We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

Debate House Prices


In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Why doesn't Cameron want Scottish Independence?

18911131434

Comments

  • Zekko
    Zekko Posts: 226 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 100 Posts Combo Breaker
    Will we still have to put up with watching the Scottish Football scores on tele if they get independance? I do hope not.
  • CLAPTON
    CLAPTON Posts: 41,865 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    That wasn't what happened when Ireland became independent. Ireland obtained home rule in 1922, and remained part of the Commonwealth recognising the king until 1946 or thereabouts, when it became a republic.


    you have missed out a few details like a bloody civil war
  • dld2s
    dld2s Posts: 441 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 100 Posts Combo Breaker Uniform Washer
    Zekko wrote: »
    Will we still have to put up with watching the Scottish Football scores on tele if they get independance? I do hope not.

    Theres a easy solution to this even if Scotland doesnt vote independance, it's dead easy, switch your TV/radio off or switch over to another channel, christ if you have a remote control and it's near you, you dont even need to get of you A** ,it doesnt need the breakup of the UK so you dont need to listen to certain football scores!
  • Zekko
    Zekko Posts: 226 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 100 Posts Combo Breaker
    dld2s wrote: »
    Theres a easy solution to this even if Scotland doesnt vote independance, it's dead easy, switch your TV/radio off or switch over to another channel, christ if you have a remote control and it's near you, you dont even need to get of you A** ,it doesnt need the breakup of the UK so you dont need to listen to certain football scores!

    /facepalm
    Yes, I love to turn the TV off whilst waiting for the Scottish scores to finish, and then turn the tele back on again to resume watching after. </sarcasm>
  • dld2s
    dld2s Posts: 441 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 100 Posts Combo Breaker Uniform Washer
    Zekko wrote: »
    /facepalm
    Yes, I love to turn the TV off whilst waiting for the Scottish scores to finish, and then turn the tele back on again to resume watching after. </sarcasm>


    too much trouble is it! there is always the option of turning the TV over, reading a book, speaking to a friend/family member, make a cup of tea or a multitude of other things you could do if it annoys you so much having to watch the Scottish football results, hey, you could even put a post on MSE to divert you for a couple of minutes.

    I could be wrong? but last I heard there was no law requiring you to watch/listen to football results from any country let alone the Scottish results
  • zagubov
    zagubov Posts: 17,939 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    pqrdef wrote: »
    Enough of this nonsense. There is no such thing as "Scottish independence", because Scotland is not a dependent territory.

    In Salmond's fantasies, Scotland is some kind of victim state, an occupied territory ruled over by the jackboots of a foreign power. And we've let him get away with selling this idea. But it is not the case.
    .
    No he doesn't think that. He thinks Scotland's incompetently run by a remote bunch of eejits 400 miles away, that's all. I think he's right and furthermore the whole UK's incompetently run.

    He's not claiming it's the English theat are the problem - the last two prime ministers were Scots and the current one has a Scottish name. That doesn't make them make them competent.

    His government are trying to show they can run Scotland competently. The voters seem to agree this is happening, judging by the landslide victory and current polls of voting intentions..

    He wishes to ask them if they will agree to expand the powers to cover all policy areas (ie confirm Scotland's sovereignty).

    They aren't keen on that by a 2-to 1 majority.

    At least now they're not.;)
    There is no honour to be had in not knowing a thing that can be known - Danny Baker
  • sss555s
    sss555s Posts: 3,175 Forumite
    Fella wrote: »
    What on earth are you talking about, the South of England subsidises the rest of Britain. That's not opinion it's simple fact. Manufacturing is just one way to make money, the service industry generates billions & billions.

    Thanks for that.

    The service industry is everywhere and just relative to the areas, population and needs. A lot of it is fully or partly public funded.

    Most of the service sector is pretty much just "money go round" (where the Tesco worker pays for the tube to get to work and the tube driver buys his shopping in Tesco) which is an important part of a modern society but not really generating any more income relative to any other part of the UK.

    Look at the biggest economy in Europe. Germany has a lot of important city's country wide and is one of the worlds largest exporters.
  • pqrdef
    pqrdef Posts: 4,552 Forumite
    That wasn't what happened when Ireland became independent.
    It's exactly what happened. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, created by the Union in 1801, ceased to exist and was replaced by two new sovereign states. George VI was King of Great Britain and also until 1946 King of Ireland, but never King of any United Kingdom.

    The revived UK is just a fudge to deal with the anomaly of Northern Ireland, but that's only confusing the issue. The UK is not and never was a federation. Wales is part of England, Holyrood is a glorified county council, and N.I. is, as I said, just an anomaly. (As Primeval fans know, that's a time-warp that dinosaurs come through.)


    If secession were possible, I've got a better idea. England should secede, and leave behind the United Kingdom of Great Britain (without England) and Northern Ireland. Why not?
    "It will take, five, 10, 15 years to get back to where we need to be. But it's no longer the individual banks that are in the wrong, it's the banking industry as a whole." - Steven Cooper, head of personal and business banking at Barclays, talking to Martin Lewis
  • pqrdef
    pqrdef Posts: 4,552 Forumite
    zagubov wrote: »
    No he doesn't think that. He thinks Scotland's incompetently run by a remote bunch of eejits 400 miles away, that's all. I think he's right and furthermore the whole UK's incompetently run.
    We all think that. You can live in Westminster and still think most of the Government live on a different planet.

    All governments are incompetent. But pluralism means having governments you don't like sometimes. The alternative is a one-party state, and you won't like that either. Creating a permanent sovereign fiefdom for the SNP isn't the point at all.
    "It will take, five, 10, 15 years to get back to where we need to be. But it's no longer the individual banks that are in the wrong, it's the banking industry as a whole." - Steven Cooper, head of personal and business banking at Barclays, talking to Martin Lewis
  • zagubov
    zagubov Posts: 17,939 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    pqrdef wrote: »
    We all think that. You can live in Westminster and still think most of the Government live on a different planet.

    All governments are incompetent. But pluralism means having governments you don't like sometimes. The alternative is a one-party state, and you won't like that either. Creating a permanent sovereign fiefdom for the SNP isn't the point at all.


    Ironically his best guaranteee of a fiefdom is probably if the referendum gets a resounding no.

    He'll probabaly remain as leader (his popularity dropped this term but is still leagues ahead of all other leaders by miles).

    His party (whose popularity is still climbing) will certainly be voted back into power for exactly the same reasons it was before- the punters trust it.

    It'll need a new core policy as he's promised that the independence referendum won't be repeated for a generation (but if it's a narrow defeat I think we all know they'll find a loophole).

    Their next flagship policy's bound to be Home Rule unless one or more of the other parties steals it and runs with it (which I suspect some, if not all, will).

    If he won the referendum, though, I bet the party would split after about a term, maybe two.

    So, I'm not convinced independence is in his interests.
    There is no honour to be had in not knowing a thing that can be known - Danny Baker
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 454.2K Spending & Discounts
  • 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.5K Life & Family
  • 258.9K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.