Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by SiMar
This is just plain nonsense. I could see the point if you were arguing over a 10% say on Monetary Policy. Fiscal Policy is something completely different. Do you guys not know or understand the difference between monetary and fiscal policy?Quote:
Originally Posted by Beefster
Quote:
Originally Posted by SiMar
Just in case either of you should decide to come back with the 'classic' argument that the BoE setting interest rates = Scotland having no control of its own economic policy I thought this might help 'explode the myth' you both seek to perpetuate http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk...dent-scotland/Quote:
Originally Posted by Beefster
The original reference to 'fiscal policy' came from Jack in relation to the Bank of England AFAIK. I don't think anyone else was twattish enough to let it ruin what was a perfectly reasonable debate though when everyone knew the point being made.Quote:
Originally Posted by allmodcons
Are you suggesting that the fiscal policy followed by a government is completely unrelated to the wider monetary policy of the relevant central bank?Quote:
Originally Posted by allmodcons
As for the link...explodes nothing and to me reads like someone shooting themselves in the foot. Tax rates are all well and good (and sadly I've yet to see anyone suggest that they would fall dramatically in an independent Scotland...only more government spending) but surely the big daddy of economic levers is the cost of credit and the size and rate of money supply.
Also to suggest the BoE is actually independent is just daft. Who sets its remit? (A remit that strangely enough seems to have changed recently) Who employs it's top dog?
The euro zone troubles are the perfect example of how not having control of your central bank directly impacts a governments ability to implement its desired fiscal policy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by allmodcons
Quote:
Originally Posted by SiMar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beefster
Just for your benefit, read my original question, then the response from Simar then your own response. I specifically asked - Why does a 10% seat on the BoE equate to NO SAY over fiscal policy? You both clearly responded by stating a 10% say is pretty much no say.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beefster
Round in round in circles.Quote:
Originally Posted by allmodcons
The point being made was 10% of something is pointless if the 90% disagree.
I agree with your rather laboured point that the BoE would not set an independent Scotland's fiscal policy...that wasn't the original intention of my post. A point I'm pretty sure you were aware of anyway.
What I am saying though is that the two (monetary and fiscal) are far from being mutually exclusive and without the ability to influence one you lose the ability to be masters of your own destiny on the other. Ergo an independent Scotland as proposed would be far from independent.
Or are you suggesting Scotland's fiscal policy would be completely unrelated and removed from the wider monetary policy being pursued by the 'pound zone'
It was me that introduced this 10% figure but it seems to have taken on a wee life of its own and wasn’t meant to be what Scotland's voice would be in deciding BoE policies.
Rather it is the share of monies we currently get, and presumably would have to raise/spend/acquire through the divorce proceedings to keep/maintain the status quo – as far as government spending is concerned.
Sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry.
As has been mentioned in other places there are already examples from around the world of independent countries sharing a currency, many other independent countries just piggy back on the likes of the US dollar.
How all this works is beyond me (other than I’ll bet traders make millions from it) but it does work and IMO would mean Scotland was any less independent because it kept the pound any more than it would be less independent if it adopted the Euro.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SiMar
1. If 'laboured' is a couple of lines then fair enough.
2. I'm not (for one minute) suggesting that monetary & fiscal policy are mutually exclusive. What I would argue though is that Scotland within a 'sterling zone' could initiate a different set of fiscal policies to that of the RoUK Government. Yes, there would be some budgetary constraints to consider, but this is something every country has to consider when adopting and maintaining fiscal policy. IMO Monetary Policy (for decades) has been predominantly managed in the interests of the finance dominated South East, in some cases having a profoundly detrimental effect on the Scottish Economy. By its very nature, Monetary Policy can only target the economy as a whole. Fiscal policy is much more specific. An independent Scottish Government would be able to take fiscal policy decisions in Scotland's interest, something we are unable to do within the current framework.
3. No, but some of the arguments on this thread appear to be suggesting that we'd have less Independence under the settlement being proposed by the SNP Government than we have at the moment. This is just plain nonsense. Under the SNP proposals we'd have a Sovereign Independent State where governmental decisions would be taken in the interests of Scotland. FWIW, if a future Scottish Government should decide to establish it's own currency or propose withdrawal from the EU that would be a decision for the Scottish Electorate to take at that point in time. Everything does not have to be set in stone the day after the referendum. The Governance of any country is 'fluid' why would, or should, an Independent Scotland be any different.
Cool...believe it or not I don't particularly disagree. Although it could be argued that by removing the political union we do indeed lose influence over the monetary approach the BoE will take (as I don't believe it to be independent from the UK chancellors wishes). You also state that monetary policy has damaged Scotland before....there's not much in the independence proposed that would change that although I accept we may have bigger fiscal latitude to offset that at least in a short term way.Quote:
Originally Posted by allmodcons
I prefer pound zone rather than sterling zone though.... :-)
I found the suggestion that Ireland might be regretting it's near 100 years of independence because if the difficulties since 2008 very amusing.
In all of the various discussions they had, I'm quite sure not one of them at the time was "let's renegotiate to become part of the UK". Indeed, for many years, Ireland was hailed as an example of a flourishing economic entity by chancellors of the UK and Scottish independence enthusiasts alike!
I doubt there are any countries where the choice of your own nationhood would be trader in.
This seems to be passing under most people's radar. Westminster in the process of re establishing national service. The bill is already at an advanced stage.
http://services.parliament.uk/bills/...alservice.html
Only applies to England & Wales :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by green glory
Private members bill - so unlikely to make it through I would have thought
Yes, but a situation where it's applied in only England and Wales is only going to fuel more resentment south of the border, and is maybe an indication they expect independence to happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by BroxburnHibee
They? It's not coming from the Government.Quote:
Originally Posted by green glory
If you are referring to my comment (not sure if you are) then I meant that I would rather have the lower GDP and higher employment on offer in the UK, rather than the higher unemployment and random, unfair and high taxes on offer in Ireland.Quote:
Originally Posted by steakbake
Nothing to do with 100 years of Independence, and everything to do with being financially directed from Brussels.
Having said that, their housing market is something to be envied (if you are a buyer, not a seller.) :wink:
100% NO from me
Quote:
Originally Posted by NumberSeven
Can I ask why?
Re your point on Republic of Ireland. How many of them would now vote to part of the Union once more?Quote:
Originally Posted by HibeeEmma
How do we start a poll on the subject? It would be interesting if nothing else.
:cb
I think there was one on a previous Scottish independence thread (possibly Beefster would know for sure). I'm looking forward to the Scottish government's white paper and hope we can put a few issues to bed.Quote:
Originally Posted by green glory
New Asterix book out today, apparently Asterix is a strong supporter of the case for Scottish Independence, seems he is also a Hibs fan! :greengrin
Anyone, on either side or even the undecided, care to comment on the McCrone Report?
The McCrone Report - A Thirty Year Secret
Consecutive Labour and Tory governments have lied to the Scottish people long before that report was made and have been lying to us since it was made public.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack
What surprises me most about this is that some folks still don't believe it or are surprised by it.
1. Lying *******s.
2. Always knew they were lying *******s anyway
3. Much of the report explains why an economically sovereign Scotland would find it hard to devalue enough to make a dent in unemployment etc.
4. Scotland is economically and socially highly networked with the rest of the UK and would therefore still be affected by policy decisions made in London, but with no mandate on those decisions.
Thanks for this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack
This is the thing for me. I expect this same arguement to stand. Any ideas where we'd stand in international law on splitting based on population. It does go on to state that the EEC laws signed up to (have they changed) would give us the oil.
If we do vote Yes then its clear they're going to shaft Scotland and keep as much as possible.
Quote:
Two possible lines of argument may be expected: either that Scotland should pay England some compensation for appropriating the most productive part of the Continental Shelf, or that the whole shelf should be regarded as the common property of the nations of the former United Kingdom with revenue distributed in accordance with some population based formula irrespective of where oil is discovered.
As regards the first of the arguments, the prospective return from oil revenue would at the very least be one of the factors taken in to account in determining the financial settlement between the two countries when they become independent. To argue the second would be directly counter to the line that the UK Government has taken with the EEC, that the resources of the Continental Shelf are as much a national asset as are those on land, like coal mines, and that there is therefore no question of the Europeanisation of North Sea oil.
Disputes on these matters might well occasion much bitterness between the two countries, but it is hard to see any conclusion other than to allow Scotland to have that part of the Continental Shelf which would have been hers if she had been independent all along.
There might be some argument about where the boundary between English and Scottish waters would lie. At present this is considered to be along the line of latitude which lies just north of Berwick on Tweed, and it might perhaps be held that it should run NE/SW as an extension of the Border. This could have the effect of transferring the small oilfields in the south, Auk and Argyll, to the English sector, but would not affect the main finds.
This is utterly amazing. SNP said 800m and the government had said 100m. It then goes on to say it would be anythink between 2,000 and 5,000m.
I've not made up my mind on independance but a lot of what I've read, albeit only the first few pages, is still relevant today.Quote:
Thus, all that is wrong now with the SNP estimate is that it is far too low; there is a prospect of Government oil revenues in 1980 which could greatly exceed the present Government revenue in Scotland from all sources and could even be comparable in size to the whole of the Scottish national income in 1970.
I'm voting no but for change, we can have the best of both worlds by further devolution. What's being offered by the SNP is independence by opinion poll. They have changed their policies so much on the Queen, currency, NATO to name a few, just to try and con voters.
But isn't that satisfying voters demands and pretty much the whole basis of democracy?Quote:
Originally Posted by lucky
Two things.Quote:
Originally Posted by lucky
I'm voting YES for Scotland, not The SNP.Scotland will be around a whole lot longer than any political party
Further Devlotion (Devo Max) won't happen.Infact, the seeds of reducing devolution have already been planted.Westminster will scale back the powers of Holyrood post NO vote, they'll ensure we never have the opportunity at independence again.
They hid the McCrone report last time around, what are they hiding this time?
Think it's time for another poll on here, I'll post one just now. It will be good to compare with the previous one to see if there has been a swing either way.
No need for any debate on this thread, there's another thread for that! It's been a while since the last poll on here and I'd be interested to see if there has been a swing either way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpyHibby
The triple-the-size oil/gas field in the west coast that they keep untapped so nuclear submarines can scurry about, unhindered?
I hope you can live with the 80,000 people, 64,000 of which are disabled who are being pushed into rent arrears and ultimately eviction because of the bedroom tax. This is being caused by the UK government, but it will be the first act of our newly independent parliament to abolish it. Well worth voting yes for I would say.Quote:
Originally Posted by lucky
But many will vote no, because the above doesn't affect them. I actually have some very middle class in-laws who simply can't digest the unpleasant truths about the past conduct of and continuing incompetence of the Westminster government. As long as they're ok.
Over 100,000 dead in Iraq. Obsolete and dangerous nuclear weapons on the Clyde, which according to the MOD's own words, couldn't be based at Plymouth because of the risk to the 200,000 or so residents nearby. The 600,000 plus of Glasgow and the surrounding areas however are expendable. The submarines are now leaking radiation with alarming frequency too.
Military cuts in Scotland have proceeded at over 2.5 times that of the UK in the last 13 years. Soon to be 1 airfield, and no major surface vessels based in Scotland now for a very very long time. The assets are being moved. In short Independence is now expected by the MOD.
The 40 years and hundreds of billions from the north sea, from which Scotland has only benefitted piecemeal, as capital project after capital project in London and the south east is bankrolled by our natural resources.
Scotland has the highest GDP of any constituent part of the UK with the exception of London. Scotch Whisky alone in monetary terms accounts for 25% of the entire UK's food and drink exports.
We have the infrastructure, we have the money and we have the expertise. It's how we use them that's important.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucky
http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php...iction-letters
Westminster will scale back devolution? Yet it was announced yesterday that the Welsh parliament is to be offered more powers? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by southfieldhibby
Evidence please?Quote:
Originally Posted by southfieldhibby
The 'debate' leading up to the referendum is going to do far more damage to Scotland than whatever the result eventually turns out to be. Lies, lies and more untruths on both sides. Part of the reason why a large proportion of the population isn't listening any more.
As I said, seeds.Call me a liar all you like and ask for evidence, but be gracious enough to retract when provided with said evidence.Unless you can disprove any of the following links?Quote:
Originally Posted by Beefster
http://wingsoverscotland.com/in-out-...-it-all-about/
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/...cle1296301.ece
http://www.scotsman.com/news/michael...vote-1-3034293
Incidentally, the best debate, from both sides, I've seen on the whole internet is on jamboskickback, think its 95 pages long now so quite a slog, but can be picked up anywhere.
You said "Westminster will scale back the powers of Holyrood post NO vote, they'll ensure we never have the opportunity at independence again.". No "In my opinion" or "it's possible that", you definitively stated "will".Quote:
Originally Posted by southfieldhibby
None of the links are evidence that Westminster WILL scale back the powers of Holyrood in the event of a 'no' vote. One's some random's musing from the looks of it, one's from an eighty-one year old who retired from politics in 2005 and the other appears to be a columnist from the Scotsman.
And how does Westminster offering the devolved Welsh administration more powers fit in with your 'proof'? Or are you just ignoring that?Quote:
Originally Posted by southfieldhibby
I am all for honest debate, simply making stuff up just turns people off.
:agree: All that stuff that the government made up and forgot to report certainly kept the turnout down back at the last vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiberlin
In 1979 a vote was held on devolution during the Callaghan administration. The government at the time had access to a report commissioned by the Labour government that unequivocally proved that an independent Scotland would be financially much better off than a Scotland within the Union.Quote:
Originally Posted by Future17
If the government at that time had come clean and made the report public instead of hiding it away and actually claiming the opposite of what the report showed then the outcome of the vote would have been very different. Or put in simple terms-WE WERE CONNED!
If you're talking about the referendum on Scottish devolution in 1979, James Callaghan was the Labour Prime Minister at the time and Labour had been in power for five years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiberlin
I stand corrected, your right it was the vote to repeal that took place shortly afterwards under Thatcher.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beefster
Bit early for me but the points still stand, WE WUZ ROBBED.
You are missing the point I was actually making but we turned up in large enough numbers in '97Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiberlin
As it looks like you actually meant '79 then that vote was scuppered by the ridiculous 40% rule more than anything else.
Like it or not, the "Bedroom tax" isn't a tax at all, it's a reduction in benefits to those with a spare room.Quote:
Originally Posted by green glory
Is there sufficient housing capacity to move all of those with a spare room?Quote:
Originally Posted by yeezus
Nowhere near it.Quote:
Originally Posted by VickMackie
Labour, tory's lib-dems. not much to pick from any one of those lot heading the Scottish parliament just means we still getting controlled from England, before they can pass any legislation it has to be sent down south to their masters to get approval. why do you think that no one from the parties in question said to the SNP well done on gaining the majority in Scotland, they all found out that they couldn't dictate what we can do or cannot do. so my vote next year is a big resounding YES.
also the money That Scotland sends down south is a lot more than the 32bil we get back.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miguel
Quote:
Originally Posted by VickMackie
What about the houses that the families desperate for an extra room would vacate?Quote:
Originally Posted by Peevemor
Forced house swapping, now there's an idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beefster
They are handed over to English politicians to use as holiday homes. FACT.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beefster
I don't think anyone's being forced to do anything. Good job at trying to make it sound almost Nazi-esque though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiberlin
Either way, we should definitely leave folk homeless and families all having to sleep in one bedroom so that no-one gets their nose put out of joint or loses their unneeded spare room.
The general undertones of your post would suggest you're against investing in new housing. I would have thought that's better than forcing folks to swap their homes. New more energy efficient homes would make more sense but maybe the investment to do so will get lost on the way from Westminster, after all we're only a small proportion of the electorate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beefster
No. Still doesn't make it a tax though.Quote:
Originally Posted by VickMackie
I'm pro whatever it takes to make social housing meet the needs of the folk that choose/have to use it. If that means encouraging folk to give up houses that are too big for their requirements so be it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiberlin
I don't know about where you live but where I live in East Lothian, there are a fair number of new social houses/flats being built. It still won't be enough though whilst folk are sitting in bigger houses that they need.
My neighbour has a 2 bedroom house, they had 2 kids, who shared until they moved out she's all on her own now but the family regularly have someone there to look after her and save her needing to move into a home but Anne's being pestered re that "spare" room!Quote:
Originally Posted by Beefster
Pro what ever it takes includes forcing people out of their homes for having a room too many to solve the housing problem, really? That's not Nazi-esque that's Stalinist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beefster
Why not have a list that people are on who are willing to swap and don't charge them whilst on the list waiting for a swap?Quote:
Originally Posted by Beefster
Aye, I'm a Stalinist. Busted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiberlin
I think it's the lack of perspective that I love most about some folk on here.
I don't agree with the measure by the way, I just don't think it should be labelled a tax.Quote:
Originally Posted by VickMackie
:agree: Absolutely mind boggling isn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Beefster
Your argument is actually perfectly sound, and in principle I'm in total agreement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beefster
Unfortunately the reality is there aren't the single bedroom properties available to move the affected people to. Even if there were it would mean moving tens of thousands of mainly disabled and elderly out of their homes, with the attendant risks their health and well being.
Another consequence of longer lived populace.Quote:
Originally Posted by green glory
The concept of one or two people living in a two or three bedroom house for another 20 years just because they have done for 20 years prior brining up a family but at the same time denying other young families that choice is a strange one.
I don't particularly agree with the approach the policy has taken (carrots tend to be better than sticks) but as this is rented housing the landlords surely need to have some way of actively managing their stock to best meet demand?
I read in the news that BAE are suggesting there might be large job cuts at a number of dockyards. I thought this MOD work was heralded as one of the key losses if went down the independence route?
Does anyone honestly think that the MOD for the rest of the UK will award any contracts to an independant Scotland when it has facilities to do this work in it's own country....NEVER and rightly so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Alf R
Apologies, your pedantry wins.I did mean 'in my opinion'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beefster
Well, it RUK doesn't have facilities now that Portsmouth has been closed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Smiggy 7-0
A very political decision which I think, will stoke resentment in the rest of the UK.
Govan/Rosyth are protected species - could you imagine if they had closed and how much that would have handed to Yes Scotland?
If you have a forced payment you need to make to the government and no options to downsize then I would class that as a tax. If this was a fully thoughtout scheme where the aim was to make better use of the housing capacity then there would be no need to charge people unless they were unwilling to move.Quote:
Originally Posted by yeezus
Snp lad at pmqs Westminster just played a blinder. Simply stated he was stunned that Cameron / milliband had been arguing about everything apart from 1800 job losses.(it was Angus Robertson )
It's a fair point as I expected it to be main focal point.
No expert in this but my understanding is that it's not a forced payment..hence why it's not a tax.Quote:
Originally Posted by VickMackie
It's a reduction in benefit to reflect the fact that the government no longer wishes to subsidise people's rental for properties they have deemed to large for that persons use.
Effectively they are saying the state will pay your accommodation costs for the minimum you require, if you wish to remain in a larger (and hence more expensive) property then you will be expected to make up that rental difference.
As with all benefits this may sound sensible at the macro level but the devil is in the detail and will impact individuals to a different degree.
They seem happy enought to have all the support ships, oil tankers etc. contracted out to Korea. The majority of jobs in Portsmouth are ship maintenance and repairs, which will remain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Smiggy 7-0
The truth is, Govan is losing almost as many jobs as Portsmouth, with about a 45/55% split, after Portsmouth was recommeded for closure by BAE two years ago!
This is a commercial decision, which it is in the governments interest to dress up as pro-Scottish politics.
MoD award contracts for ships to either BAE or Babcocks in general, I think.The same BAE who've just emptied 1800 people today.A promise to reopen Portsmouth if Scotland votes YES is crass in the extreme, but politiking at its finest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Smiggy 7-0
I can understand why and agree that an independent Scotland shouldn't build warships for The UK as they would be subject to official secrets etc.The same immediate curtailment of ship building for the MoD should be applied to any vessels subject to the same secrecy in Scottish waters,yes?
And our good pals over the North Sea seem to have a thriving ship building economy without the ever benevolent MOD
http://www.shipbuildingnorway.com/vo...red-in-2012-2/
Here's the definition of a tax: "a compulsory contribution to state revenue levied by government on personal income and business profits or added to the cost of some goods, service and transactions".Quote:
Originally Posted by VickMackie
Giving someone less in housing benefit is therefore not a tax.
Here's another thought on BAE/MOD.
The MoD will only offer contracts for naval vessels to UK shipyards.BAE are their preferred partner.BAE have invested time/money into people/infrastructure on the Clyde/Rosyth.Indy Scotland will need to invest in Navy, offers the same deal to BAE to keep/upgrade/expand workforce in Scotland on basis they're #1 supplier.
Scotland gets new ships/asset/more tax payers.BAE gets another partner.Portsmouth reopens courtesy of Scottish indy.
You're welcome Portsmouth :greengrin
Quote:
Originally Posted by steakbake
Damned if they did, damned if they didn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by 500miles
Technically not a tax but the only option if you can't afford it is to be made homeless. Definition of *****.Quote:
Originally Posted by yeezus
Let's call it an unpopular welfare reform :aok:Quote:
Originally Posted by VickMackie
Where did people get the idea that their rented home is their's for life. Even more, where did they get the idea that they should have extra space in their houses subsidised?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiberlin
These jobs will always be a political football, moved around to suit the vagaries of whoever is in power at Westminster. I think it's time our jobs stopped being a political football.Quote:
Originally Posted by Smiggy 7-0
If the MOD can get work done in Malta, why not Scotland as a Commonwealth partner? Surely they are bound to get the best deal for the English taxpayer?
Classic British government - divide and rule.
So what's your solution for where to put all these disabled and elderly people who are so selfishly taking up too much space. Bearing in mind there aren't enough single bedroom properties to move them to?Quote:
Originally Posted by Filled Rolls
Allocate housing according to people's current needs, not their needs 15 years ago. It's what town councils used to do. Is it fair for teenage kids of the opposite sex to be sharing bedrooms?Quote:
Originally Posted by green glory
In an effort to get an agreement on this bedroom malarkey can I suggest the way this reform has been considered and implemented has been an absolute shocker?
Maybe if there was already an expectation for people in social housing to move around to better suit their own needs and that of society this current furore wouldn't have happened.
For such a thing to happen however the changes would have needed to be brought in gradually to give people time to get their heads round it and all the anomalies ironed out. Probably longer than a single term in office which is why politicians canny deal with it either humanely or effectively.
I don't really see what this has to do with independence though as its just a typical clash between political parties and I'd expect similar to happen in the future, independence or not.
I agree that the measure is wrong but I'm sure it was mentioned on a Yes campaign leaflet that came through my door - blaming another apparent injustice against Scots by the big bad politicians in London.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack
Not entirely sure what it's got to do with independence barring the fact it's a Westminster policy...there is of course nothing to say such a policy, or another equally controversial, would not be applied by a fully independent Scottish parliament.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack
As for the policy itself I agree...the principal if using public sector rented accommodation as effectively as possible is surely a sound one, the approach taken here which is effectively a stick with no carrot and for a lot of people no option but to get beaten by that stick even if they wanted to move (which they can't as the housing stock is not there to facilitate all the required movements) is surely a flawed one.
It is a classic case though that shows just how difficult benefit reform is. Once a benefit is provided it's extremely difficult to reform it without a significant number of people being impacted. Those impacted will therefore fight hard to retain that benefit. In the meantime government spending continues to substantially outstrip receipts and the national debt continues to grow.
I see recently that the rate of growth in spending is finally starting to drop under the rate of growth of tax receipts but there is such a long way to go it seems almost impossible that in the current environment any government of any colour actually has the ability or political will to sort out this mess.
Quote:
Originally Posted by yeezus
Bringing this back on topic, presumably then you are happy that the government in London is only overwhelmingly rejected by the Scottish electorate most of the time, and not all of it?
No I'm not happy about that, but it's not like we overwhelmingly endorse the SNP, Labour are by far the biggest party in Scotland when it comes to UK elections.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glory Lurker
Quote:
Originally Posted by yeezus
But that's exactly my point. We never vote Tory (and barely vote LibDem (and what vote they had up to 2010 seems to have evaporated)), but more often than not, that's who we get at Westminster. A "no" vote guarantees that continues.
Scotland voted Tory until the mid sixties when Labour became the majority party. How many years of Blair and co did we get again? The SNP's North East heartlands were rock solid Tory until the rise of the SNP and there is a fair chance they will be again if we vote for independence and the SNP become redundant. The Tory 'brand' will also be much less toxic when they are a completely Scottish party.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glory Lurker
Voting yes simply because you don't like the Tories is as illogical as voting no because you don't like Salmond
Very good point. I'm struggling to see any positivity from Better Together to be honest!Quote:
Originally Posted by Glory Lurker
Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
I'm not saying vote yes to avoid ever having a right-wing government. I'm saying vote yes so that Scotland gets what it votes for.
Do you think the Scottish parliament works well within the UK? What annoys me is Scottish Labour are yet to come up with a grand alternative to independence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glory Lurker
Like the 13 years of New Labour?Quote:
Originally Posted by Glory Lurker
I'm probably too biased to answer that question impartially! I campaigned for it and was over the moon when we got it, but I have always seen it as a stepping stone to independence, a way of proving to ourselves that we can actually hold the levers of power.Quote:
Originally Posted by yeezus
No arguing with that. Just under half the time, we get who we vote for. I personally don't think that's good enough, however.Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
Fair enough. However I guess a lot of people in the "no" camp would say we know Scotland can manage on it's own but we would rather not see England, Wales and NI foreign countries? I'm not impartial either. I'm a member of a party as well!Quote:
Originally Posted by Glory Lurker
When we have an independent Scotland ruled by a Labour party voted in by the central belt do you think the mainly Lib-Dem voting Scottish Islands should push for Independence so they get the Government they voted for too? :devil:Quote:
Originally Posted by Glory Lurker
Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
Nice try! They're not a signatory to any union with the rest of Scotland, so I don't see a parallel at all here. As it happens, though, I do support devolution as a concept, and Shetland in particular would seem a good candidate for additional powers. That would be up to them.