Why doesn't Cameron want Scottish Independence?

sss555s

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

I have always thought that the Sturgeon woman was a couple of notches behind on the evolutionary spectrum. I have always felt that she's "not too tighly wrapped."

Little roly-poly Salmon is bad enough, but surely this woman should be stuffed and shoved behind a glass case in some museum.

As opposed to "clueless" disagreeing with everything "toff boy" says despite his party usually offering the same thing and "laughing stock" running the capital.

All looks pretty similar to me

chewmylegoff wrote: »

the idea that either (i) english people will be better off as they won't have to subsidise the scots and (ii) scottish people will be better off because they will get to keep all the oil revenue are both total bollox.

even if the figures are technically true for either claim, what will actually happen is a bunch of politicians will come along and waste all the money on nonsense, and normal people will carry on paying the same amount of tax and receiving the same levels of public services in return - i.e. they will see no perceptable change in their life whatsoever, apart from a fat man in a suit on tv going on a lot about how much better everything is now.

Great post chewy and I totally agree with that :T

It would just feel right to be run from Scotland where the politicians can deal with our issues better.

How would the SE like to be run from central Europe?

It just wouldn't work and you would get very frustrated.

FTBFun

sss555s wrote: »

It would just feel right to be run from Scotland where the politicians can deal with out issues better.

Better?

Or as equally as incompetent?

IveSeenTheLight

chewmylegoff wrote: »

the cost of doing that is not 0, as you could have sold the land and are losing the opportunity of being able to do so by building a house there, so the cost of that piece of land is still its open market value with planning permission whether the govt has to buy it or not.

Come now, I asked if it was so inconceivable.

It took 2 mins to pull out a kit price for a single 2 bed detached home.
I'm sure with negotiation, you could get cheaper in bulk, but I also did not disclude the option of flats which would provide more homes per square meter of land and reduce building costs.

I'm can't provide the data specifically of how it can be achieved as I do not have access to that data.

I'm merely showing that cheap affordable housing could be made and wondered is it was inconceivable to consider.

You can buy flats in Scotland less that £30k, why is it so inconceivable that you can build contract affordable homes for £37,500 each?

sss555s

FTBFun wrote: »

Better?

Or as equally as incompetent?

Better as in understanding the issues better.

But that wasn't the question I asked in my post.

chewmylegoff

sss555s wrote: »

Great post chewy and I totally agree with that :T

It would just feel right to be run from Scotland where the politicians can deal with our issues better.

How would the SE like to be run from central Europe?

It just wouldn't work and you would get very frustrated.

to some extent the SE and the rest of the country already is run from central europe, and apart from some of people being cross about banana curvature and ooman-rights, and spouting off in the paper about it, i am not seeing much difference to my daily life.

the problem with the theory that a wholly autonomous scottish parliament would be better placed to deal with scottish issues is that it assumes that the people voted into the parliament will act in a rather un-politician like manner (i.e. that they will actually care about the people they are elected to represent rather than, in fact, only caring about their own career / ideology).

i can see the attraction of independence for scots, but i think if i was scottish i would be far more interested in moving to devolution-max first, seeing how that worked out, and then making a decision on full independence some time later.

IveSeenTheLight

Generali wrote: »

Are the needs and wants of the Scottish really that different from the needs and wants of the British that it would make a difference? I have my doubts.

Possibly the NEeds and Wants are not so different, however the allocation can be vastly different.

One of the major towns for income is Aberdeen, weher they do not have a Motorway within 100 miles (Perth) and the nearest 3 lane motorway being Carlisle. [edit] sorry forgot the Edinburgh / Glasgow link [/edit]

When you hear of fast rail links to Birmingham / Manchester etc in counction with the 2 1/2 hour rail trip from Aberdeen - Edinburgh, it does make you wonder if there will be an infrastructure benefits.

Now I do understand population demands help to disctate, but what thepeople of scotland are looking for is that their vote counts as opposed to being 1/11th of the UK

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

People have the right to self determination but it does seem a bit mental to incur on yourselves the costs of leaving the Union because the Tories are horrid to Scottish people sometimes. I mean the poll tax thing was over 20 years ago.

I guess the worst case scenario for Scotland would be quitting the UK because the Tories were going to get in and then having to negotiate with a new Tory Government the nut and bolts of independence.

I don't imagine they'd be that bothered about any future ill-feeling from Scottish Governments. They'd be more interested in getting the SUV out of Scotland that contained all the remaining Conservatives living there!

I think you're seriously underestimating the antipathy towards the Tories in Scotland. And it's not all about the poll tax either, that's just a convienient reference point to highlight all the supposed 'ills' the Tories have visited on Scots over the years. It's a hard thing to explain or describe, but it's definately very strongly there, as this poll indicates.

My guess is that it will fail but IIRC the 1970s referendum produced a simple majority but not a majority of those eligible to vote. Presumably the 1970s referendum result, if replayed, would result in an independent Scotland. There's no reason to expect that it would be replayed of course.

Ultimately the Scots must realise that the economic argument for independence is bunkum because the costs of setting up a new state would far outweigh any economic benefits surely...? It's not like the Scots have faced centuries of repression like the Irish did so there is no argument really along the lines of Scots not being able to follow their religions or speak their language or something.

Here I think that you're overestimating how many ordinary people understand fully the mechanics or how economies work. And that goes for everywhere in the UK btw. A few facebook friends of mine ( old school friends I haven't spoken to in years, but I see their updates etc ).. are rampant SNP supporters and all they can see..if their updates are anything to go by.. is 1) Getting rid of the Tories and 2) Oil, Gas and Renewable cash going straight into scottish pockets instead of down the big bad Westminster to give to the evil bankers. That;s about it for the ordinary man in the street imho. My mum thinks this as well.

Dad's an ex-union man who scoffs at her every time independence is brought up..but even he is dispairing of Labour at the moment. And grudgingly admits that the SNP ( or 'Tartan Tories' as he calls them, the SNP where quite conservative in nature in the 1970's http://www.jackiebaillie.co.uk/true-tartan-tories )...are doing far better running Scottish affairs than he would like to admit.

GeorgeHowell

Shakethedisease wrote: »

2) Oil, Gas and Renewable cash going straight into scottish pockets instead of down the big bad Westminster to give to the evil bankers.

Hang on a minute, weren't Royal Bank of Scotland, complete with Fred the Shred, and Bank of Scotland which effectively dragged Lloyds into bankruptcy, among the most "evil" bankers of all ?

robmatic

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

Hang on a minute, weren't Royal Bank of Scotland, complete with Fred the Shred, and Bank of Scotland which effectively dragged Lloyds into bankruptcy, among the most "evil" bankers of all ?

That was the fault of the English for not regulating them properly.

Although, according to Alec, everything is the fault of the English.

GeorgeHowell

robmatic wrote: »

That was the fault of the English for not regulating them properly.

Although, according to Alec, everything is the fault of the English.

I don't remember Salmond or anyone else up there complaining at the time when their piddly-a***d little Scottish banks were hitting the big-time (as they thought), or saying that they could regulate them better.

If they get independence I wonder which one of them they want as their central bank, Bank of Scotland, or Royal Bank of Scotland ? Best of luck with that then.