Farewell UK. Breakup inevitable says top civil servant

Fiddlestick

ruggedtoast wrote: »

The longer this issue has to settle in our cultural awareness the more likely it becomes. There also doesn't seem to be much hunger on either sides of the border to speak up for the Union.

There isn't much hunger for independance either, despite what the SNP and some sections of the media would have you believe.

The drags on an eventual yes vote however appear to be whether Scots will seriously question Salmond's somewhat optimistic vision of a post UK Scotland, or if they will suck it and see just to have notional independence.

No chance of independance.

Even Alex Salmond isn't as stupid enough to believe that a vote for the SNP was the same thing as a vote for independance. Many people only voted for them because:

a) The competition wasn't of a great standard.
b) The rest of the UK parties seem preoccupied with economic woes to focus on Scotland.


If Alex Salmond was serious he would put up and shut up, rather than holding out like the opportunistic showman that he really is.

johnny_storm

If it really was a United Kingdom, then it would never have been possible for one bit to vote themselves free prescriptions where others pay for then, and the same with university education. Either make everyone equal or get out.

Fiddlestick

johnny_storm wrote: »

If it really was a United Kingdom, then it would never have been possible for one bit to vote themselves free prescriptions where others pay for then, and the same with university education. Either make everyone equal or get out.

That's because Education and Health are devolved matters, as laid out in the Scotland Act 1997 that was voted into law by the Parliament of the United Kingdom.

If you weren't happy with those arrangements then you should have asked you MP to vote against the bill at the time.

zagubov

Fiddlestick wrote: »

That's because Education and Health are devolved matters, as laid out in the Scotland Act 1997 that was voted into law by the Parliament of the United Kingdom.

.

They were separate a long time before devolution. The Scottish office in Edinburgh always dealt with such matters until the Scottish Parliament was established and took them over in 97. Many aspects of Scottish life were never united with the rest of the uK. How could they be when you used to have to be C of E to attend oxridge?

There's still peopple who believe the UK has an NHS. It always had separate ones for Scotland and England, and Northern Ireland has an NHS in all but name.

A big advantage of Scotland being run from Edinburgh is they can see the pigs snouts in the trough close up so they can't get away with anything, despite the media being pretty much pro-unionist (except a few online news sites).

Turns out they can see through Labour when they couldn't while they were 400 miles away in Westminster. Looks like the Scots voted in a less corrupt more competent bunch than we used to. Shame the UK doesn't have a similar bunch they could vote for (cos if they do I've not seen them).:cool:

drc

If the union does break up and Scotland gets independence, does that mean a Tory government for the foreseeable future for England?

property.advert

stonethrower wrote: »

I'd love it because it would damage Labours chance of getting into power.

prowla wrote: »

Curious isn't it - the Scottish want to separate, but they're responsible for the decaude of NuLab that wrecked the country.

drc wrote: »

If the union does break up and Scotland gets independence, does that mean a Tory government for the foreseeable future for England?

Hopefully !

wellused

drc wrote: »

If the union does break up and Scotland gets independence, does that mean a Tory government for the foreseeable future for England?

Ed Milliband's seen to that already.

zagubov

kabayiri wrote: »

Surely the biggest stumbling block would be "oil". ie Who owns what. Without the revenue from those icy waters Scotland would struggle.

I can foresee many a barrister licking their lips at the juicy court battles which would ensue.

Until they look at a map!:rotfl:

joguest

Generali wrote: »

There'd be no Labour Party to speak of for a start. How many times have they won a majority in the British Parliament, discounting the Scottish MPs? Not many AIUI.

My guess would be 1945, 1966, 1997, 2001 and 2005 (the Labour majorities > 30). Would forming a Government every 20 or 30 years be enough to keep a party as a political force? I have my doubts.

Hardly. In reality, the Tories failed to win an election outright despite being up against the unpopular Brown and a party that had been in power for 13 years. It is currently the Tories that are failing to win elections precisely because they have lost the support they had in Scotland (and other areas far from London) prior to the 90s. It is the Tories' Londoncentricity that's destroying their electoral chances. It was Scotland that deserted the Tories and the Tories have now become a regional party with little hope of ever winning an election outright.

For example, the 1945 Labour landslide election saw Labour win 40 seats in Scotland compared to the Conservatives (& allies) 30. So, without Scotland in 1945, Labour would have had a majority of 135 rather than 145. In 1955, the Tories won 50.1% of the Scottish vote - the only party ever to win a majority of the vote in Scotland.

The change in voting patterns in the 90s was so profound that Hague became the first leader of the Tory party never to be prime minister. Closely followed by Duncan Smith and Howard.

treliac

drc wrote: »

If the union does break up and Scotland gets independence, does that mean a Tory government for the foreseeable future for England?

A loss of all balance in politics would be a great worry. Can you imagine where we might be heading if there was only one party and no opposition of any worth?
..