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

chewmylegoff

it was scotland's decision in the same way that murray is british until he gets knocked out of wimbledon, at which point he becomes scottish.

if the westminster govt fundamentally disagreed with the decision, they would have been diving in studs up with both feet off the ground. may have been a decision of the scottish government, but it was fully sponsored by westminster in my view.

pbouk

chewmylegoff wrote: »

it was scotland's decision in the same way that murray is british until he gets knocked out of wimbledon, at which point he becomes scottish.

if the westminster govt fundamentally disagreed with the decision, they would have been diving in studs up with both feet off the ground. may have been a decision of the scottish government, but it was fully sponsored by westminster in my view.

and what evidence can you show me of this?

wotsthat

A man with only 3 months to live under the NHS has survived for years after changing his healthcare provider. Maybe we should be looking at the Libyan healthcare system as a model for the UK.

chewmylegoff

pbouk wrote: »

and what evidence can you show me of this?

oh i dunno, the official investigation of the matter conducted by the head of the civil service which concluded that the brown govt did everything it could to facilitate the release.

pbouk

chewmylegoff wrote: »

oh i dunno, the official investigation of the matter conducted by the head of the civil service which concluded that the brown govt did everything it could to facilitate the release.

the brown government tried to facilitate many things, doesnt mean they always happened. the buck stops with scotland the final decision was made by the snp. take the blame for your own actions if you are going to be an independent country.

Ian_W

Ian_W wrote: »

Of course in an election 1 is a majority but you have the chance to change that a few years down the line. This decision would be as irrevocable as any you could make. The union has lasted 300yrs - any divorce would likely last as long.

I know some organisations who require a 2/3 majority when constitutional changes are proposed and something of this magnitude would surely need the widespread support of the Scottish people?

This is an example of one such organisation's constitution:

This Constitution may not be changed, except by a vote of at least two-thirds of the delegates present and voting at National Conference.

Anyone hazard a guess at the organisation?

IveSeenTheLight

pbouk wrote: »

does not matter what westminster wanted, the buck stops with scotland they released him, their problem, their fault he lives years after release when he was supposed to be at deaths door. DONT bring westminster into it. POOR decision by SNP

I said Scotland took the decision and are responsible for it.

I was merely pointing out that if Scotland didn't have the power to make that decision and it rested with Westminster, I doubt there would have been a different outcome, potentially the difference would have been that he would have been released earlier.

TheHangingJudge

Try as I might, I can't find the results of the 1706 referendum for Scotland joining the Union with England. All I can find is some guff about widespread rioting throughout Scotland when the treaty was signed in secret, a load of guff about the Scottish nobility being bought off by their English counterparts and some quotes from those who signed it saying the vast majority of Scots didn't want their nation emasculated.

So as far as I'm concerned a majority of one is one enough for Scottish independence. And that's in one referendum. If the English government drags it out then the Scots should just declare UDI and say "bye bye Britain". Sorted. In fact, Salmond's got the mandate to declare UDI anyway ... why even bother with a referendum at all ? He's got his Parliamentary majority, sovereignty in Scotland lies with the electorate and not Westminster (MacCormick versus Lord Advocate 1953) ... so what's stopping him ?

What happens to Northern Ireland in all this ? Who gets landed with that province ?

ruggedtoast

I think we should give Wales to Scotland as a leaving present.

Anyway personally its obvious that the Union isnt working. I have never been to Scotland. I would go if I had to on business or something, but I get the impression from many of the Scots I have met in England that I would not be made very welcome there. So I cant really get enthusiastic about wasting annual leave and money on a trip there.

When theres a large part of 'your' country you dont want to visit in case you are a victim of racism its difficult to feel especially sorry about its potential secession.

I think a lot of English people feel like that.

tartanterra

ruggedtoast wrote: »

I think we should give Wales to Scotland as a leaving present.

Anyway personally its obvious that the Union isnt working. I have never been to Scotland. I would go if I had to on business or something, but I get the impression from many of the Scots I have met in England that I would not be made very welcome there. So I cant really get enthusiastic about wasting annual leave and money on a trip there.

When theres a large part of 'your' country you dont want to visit in case you are a victim of racism its difficult to feel especially sorry about its potential secession.

I think a lot of English people feel like that.

You refuse to visit Scotland "in case you are a victim of racism"?:rotfl:

Priceless and utterly pathetic at the same time!

I assume you don't fly "in case the plane crashes" and avoid crossing roads "in case you get knocked down".

I've read some nonsense on these forums over time, but this tops the lot.