Economists Urge Scotland to Vote No......

Shakethedisease

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

The security of our country should be a reserved matter.

Trident is vital to national security and provides a significant boost to the Scottish economy.

I was using it as an example. Even if every single Scots MP ( of whatever flavour ) voted against renewal because their constituents did not want it. It could still be 'imposed' anyway.. but precisely those who are foaming at the mouth over EVEL and threatening to block any Smith Commission recommendations.

And may others don't feel the same as you do re Trident. There is a significant swathe of people throughout the UK who would far rather the money earmarked on renewal was spent elsewhere. And before you leap on me, I'm not a greenpeace flag waving advocate of getting rid of it at all costs either. I don't know where I stand on that one. However, there ARE a lot of people who don't think it is 'vital to national security' anymore, and has long since outlived it's usefulness.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

I don't think you'll get any change from Shakey for that except for agreement about someone else paying for defence as long as the SNP can cherry-pick according to what they define as the Sovereign Will of the .. etc. etc. Oh - and the argument about how would you like it in your back yard (copiously refuted some time ago).

Don't embarrass yourself any more string. You have nothing of note to contribute apart from anti-SNP rants. Every. Single. Post. I don't have a personal stance on Trident. If I did I would have said so. However, that shouldn't negate the fact other people, and lots of them do. Most especially those who live nearby. It is a big issue for some people, throughout the entire UK for that matter.

If you don't get that EVEL coupled with reserved matters and disagreements over who can vote on what...Taken forward into the next government is going to be a complete minefield of a mess on an epic scale.. As well as alienating Scots still further ( ie the example of Trident I provided ) ? Then all you're doing is using my posts to justify anti-SNP rants instead of debating the actual content of them.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I was using it as an example. Even if every single Scots MP ( of whatever flavour ) voted against renewal because their constituents did not want it. It could still be 'imposed' anyway.. but precisely those who are foaming at the mouth over EVEL and threatening to block any Smith Commission recommendations.

And may others don't feel the same as you do re Trident. There is a significant swathe of people throughout the UK who would far rather the money earmarked on renewal was spent elsewhere. And before you leap on me, I'm not a greenpeace flag waving advocate of getting rid of it at all costs either. I don't know where I stand on that one. However, there ARE a lot of people who don't think it is 'vital to national security' anymore, and has long since outlived it's usefulness.

do you think it is right and democratic that the unanimous view of all the Scottish MPs on national security issues, should have precedence over the majority view of the UK parliament?

ruggedtoast

I'm not sure what the Nat anti trident thing is about. Much of the SE and all of London would be obliterated first in a nuclear strike. Scotland is pretty safe.

The reason Trident is held in Scotland is to have some chance of a second strike capability when England had been reduced to smouldering ruin. A scenario that one would imagine Shakethedisease and her miserable cronies would find quite pleasing.

I live fairly close to one of the sites that was earmarked as a potential relocation point for Trident if the Nats hadn't failed so pitifully in their attempts to persuade their countrymen to want independence.

It would have made naff all difference to me as we are already in the bullseye for nuclear destruction. It would have made a massive difference to the economy of that town though. Doubtless once the thousands of jobs Trident creates had left Scotland, without making a blind bit of difference to it's nuclear safety, the Nats would have whined endlessly about that too.

Maybe we could give them a consolation prize. I propose a theme park that can be named "Natland." The only people allowed in will be Scottish or non Scottish immigrants who have passed a Scottishness test by bleating endlessly on social media for the last 2 years about how much better Scotland is than England.

Natland will be a recreation of what Scotland was like in 1500. Which incidentally will also serve as creation of what Scotland would have been like in 2100 if Alex Salmond hadn't been sent packing.

Natland is not likely to be a very popular holiday destination so new visitors will be bribed to come in by forcibly taxing the ones who are already inside. Who also wont be allowed to leave, because their passports will only be valid for travel to Natland and nowhere else. Exactly like was planned to happen in a real independent Scotland.

That hypocrite who writes Wings Over Scotland from his home in Bath can be given a free season ticket. And still won't go.

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Don't embarrass yourself. SNP rants. Every. Single. Post..

You set the tone. Us mere mortals simply follow.

Shakethedisease

CLAPTON wrote: »

do you think it is right and democratic that the unanimous view of all the Scottish MPs on national security issues, should have precedence over the majority view of the UK parliament?

Only if you think it is right and proper that Scottish MP's elected to Westminster democratically by a part of the UK electorate ( as confirmed by a No vote ) should take their place as equals and not cause a 'constitutional crisis' as well as have a significant 'say' in the next Government....

That fact that they might be SNP is immaterial of course I trust ?

Shakethedisease

ruggedtoast wrote: »

I'm not sure what the Nat anti trident thing is about. Much of the SE and all of London would be obliterated first in a nuclear strike. Scotland is pretty safe.

The reason Trident is held in Scotland is to have some chance of a second strike capability when England had been reduced to smouldering ruin. A scenario that one would imagine Shakethedisease and her miserable cronies would find quite pleasing.

I live fairly close to one of the sites that was earmarked as a potential relocation point for Trident if the Nats hadn't failed so pitifully in their attempts to persuade their countrymen to want independence.

It would have made naff all difference to me as we are already in the bullseye for nuclear destruction. It would have made a massive difference to the economy of that town though. Doubtless once the thousands of jobs Trident creates had left Scotland, without making a blind bit of difference to it's nuclear safety, the Nats would have whined endlessly about that too.

Maybe we could give them a consolation prize. I propose a theme park that can be named "Natland." The only people allowed in will be Scottish or non Scottish immigrants who have passed a Scottishness test by bleating endlessly on social media for the last 2 years about how much better Scotland is than England.

Natland will be a recreation of what Scotland was like in 1500. Which incidentally will also serve as creation of what Scotland would have been like in 2100 if Alex Salmond hadn't been sent packing.

Natland is not likely to be a very popular holiday destination so new visitors will be bribed to come in by forcibly taxing the ones who are already inside. Who also wont be allowed to leave, because their passports will only be valid for travel to Natland and nowhere else. Exactly like was planned to happen in a real independent Scotland.

That hypocrite who writes Wings Over Scotland from his home in Bath can be given a free season ticket. And still won't go.

I have no actual idea what you are on about.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Only if you think it is right and proper that Scottish MP's elected to Westminster democratically by a part of the UK electorate ( as confirmed by a No vote ) should take their place as equals and not cause a 'constitutional crisis' as well as have a significant 'say' in the next Government....

That fact that they might be SNP is immaterial of course I trust ?

yes I think it right and proper that that Scottish MPs elected to Westminster democratically by a part of the UK electorate should take their place as equals etc taking into account the devolved powers of the Scottish 'nation'.
i.e. the Scottish nation should not have greater powers compared to their Northern Irish, Welsh or English peoples

Of course the easiest way of doing this would be one unified nation and one parliament;
however as we don't have that, then there have to be compromises etc that some will be unhappy with.

e.g. if the majority in the Westminster parliament determined that Scotland should charge the same Uni charges to the NI, Welsh and English young people as the Scottish young people then should that be respected by holyrood?

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

You set the tone. Us mere mortals simply follow.

No, You did. By pointing out and getting caught up extrapolating hypothetical problems that don't exist. Because there was after all, a No vote.

Join us all in 2015, where no-one knows what will happen in May why don't you. A land where the Telegraph, the Guardian and the FT are all kite flying about a Labour/Tory grand coalition... rather than let an SNP/Plaid/Greens alliance anywhere near Westminster. Even if the seat numbers, thus the voters themselves, wish it so ? Democratically ?

No-one voted No for that malarkey. The referendum was not an election. Those that confuse the two are sadly mistaken. You have been one of many of them. Blithely 'translating' a No vote into some sort of reason that the SNP 'should' disappear forthwith. Well they haven't and you probably need to start dealing with the reality now. One of those possibilities, is Alex Salmond having a significant say in Westminster ( Nicola Sturgeon is an MSP )... or, Alex Salmond being the leader of the opposition if there is a 'grand coalition'. Both are on the cards. Neither is set in stone however, which is why we debate things as events unfold on places like here right ?

Cameron, Milliband and Clegg would be twerking down the streets handing out flyers proclaiming it, if they had the same 'problems' Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP have at the moment.

I didn't set any tone. Just pointed out the possibilities. You just dislike hearing them most likely. No point blaming the messenger. Am sure you'll try though.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

CLAPTON wrote: »

Of course the easiest way of doing this would be one unified nation and one parliament;

Indeed.

End the Scottish, NI, and Welsh assemblies completely and just have MP's from Scotland, England, Wales, etc, only vote on the few matters concerning only those areas.

Gets rid of a needless layer of self serving, bloated, expensive, pointless bureaucracy and allows more money to be spent on local priorities.