Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

HornetSaver

First time poster in this field, so I'll give a summary of my views.

I'm neutral on Scottish independence, with the single caveat that I assume the British-Irish Common Travel Area would continue as-is. There are mutual international benefits to the union (for instance the SNP in Parliament are a strong voice on British military action, a voice that wouldn't be relevant if England were independent, also the UNSC vote, which probably won't exist if the union splits), but not ones so big that they are reasons why the union must continue. There are also very obvious downsides (Barnett, whether one country or another is over or underrepresented democratically, and so on).

For me the 2014 referendum was an irrelevance (very interesting, great for democracy, but irrelevant as I was content with either outcome). It did teach me two things: that Scotland could easily vote Yes (plenty of No voters would have voted Yes in different circumstances) but that economics, not politics, is what will convince those on the fence to change their minds.

Which neatly ties into the point I came to make. As a cynic on a moneysaving forum I can't help but wonder at what point the SNP driving good deals within the union might hurt their chances of getting out of it. How do they toe the line between getting the best deal for Scotland in all circumstances (their job, one they are unquestionably good at), and convincing the 2014 waiverers that the case for independence is clearer (the overriding aim of the party).

Obviously if Uk votes to leave EU all bets are off, Scotland will definitely vote to leave the UK. But barring that?

tberry6686

I'm not convinced that the SNP will ever win an independence referendum. Just because the will have a landslide at the next Scottish elections means nothing.

They are very good at getting there supporters out in normal elections when many Scots just can't be bothered. In the referendum, however, the total voter turnout was far higher than normal and the result was very clear.

The pro independence campaign was (and continues to be) very vocal where as the Unionist side tends to remain pretty quiet. If you look at the polls in the run up to the referendum, in the last days before hand it appeared very close, only the pro independence group believed them, the better together campaign knew differently.

I very much doubt if leaving the EU will make much of a difference really. For Scotland to join the EU would take years of talks, almost certainly handing over whatever oil industry it has left, giving up economic control, joining the Euro etc and that is if the EU would want them. A country that would (if the SNP spending plans are to be believed) be an economic basket case as bad as Greece that would require constant subsidies instead of being a net contributor, why would the EU want to bring that into the mix.

Leanne1812

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

That is a very slippery slope to go down... Where does it end?

Protecting vulnerable children should of course be a priority.

But collecting information on every child so the State, not the parents, can determine such nebulous concepts as 'wellbeing' and 'happiness' is more than step too far.



Exactly what the government already does.

Intervene when there is a risk of harm to children.



Seriously?

Are you remotely surprised that the president of a Social Worker's group would be in favour of a law increasing mass surveillance of children by the State? Talk about biased...

It's a horrific intrusion into the privacy of families and the primacy of parents regarding the decisions made for their children.

This is just really, really awful stuff, Orwellian in nature, and I cannot believe any right minded person would not be extremely wary of such intrusion.

Presently children already have teachers, health visitors, social workers, psychologists etc supporting & helping them. GIRFEC simply coordinates that support so that whomever is considered best placed to oversee a child's development at that particular stage will be doing so. The very same professionals with be doing the very same job. It's that simple....

I don't have a problem with this.

CLAPTON

Leanne1812 wrote: »

Presently children already have teachers, health visitors, social workers, psychologists etc supporting & helping them. GIRFEC simply coordinates that support so that whomever is considered best placed to oversee a child's development at that particular stage will be doing so. The very same professionals with be doing the very same job. It's that simple....

I don't have a problem with this.

Blair tried to bring in a similar scheme with a co-ordinated records of every child although it was abandoned by the Coalition.

The Rotherham UKUP case also spring to mind. Probably some-one like Whitford could easily convince herself that any child living in a household with 'NO' voters couldn't possibly be happy and so could be subject 'abuse'.

Anyway I'm neutral : if the people of Scotland want to wast money tracking every child rather than targeting money on actual deprivation or abuse, then that's democracy.

kabayiri

I asked this question before and nobody provided an answer.

What percentage vote *clearly* demonstrates that Scottish voters are different to the rest of UK voters on the European issue?

A few percentage points difference is not enough to demonstrate a Scottish independence ref need IMO.

So what is it? Will Scots be 75:25 in favour to REMAIN? It would need to be a resounding result of that level.

(We have already seen that a 55:45 split just leads to more bickering over the clarity of the result).

CLAPTON

kabayiri wrote: »

I asked this question before and nobody provided an answer.

What percentage vote *clearly* demonstrates that Scottish voters are different to the rest of UK voters on the European issue?

A few percentage points difference is not enough to demonstrate a Scottish independence ref need IMO.

So what is it? Will Scots be 75:25 in favour to REMAIN? It would need to be a resounding result of that level.

(We have already seen that a 55:45 split just leads to more bickering over the clarity of the result).

51/49 will do, as long as the Independence polls show that a clear positive: any excuse will do to produce the correct faux outrage

Generali

CLAPTON wrote: »

Blair tried to bring in a similar scheme with a co-ordinated records of every child although it was abandoned by the Coalition.

The Rotherham UKUP case also spring to mind. Probably some-one like Whitford could easily convince herself that any child living in a household with 'NO' voters couldn't possibly be happy and so could be subject 'abuse'.

Anyway I'm neutral : if the people of Scotland want to wast money tracking every child rather than targeting money on actual deprivation or abuse, then that's democracy.

Wasn't it Thatcher or Thacker or something? Not Whitford.

Thrugelmir

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I meant start climbing in the polls. And looking a possibility for winning in 2020. It's hard to imagine now, but then, it was hard to imagine him winning the Labour leadership contest... hard to imagine him lasting past Christmas, hard to imagine Oldham success with him as leader... etc etc.

Corbyn is merely a puppet for his Union masters. Labour is a divided party. Blair's efforts to modernise the party have failed. Labour is now slipping backwards to it's unelectable state of 20 plus years ago.

elantan

kabayiri wrote: »

I asked this question before and nobody provided an answer.

What percentage vote *clearly* demonstrates that Scottish voters are different to the rest of UK voters on the European issue?

A few percentage points difference is not enough to demonstrate a Scottish independence ref need IMO.

So what is it? Will Scots be 75:25 in favour to REMAIN? It would need to be a resounding result of that level.

(We have already seen that a 55:45 split just leads to more bickering over the clarity of the result).

This is quite a difficult one to answer, I know many people here that want out of the EU but will vote to remain in just to get a chance at indy, there may be others that want in but will vote out just to stay in the UK...

as for % I would agree it needs to be a definitive amount no more 55-45 I reckon atleast 60-40

CLAPTON

Generali wrote: »

Wasn't it Thatcher or Thacker or something? Not Whitford.

The logical connection are difficult to unravel

The danger of every minor (untrained) functionary looking out for child protection issue that extend to 'happiness' etc is that their own prejudices may influence their judgement with potentially serious consequences.
So in Rotherham, even though there were dozen of teenage girls suffering terrible real sexual abuse, the 'authorities ' overlooked the issue. However, they were aware of the terrible nature of UKIP supporters (vile racists etc) and took a UKIP couple's children into care on the basis that such a home was unsuitble for children..
Once it got in the newspapers the child/ren were released back into the parents cusody with a half hearted apology.

My reference to Whitfold is that she is/was a NHS consultant and so just the sort of person who would be looking out for problems : as a committed liar and SNP supporter, it would not be beyond the realms of possibility that her firmly help political convictions would lead her to some incorrect conclusion.