SNP Win - The Economics of D-I-V-O-R-C-E

Kohoutek

I'm not going to even bother with the other two countries as the premise is the same for me. You seem absolutely closed-minded to the fact that renewable energy is getting a lot of coverage re it's potentials recently. Germany HAS and is going for VERY similar targets to Scotland up until 2050

What's that got to do with the fact that an independent Scotland would be dominated by EU institutions, rather than Westminster?

Germany or Scotland aren't unique in trying to develop renewable energy industries. If anything the fact that countries like Germany have such ambitious renewables targets is bad for Scotland, because it shows that the plan to become a major renewable electricity exporter is probably unrealistic.

only it hasn't got anywhere near the potential resources

Depends what kind of renewable energy Germany wants to build. There are many other types of renewable energy besides marine based renewable energy.

a lot of jobs created in Germany so far.

I hope renewable energy creates a lot of jobs in Scotland. Because tens of thousands will be lost by the time the North Sea oil runs out...

chewmylegoff

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Now, is that because Germany is as stupid as Salmond ? Or is it because Germany is a "manufacturing, and export orientated economy".. and mabye Salmond isn't so daft after all ?

What's it to be fella's ? :rotfl:

i have no doubt that scotand can produce a lot of electricity from renewables, but i really don't see how this is going to transform your economy. you seem to think that salmond is going to lay a golden egg which will result in unimagined future riches.

brown used to harp on and on about the "green jobs" he was going to create, and say "look at germany". the trouble is, germany got their first.

the investments in renewables started by the previous government (which are pretty extensive - and which presumably include large wind farms in scotland) did create jobs - it's only that they created most of them in germany, where the existing industry was based, and where they build the wind turbines which they sell to us.

if you think that "it will be different this time", and that scotland is going to be somehow transformed into the "germany of the north" simply by investing lots of money in capital projects of this sort, and that all the resultant jobs will be created in scotland, and that this will lead to great wealth, then i think you are sorely mistaken.

IveSeenTheLight

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

So? Happens all the time for other places, too. Such as Kent 1997 to 2010.

Again, I don't compare a country to a county

chewmylegoff wrote: »

scotland doesn't get what england votes for, it gets what the UK votes for. sometimes this is also what scotland votes for, sometimes it isn't.

if scotland went its own way, it would only be a matter of time (about 10 minutes, probably) before everyone in the highlands was complaining that parliament wasn't representive of their views and bemoaning the distant influence of edinburgh and glasgow.

There would be a far higher chance of the people of Scotland views being represented with an Independent Scotland.

You cannot deny that.

Generali wrote: »

That's not really my point but if you prefer you can substitute Northern Ireland for Sevenoaks. AFAIK they've never voted for a majority of Labour party MPs to represent them at Westminster.

From recollection, theres been a long term split in Northern Ireland

1. Those that want to remain in the United Kingdom
2. Those that want to be independant Northern Ireland
3. Those that want to have a unification with the Republic of Ireland

I'm not totally up to speed with the politics of Northern Ireland, but is it possible they would like a referrendum on their situation?
They still have two main parties in Northern Ireland, but could it be, depending on what happens in Scotland, the people in Norther Ireland can look to this and vote for one of the two parties to become a majority.

IveSeenTheLight

chewmylegoff wrote: »

how so. i'm not talking about indepedence, but demonstrating that scottish votes count in the uk general election, contrary to your claim that they do not.

You deducted 44 seats from LAbour and directly added it to the other.
You have no way of knowing how those 44 seats would be distributed had they not voted in Labour.

We seem to be deviating from the original point which was that the poeple of Scotland have chosen only 15.6% of the UK government while 53.9% voted in the SNP.

Why should the majority voting government go cap in hand to the minority representative to try and progress the country?

One benefit already from the Scottish election is that it has cornered David Cameron into conceding points to Scotland he would not likely have done so without the massive political change in the Scottish Government.

Already, just a few days after the election and even before the MP's are officially sworn into Holyrood, Scotland is in a stronger position within the UK.

Independance will give the Scottish people the ability and responsability to progress forward.

Generali

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

From recollection, theres been a long term split in Northern Ireland

1. Those that want to remain in the United Kingdom
2. Those that want to be independant Northern Ireland
3. Those that want to have a unification with the Republic of Ireland

I'm not totally up to speed with the politics of Northern Ireland, but is it possible they would like a referrendum on their situation?
They still have two main parties in Northern Ireland, but could it be, depending on what happens in Scotland, the people in Norther Ireland can look to this and vote for one of the two parties to become a majority.

Nice try but you're dodging the point.

The point is simple. People live in areas (eg Scotland, Northern Ireland, Sevenoaks) where they aren't always represented by the party(s) that they overwhelmingly vote for. That this happens isn't a compelling reason for Sevenoaks or Scotland to leave the United Kingdom.

beecher2

Kohoutek wrote: »

I suppose it's "anything but Westminster" for people that support Alex Salmond and the SNP.

I vote SNP for many reasons, but none of them have anything to do with Westminster.

As a general point, I have to say the level of ignorance shown on this thread is quite astounding - I blame the London centric media for failing to report on Scottish politics, but have to wonder about people commenting on things they know very little about.

Generali

beecher2 wrote: »

I vote SNP for many reasons, but none of them have anything to do with Westminster.

As a general point, I have to say the level of ignorance shown on this thread is quite astounding - I blame the London centric media for failing to report on Scottish politics, but have to wonder about people commenting on things they know very little about.

Perhaps you can enlighten us. Why have so many Scots voted for a party whose central aim (nationalism) they don't support?

chewmylegoff

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

You deducted 44 seats from LAbour and directly added it to the other.
You have no way of knowing how those 44 seats would be distributed had they not voted in Labour.

We seem to be deviating from the original point which was that the poeple of Scotland have chosen only 15.6% of the UK government while 53.9% voted in the SNP.

I know they wouldn't have voted labour if they didn't vote labour, therefore I can add the all to the opposition figure which consists of every party except for labour.

Also you are comparing the Scottish assembly elections with the general elections. Iirc the snp don't pick up anything like 40% in general elections.

Basically your argument is that its fine as long as the rest of the country agrees with the scots but you want out when it doesn't. That's fine but obviously it's a pretty ideological position which doesn't have room for considering what the benefits of the union are even if you don't like the govt of the day.

chewmylegoff

Generali wrote: »

Perhaps you can enlighten us. Why have so many Scots voted for a party whose central aim (nationalism) they don't support?

1 million people voted bnp in the european elections. The general election showed they don't really have that kind of support.

To be fair I couldn't have voted labour if I was Scottish as their manifesto pledged to eradicate youth unemployment in one term. Might as well just promise that every labour voter will win euro millions. Joke manifesto.

Shakethedisease

Also you are comparing the Scottish assembly elections

Scottish PARLIAMENT elections luv ! I have to ask why you're even commenting on this thread with that degree of ignorance of Scottish affairs.

Perhaps you can enlighten us. Why have so many Scots voted for a party whose central aim (nationalism) they don't support?

For me personally, and I've never voted SNP before.

1) They've done a pretty good job the last few years as a minority government. And the Independence thing hasn't been mentioned or pushed much. Very much a feeling of 'let just get on with the job'. They've pretty much kept to their manifesto promises.

2) I voted Lib Dem in the General Election. Never again. A straight choice between Labour or SNP. I suspect a lot felt the same way. Labours overall share of the vote didn't change much at all. However, the Lib Dem share dropped like a stone, and it was the SNP that picked them up, not Labour because...

3) The Labour campaign was just awful. Kept banging on about the Tories ( who are nowhere in Scottish politics ) and their leader was a bit of a wet teabag. It didn't exactly inspire confidence.

None of the above are anything to do with Westminster. In fact, that Labour spent a lot of time concentrating on Westminster events, was actually to their detriment.

The 'independence' issue, strange as it may seem, was a complete non-issue up here ? In fact the current hysterics of the press and forums like this suddenly 'all talking about' it seems a bit of an overreaction to me. Undeciders ( on independence) like me voted for them because I just hope they'll do a good job, like they have been for the last 5 years. Labour had a bad leader, and a terrible campaign. That's it.