The nightmare scenario.....

Thrugelmir

wotsthat wrote: »

Is a political union in the UK's national interest? I'd suggest it's neither in the interests of the UK OR Europe.

Then it will be interesting to see how people on the street react as austerity bites. Appears even the mighty German economy is bumping along the bottom. For the past decade or so this was the driver of European sucess as a whole.

Devon_Sailor

Moby wrote: »

Brothers indeed! Complete misreading of history of course. Scotland has battled for its independence for centuries...based on alliances with France to achieve it. Wales was subjugated with a series of castles built to quell the local populace and isn't even represented on the union flag!!

- I have a pretty good grasp of history actually, thanks. It hasn't "battled for independence" since the Middle Ages! The informal coming together of the countries came about under James VI & I, but no political union. During the Civl War they hedged their bets, first helping to oust Charles, before going to war to try and put him back on his throne. The Act of Union came about because Scotland was absolutely brassic, and on the brink of total economic collapse following some badly judged investments and attempts at overseas empire building. Since then however, the various rebellions and revolts have been a matter of religious sentiment (ie, pro Stuart) rather than anti-Union. Certainly since the 1770's the term "brotherly" could be aptly used. Scotsmen and women were massively prevalent throught the growing British Empire, and key to it's developments economically, socially and politically. There presence in the apparatus of governance around the globe was hugely disproportionate to their population size. You cannot simply dismiss the last three hundred years of shared history and hark back to the days of yore beforehand because it suits you better!

Moby wrote: »

Tories generally have never had majorities in Wales/Scotland and rule based on policies which favour the South East. The Tories are no longer a national party.....they rule due to their strength in the South.

- And Labour rely on their weight of unreconstructed vote in the North; so who's counting? If you are so unfazed by it, why not ask the Opposition to vote in favour of the boundary review that would make seats all the same size, thus levelling the playing field? Even with an electoral system skewed in their favour Labour still got booted out; just not by enough unfortunately! :rotfl:

Moby wrote: »

They have no constituency in Wales or Scotland. That is a fact. Only Labour is fighting in Scotland against the nationalists and is actually in power in Wales......

As for 'Europe letting us down'....very myopic little Englander view imo.....we have followed self interested policies towards Europe in exactly the same way as they do to us. We are no better no worse than anyone else.

- Perhaps not, but we havent generally set out to invade other European countries just because we fancied it. Oh, and wasn't the rest of Europe (particularly the French!) really pleased and grateful that we shed so much money and blood liberating them from the Germans? Or from the Kaiser? Or from Napoleon? I think it is not "Little Englander-ish" to make a comment based on such a strong historical pattern of us helping out and getting zero thanks for it.

Moby wrote: »

I don't want to break up the union either but imo simplistic jingoism which is not borne out by the facts on the ground is not the way to go. It is no accident that the calls for Scottish independence have increased since the Tories got into power and the only party capable/in a position to front a unionist campaign in Scotland is Labour. The Tories are nowhere and the Liberals are dead there!

- It's called politics. Are you seriously suggesting that Alex Salmond would not have pushed for a referendum on the Union if Labour was still in power? That is, if I may say, a preposterous argument from someone who clearly has a brain. He has been in power for so long now on a Nationalist ticket, if he hadn;t called it it would have ritically undermined his platform for running at the next Scottish elections. Labour, Tory or Coalition...he was ALWAYS going to call it.

D_S

Moby

Devon_Sailor wrote: »

- I have a pretty good grasp of history actually, thanks. It hasn't "battled for

independence" since the Middle Ages! The informal coming together of the
countries came about under James VI & I, but no political union. During the
Civl War they hedged their bets, first helping to oust Charles, before going to
war to try and put him back on his throne. The Act of Union came about because
Scotland was absolutely brassic, and on the brink of total economic collapse
following some badly judged investments and attempts at overseas empire
building. Since then however, the various rebellions and revolts have been a
matter of religious sentiment (ie, pro Stuart) rather than anti-Union.
Certainly since the 1770's the term "brotherly" could be aptly used. Scotsmen
and women were massively prevalent throught the growing British Empire, and key
to it's developments economically, socially and politically. There presence in
the apparatus of governance around the globe was hugely disproportionate to
their population size. You cannot simply dismiss the last three hundred years
of shared history and hark back to the days of yore beforehand because it suits
you better!

You yourself describe the turmoil within the unionist relationship and then return to the term brotherly. I also note you say nothing about Wales. As I'm Welsh that matters to me:(


-

And Labour rely on their weight of unreconstructed vote in the North; so who's counting? If you are so unfazed by it, why not ask the
Opposition to vote in favour of the boundary review
that would make seats all the same size, thus levelling the playing field? Even
with an electoral system skewed in their favour Labour
still got booted out; just not by enough unfortunately! :rotfl:

The boundary review would have not had the impact you think. The paucity of support for the Tories far outweighs any effect of that review.

-

Perhaps not, but we havent generally set out to invade other European
countries

Ever heard of the Hundred Years War, Joan Of Arc etc?

just because we fancied it. Oh, and wasn't the rest of Europe (particularly the

French!) really pleased and grateful that we shed so much money and blood

liberating them from the Germans? Or from the Kaiser? Or from
Napoleon? I think
it is not "Little Englander-ish" to make a comment based
on such a strong
historical pattern of us helping out and getting zero
thanks for it.

We didn't do those things to liberate them. We did it to protect our own interests. It just so happened liberating them was a consequence of that!




-

It's called politics. Are you seriously suggesting that Alex Salmond would
not have pushed for a referendum on the Union if Labour was still in power? That
is, if I may say, a preposterous argument from someone who clearly has a brain.
He has been in power for so long now on a Nationalist ticket, if he hadn;t
called it it would have ritically undermined his platform for running at the
next Scottish elections. Labour, Tory or Coalition...he was ALWAYS going to call
it.

I know that ...that wasn't my point. I'm saying who is leading the argument for unionism in Scotland? Its the Labour Party...which is now the only national party in the union!

Devon_Sailor

Moby,

Show me any pair of brothers, and I will show you disagreements, spats, fued and fallings out, but in the end, if anything happens to them you close ranks and beat the [EMAIL="!!!!"]!!!![/EMAIL] out of anyone who dares try and harm them

I apologise for not mentioning Wales; I did not want to rock the boat by pointing out that wales doesn't get a mention on the Union Flag because at the time it was a principality and not a sovereign state......

Hundred Years War? Yes - in fact, I have written two thesis about it. That was a domestic issue (brothers again :rotfl:) between French Dukes (of Anjou) who happened also to be English Kings. They kicked off to preserve and protect their domestic rights in France, from French kings who wanted to enforce their subservian allegiance to the Crown. After that it all got messy over English lineage systems vs French system whereby claims to the throne couldnt be passed down a female line (damned mysogenistic cads )

Oh, and to hammer home the point, Joan of Arc actually took up arms primarily against the Burgundians (another French Duchy, allied with the English at the time)...that was who she had her major beef with.

Anyhoo, back to the case in hand.... at the 2010 election, the Tories needed a swing to them almost equal to that achieved by Blair in '97 just to form a working overall majority. If Labour and Tories both scored 40% of the votes, Labour would have got 300+ seats and the Tories only around 235-40 - thats how much of a difference the boundary review makes.........

D_S

BobQ

bangersnmash wrote: »

This is what I posted elsewhere on a thread in DT Discussion Time, the last board on the list, a few weeks ago about this. I’d be interested if any of you have anything to say about it.

England is currently subsidising Scotland to the tune of £20.5 billion a year, a third of its expenditure – or £8.5 billion, a seventh of expenditure, if for some reason Scotland was allocated all of Britain’s North Sea oil and gas revenues :

The UK's Treasury public spending analysis :

Spending 2010/11 £61,625 million
Receipts, no North Sea £41,177 million
Receipts, inc North Sea £53,128 million

Spending on services £ per person per year 2009/10 :
Scotland 9940
England 8531

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...a-independence

Without the English money that finances Scotland it would lose a third or a seventh of its budget which would cripple it, so consequently there'd likely be a big exodus of large numbers of rich people, businesses, workers and the young and the country would disintegrate into a third world shadow of itself.

So as Scotland is dependent on English money notions of independence are not possible.

None of this matters if you believe in the United Kingdom, even its history is not important. We are where we are and if Scotland is stupid enough to vote for this then I imagine none of us will benefit.

Does anyone know what will be the electorate for the referendum? Will those born in Scotland and living elsewhere be eligible to vote?

Generali

BobQ wrote: »

Does anyone know what will be the electorate for the referendum? Will those born in Scotland and living elsewhere be eligible to vote?

The rules haven't been agreed yet. The House of Lords has empowered Holyrood to hold the referendum so the Scottish Parliament, in reality the SNP as Scottish Government, will decide what the rules will be, who the electorate will be etc.

It seems pretty reasonable that the Scottish Parliament decides the rules for the vote TBH.

zagubov

bangersnmash wrote: »

This is what I posted elsewhere on a thread in DT Discussion Time, the last board on the list, a few weeks ago about this. I’d be interested if any of you have anything to say about it.

England is currently subsidising Scotland to the tune of ........

Without the English money that finances Scotland it would lose a third or a seventh of its budget which would cripple it, so consequently there'd likely be a big exodus of large numbers of rich people, businesses, workers and the young and the country would disintegrate into a third world shadow of itself.

So as Scotland is dependent on English money notions of independence are not possible.

Yes; it's rubbish.:)

BobQ wrote: »

None of this matters if you believe in the United Kingdom, even its history is not important. We are where we are and if Scotland is stupid enough to vote for this then I imagine none of us will benefit.

Does anyone know what will be the electorate for the referendum? Will those born in Scotland and living elsewhere be eligible to vote?

I was born there and don't live there now and will be ineligible to vote. Seems fair enough.

I've thought about it pretty carefully even though it doesn't affect me directly.

They'd be better off if they repatriated more powers. Maybe all powers, not quite sure.I can think of at least half a dozen constitutional arrangements that would be better than this one.

If you've any constructive suggestions to make that don't involve the insults poor, wee or stupid- which you managed to namecheck in your post, feel free to post again.

Otherwise, why bother?

Generali

bangersnmash wrote: »

This is what I posted elsewhere on a thread in DT Discussion Time, the last board on the list, a few weeks ago about this. I’d be interested if any of you have anything to say about it.

England is currently subsidising Scotland to the tune of £20.5 billion a year, a third of its expenditure – or £8.5 billion, a seventh of expenditure, if for some reason Scotland was allocated all of Britain’s North Sea oil and gas revenues :

The UK's Treasury public spending analysis :

Spending 2010/11 £61,625 million
Receipts, no North Sea £41,177 million
Receipts, inc North Sea £53,128 million

Spending on services £ per person per year 2009/10 :
Scotland 9940
England 8531

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...a-independence

Without the English money that finances Scotland it would lose a third or a seventh of its budget which would cripple it, so consequently there'd likely be a big exodus of large numbers of rich people, businesses, workers and the young and the country would disintegrate into a third world shadow of itself.

So as Scotland is dependent on English money notions of independence are not possible.

AIUI, it depends how you measure this stuff. I suspect that these figures wouldn't be agreed with by most members of the SNP. I'm not sure why The Treasury would risk an outright fiddle in the figures as it's the sort of thing that, if discovered, could well turn a lot of waverers and soft unionists into separatists. Of course when you put together something like this you have to make a lot of assumptions and so you can argue the toss about it forever with no reasonable chance of ever coming to an answer. Who benefits from the British embassy in Bolivia for example? Do we chalk that up to England or Scotland? If they share the spending then how do we divide it?

What about departments of the national Government that are based in England (or in Scotland for that matter as the argument is the same)? Is the salary of a Civil Servant in London that is looking after something like defense or foreign policy part of British spending or English? The examples go on and on and I suspect that there is no 'right' way to resolve it, merely an accepted/agreed way.

It does seem hard to see how a Peoples Democratic Republic of Alba would function as an economic success as generally speaking socialism dooms a nation to poverty and tyranny. I wonder how long economic failure, if there is any, would continue to be Maggie's fault.

BobQ

Generali wrote: »

The rules haven't been agreed yet. The House of Lords has empowered Holyrood to hold the referendum so the Scottish Parliament, in reality the SNP as Scottish Government, will decide what the rules will be, who the electorate will be etc.

It seems pretty reasonable that the Scottish Parliament decides the rules for the vote TBH.

Generali, thank you.

I agree the Parliament should decide. But if I or one of my parents were born in Scotland and I considered myself a Scotsman I would be pretty hacked off if I was living elsewhere in the UK (my country) and was denied a vote. That said I cannot see how they can easily include people not living in Scotland.

BobQ

zagubov wrote: »

If you've any constructive suggestions to make that don't involve the insults poor, wee or stupid- which you managed to namecheck in your post, feel free to post again.

Otherwise, why bother?[/QUOTE]

I have no idea what you are accusing me of saying.

I do think it would be stupid for Scotland to vote for independence, for them and for the rest of the UK. We are stronger together than apart. If the word "stupid" offends you happy to say "unwise".