdom (Fife) and Northumbria (Lothians and much of the Borders).
This is, as usual, just whitabootery though. There are some basic facts here though:
Scottish independence has been sought for decades albeit not ever by a majority so therefore it`s right this hasn`t happened.
Information about Scotland`s wealth has continually been hidden/misrepresented.
Most Scots whether pro or anti independence don`t have a clue why they`re voting that way.
Despite what is reported in the press, the Scottish Government is doing a good job in comparison to the other UK nations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Thu 30 May 20:39
Just had a guy at the door trying to persuade me to vote Labour. I think I made it clear to him how I`d be voting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Thu 30 May 21:27
It`s a hard one. Labour seem intent on throwing it away though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: hurricane_jimmy
Date: Thu 30 May 22:40
Tad - So we`re into the realms of calling nation states imaginary if part of their frontier is a land border? I guess I just imagined my visit to Switzerland and that the ancient civilisations like the Mongolians and the Magyars of Hungary are as factual as the Abrahamic texts? C`mon min! 🤣
MCT - I did not claim anyone was immune - You were the one that inferred pro-independence supporters had been conditioned into thinking they are different. You did however pay no attention to the fact that your generation has basically lived in a pro-UK echo chamber.
As I`ve said before, I do think younger generations are better at dissemination of information and identifying credible sources because such practice is part of the History and Modern Studies curriculum in Scotland. That wasn`t the case before the internet age.
As for cultural similarities, you could very much argue the same about much of Europe - English is just "b-stardised" German afterall. Why doesn`t the UK just join up with Germany or the rest of Europe and form a superstate...hang oan a minute....
For me, Scotland should be an Independent state because progression toward the level of Social Democracy that many Scots desire - 80%ish going by the cumulative vote for SNP, Labour & LD - is not possible under the UK/English (They are pretty much synonymous) banner be that under a Tory or Labour government, albeit to varying degrees. The yo-yoing between governments with different fiscal ideology seen in the UK does not provide the same stability observed in other countries such as Sweden or Denmark where it is pretty much unthinkable for any party remove things like Healthcare or Tuition-free education and it instead perpetuates the idea that "the middle classes are punished". Scotland has a history of nationhood equal to that of Denmark and almost double that of Sweden. I can tell you from first hand experience that Swedes and Danes in particular both have higher living standards than Scots. If the UK functioned as well as Unionists claim then, with of the resources the UK has, it should be able to better the living standards of Denmark. The reality is it doesn`t, nor is there the political or societal will in England to make that the case. Scotland should not settle for mediocrity.
You might want to do a wee bit of reading on how reliant Northern England is on Scottish water and Scottish-generated electricity. Scottish consumers are paying far more than they really should for energy in an energy-rich country that also produces a significant amount of that from renewable sources. Scotland should be profiting from those exports rather than Scottish consumers being penalised.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: LochgellyAlbert
Date: Fri 31 May 00:39
Quote:
hurricane_jimmy, Thu 30 May 22:40l
You might want to do a wee bit of reading on how reliant Northern England is on Scottish water and Scottish-generated electricity. Scottish consumers are paying far more than they really should for energy in an energy-rich country that also produces a significant amount of that from renewable sources. Scotland should be profiting from those exports rather than Scottish consumers being penalised.
And there lies the crux of the matter, all benefits heading South!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parboiled
Date: Fri 31 May 07:16
What a binge fest of whinge and cringe!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Fri 31 May 07:20
Quote:
Parboiled, Fri 31 May 07:16
What a binge fest of whinge and cringe!
Translation: I don`t like facts, I like sensationalised, made up nonsense that I can get angry about whilst eating my Spoons breakfast.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Fri 31 May 20:16
wee eck
You seem unable or unwilling to entertain my simple proposition in its generality, but instead insist that a condition be added (namely reference to the Treaty of Union) making it very specific.
It is clearly possible for other constitutional or governance arrangements to be created for parties who were not signatories to the Treaty.
Are you saying that Wales cannot be independent? Or Ireland? (Might be a bit late on that one...). London shouldn’t have an assembly? Fife shouldn’t have a council?
Your argument seems to rely on Scottish Exceptionalism.
Many borders are fairly arbitrary. Some (particularly in Africa and Asia), were literally drawn on a map. There is a story of Stalin putting his thumb on a plan so the cartographers had to draw round it, meaning Russian could effectively annex a valuable bit of Finland, I think it was.
Some are based on geography, like rivers, or mountains, but they are otherwise not physical – although the SNP would seem happy to make them so.
The public complains about these departments throughout the UK though, not just in Scotland.
Maybe we’re not so different after all…
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Fri 31 May 20:20
HJ
You need to learn the difference between the UK and England. If Sunak were to say they were virtually synonymous people would have a fit.
Talkin’ about my generation (and I’ve been around for a lot of it) I don’t remember it discuss the UK much at all.
Absolutely, Scotland (or the Scots, whoever we are) should not settle for mediocrity, but many of us do. As I ‘ve said before, the attempted point scoring about the NHS – happy as long as we’re not bottom in a league of 4 no matter how many of us are on never-ending waiting lists - is reminiscent of football fans being happier to see their rivals fail than be successful themselves. We could stop making excuses and get on with it; or we could blame others and do nothing.
I note that you want Scotland to be independent because you believe we are different in our progressive ambitions. So I think on the scale of being different, thinking differently and voting differently that would be in the thinking differently camp?
Fair enough , but I would suggest two things – one is that we are not as progressive as we like to think; and the cost of being progressive is too great (see the Growth Commission’s report.)
I’d love to do more reading on the energy market. I hear different and contradictory claims all the time. Who do I believe?
For example John Swinney said the other day that 100% of Scotland’s electricity came from renewable sources, yet Sturgeon was rebuked by the UK Statistics Authority for making a similar (and false) claim and had to apologise. I think Kate Forbes may have been trotting out this canard as well.
Then there is the argument about cost – some focus on standing charges, other on unit costs, others on total bills.
Now “England is stealing our resources” is an Anglophobic trope. But you said something slightly different – that England is “stripping us of our resources”. This is more of the implicit suggestion that we are victims of some rapacious colonial oppressor. Who is England?
Now I would have thought that the Electricity market is relatively simple in principle – companies generate electricity, sell it to suppliers who supply it to consumers. There needs to be a method (the grid, for example) of transmission as well. Is it that simple? So where is the resource stripping happening? And who is doing the stripping?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Fri 31 May 20:42
The Treaty of Union is a fact. Unless I picked things up wrongly at school it`s the reason we`re in a union with England. All the scenarios you present are hypothetical. If any of these regions or nations want to negotiate their independence good luck to them.
Even if Scotland voted identically to England it should have the right to leave the union if it wants to and there should be a prescribed democratic route to achieve that which does not require the permission of the other partner. I don`t see that as being a particularly controversial notion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parboiled
Date: Fri 31 May 21:42
After scraping together a magnificent 37% of the electorate for breaking away in 2014 you would think a dead duck had more life in it….
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Fri 31 May 23:17
So is that what would have happened if `Yes` had exceeded 50% in 2014? The result would have been recalculated as a % of the electorate? Never trust a Unionist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tad Allagash
Date: Sat 1 Jun 00:56
‘Tad - So we`re into the realms of calling nation states imaginary if part of their frontier is a land border? I guess I just imagined my visit to Switzerland…’
Yes, they speak at least four different languages. Also, for someone that constantly bigs up the EU, you seem to spend at lot of time outside it. And what does your wee mate Greta think about your carbon footprint? 😂
Wee Eck - what is the ‘prescribed democratic route’ for Fife to achieve independence from Scotland?
The problem with the old ‘it’s Scotland’s oil’ argument is that it’s not Edinburgh’s oil and it sure as hell isn’t Glasgow’s oil.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: hurricane_jimmy
Date: Sat 1 Jun 09:01
Jake - Would you really expect that a low-level Scotland Office stooge WOULD be interested in Facts? 😂
Tad - Oh dear, we`re back to the old and very telling defensive quip to avoid addressing the point! 😂
Just as a fact check: I spent 31.5 of my 32.5 years living in EU countries, so aye...try again.
I`m also very curious where I have said I endorse Greta Thunberg? If you are however lacking a wee bit in your understanding of the high school Chemistry and Physics principles behind climate change and think its a lie, then as a qualified science teacher I can help ye oot neebz!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Sat 1 Jun 09:59
In all seriousness, if anyone posting on this thread is a member of the Scotland Office (or any civil service org) they should really stop. It`s a breach of the civil service code.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Sat 1 Jun 10:21
`Wee Eck - what is the ‘prescribed democratic route’ for Fife to achieve independence from Scotland?
The problem with the old ‘it’s Scotland’s oil’ argument is that it’s not Edinburgh’s oil and it sure as hell isn’t Glasgow’s oil.`
As I said, these are all hypothetical scenarios. I don`t see their relevance to the Scotland/UK situation as it exists. In the present day would anyone join an organisation they couldn`t leave of their own free will? And where did I mention Scotland`s oil?
|
|
|
|
|
|
