SNP to break up Britian?

[King Damager]

What are they complaining about?

That Scotland doesn't want to be ruled from Westminster by a leader who has no interest in Scotland. (Amongst other things)

Whilst I'm here, I might as well point out that Salmond's model for Scotland is fundamentally flawed. He's selling this idea based on the success of the Scandanavian economic/welfare etc... model. One that wouldn't work in Scotland.

kd

 

[StriderX]

That Scotland doesn't want to be ruled from Westminster by a leader who has no interest in Scotland. (Amongst other things)

Whilst I'm here, I might as well point out that Salmond's model for Scotland is fundamentally flawed. He's selling this idea based on the success of the Scandanavian economic/welfare etc... model. One that wouldn't work in Scotland.

kd

You don't need to state something twice...

 

[Dolph]

That's UK spending included Dolph.

GERS.

GERS doesn't include all UK spending... for a start, it misses out the cost of bailing out the Scottish banks...

not to mention, of course, that the most recent gers report puts the Scottish subsidy at 11.6%. are you perhaps adding your own spin and revision to the report?

 

[[TW]Fox]

I don't think we should tax under 18 year olds then unless they have a say in how it is spent. Fair?

Best we exempt 13 year olds from VAT on McDonalds then, or allow them to vote, as they have no say in how its spent..

 

[aln]

I think generally that is not the rUK's bargaining chip...it is ironically the SNP's.

Since a base in England is not ready yet or something.

Well yeah, the nukes would be Scotlands bargining chip, potentially, but the debt would likely be the rUKs.

I mean, by default do we get ~9% of UK assets, or do we just keep everything within Scottish borders and leave any claim for the rest, despite helping pay for it?

I'd argue it'd be a bit of both, we'll keep everything in Scotland, leave everything not in Scotland, and if that works out to about the right %, OK, otherwise there will be arguments and probably bargaining chips being used.

GERS doesn't include all UK spending... for a start, it misses out the cost of bailing out the Scottish banks...

not to mention, of course, that the most recent gers report puts the Scottish subsidy at 11.6%. are you perhaps adding your own spin and revision to the report?

They're not Scottish banks, they're private UK banks acting under UK regulation and the bailouts have already been paid for based on taxes revenunue or borrowing which would already be partly attributed to Scotland.

 

[BigAndy87]

the scottish banks arent exactly owned by scotland before needing a bail out anyway is it not the share holders that owned it.
Banks may be based in edinburgh or where ever but dont think they are scotlands banks. Just a name these days.

 

[[TW]Fox]

The status of Scotland is not your decision to make

Which seems fair enough until..

The United Kingdom would cease to exist.

If thats the case why does the majority of the United Kingdom not get a say in the potential ceasation of its existence? Are you suggesting that the fate of my nationality - that as a resident of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - rests entirely with a fraction of its population in Scotland?

The costs that the rest of the Union would have to bear should the indepedance of Scotland mean the UK would 'cease to exist' are simply huge - everything from company names to website addresses would be affected.

That seems... unfair?

It seems more likely to me that the United Kingdom would continue to exist - but that Scotland wouldn't be a part of it (Which would be a shame).

 

[Socrates470BC]

if the Scots want to go it alone, then that is their choice, but as reality is starting to encroach on the snp (see the need to reapply for eu membership as a new applicant, and the point raised about how a currency union is unacceptable given the eurozone example), I have my doubts that will be their choice.

What makes you think that if the UK is broken up that the rest of the countries in the ex-uk will not have to re-apply for EU membership?

Just a few points that appear to go over the heads of some of our politicians and media people.

1. Great Britain = Scotland, England and Wales.
2. UK = Great Britain + Northern Ireland.
3. England does NOT = UK.
4. England does NOT = Britain.

Why was the UK Olympic team called team GB?

Why does Wales not have any representation in our national flag (Union Jack)?

Why did we not get a new national anthem instead of an old recycled dirge that insults the Scots.

Obviously, these thing are completely missed by those who are neither Welsh, Northern Irish or Scots, but these are the types of things that display a rather arrogant indifference to 75% of the nations in the union.

Listen to the English MP's complain when Scots, Welsh or Irish MPs vote on English matters, and then remember that English MPs have been deciding on the fate of Scotand, Northern Ireland and Wales for the last few centuries.

Even the people of in the North of England do not feel that the two arrogant posh boys running the country have any idea about what goes on north of Watford.

Really, you wonder why there is a growing demand from these nations to have the ultimate say in their own destiny!

A major problem for the UK at the moment is the pathetic quality of the UK leadership. Alex Salmond is running rings around the moribund Clegg, Cameron, and Milliband.

 

[RDM]

What makes you think that if the UK is broken up that the rest of the countries in the ex-uk will not have to re-apply for EU membership?

Pragmatically? Money. The EU cannot afford to lose our budget contributions.

 

[[TW]Fox]

English MPs have been deciding on the fate of Scotand, Northern Ireland and Wales for the last few centuries.

And Scottish people have been in charge of our government in Westminster for as long as most people on this forum have had any real awareness or interest in politics...

 

[Biohazard]

That Scotland doesn't want to be ruled from Westminster by a leader who has no interest in Scotland. (Amongst other things)

Whilst I'm here, I might as well point out that Salmond's model for Scotland is fundamentally flawed. He's selling this idea based on the success of the Scandanavian economic/welfare etc... model. One that wouldn't work in Scotland.

kd

All Scots are saying that? Referendum is in the bag then.

 

[Macro]

I don't think we should tax under 18 year olds then unless they have a say in how it is spent. Fair?

Citizens of any age are eligible to be taxed if they exceed their ~£8k per year tax free personal allowance so by your logic we should extend the franchise to children and babies...

 

[Socrates470BC]

And Scottish people have been in charge of our government in Westminster for as long as most people on this forum have had any real awareness or interest in politics...

The Scots have longer memories

...and the fact that Motson and crew can't avoid mentioning 1966 everytime they commentate on a game of football, even when none of the teams are from the UK, just gets to be pathetic.

At the same time they conveniently forget that a Scottish team was the first to win the European Cup.

The legendary Bill Shankley was the only manager from the English first division who went to the game.

At Wimbledon this year, BBC's Sue Barker referred to Sir Alex Ferguson as Scotland's first minister.

 

[Biohazard]

GERS doesn't include all UK spending... for a start, it misses out the cost of bailing out the Scottish banks...

not to mention, of course, that the most recent gers report puts the Scottish subsidy at 11.6%. are you perhaps adding your own spin and revision to the report?

There are extrapolations within the GERS reports.

The cost of bailing out British banks is a one off, it's included in the national debt to the tune of £120bn according to yourself. That would not be included in yearly public spending accounts.

 

[Biohazard]

Best we exempt 13 year olds from VAT on McDonalds then, or allow them to vote, as they have no say in how its spent..

Citizens of any age are eligible to be taxed if they exceed their ~£8k per year tax free personal allowance so by your logic we should extend the franchise to children and babies...

No taxation without representation.

Fox - would depend if they earnt it or not.

Athanor - I don't think we're talking about Babies and Children who are unlikely to contribute through Local Rates, PAYE or SA.

 

[Biohazard]

Which seems fair enough until..



If thats the case why does the majority of the United Kingdom not get a say in the potential ceasation of its existence?

Because it ceases to exist, at least in current form, due to the equal partner leaving the unitary state that in part created the UK framework.

Are you suggesting that the fate of my nationality - that as a resident of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - rests entirely with a fraction of its population in Scotland?

Essentially, even if indirectly.

The costs that the rest of the Union would have to bear should the indepedance of Scotland mean the UK would 'cease to exist' are simply huge - everything from company names to website addresses would be affected.

That seems... unfair?

"UK" and how that would continue with the remainder states is yet to be clarified, but yes there would be change required on both sides.

It seems more likely to me that the United Kingdom would continue to exist - but that Scotland wouldn't be a part of it (Which would be a shame).

The rUK could certainly style itself the same [If it really wanted too], but the detail and name has yet to be trully considered.

 

[Macro]

Athanor - I don't think we're talking about Babies and Children who are unlikely to contribute through Local Rates, PAYE or SA.

So you're suggesting 16years olds should only get to vote if they pay one of the taxes you mention? 17 year olds who only earn £7k per year would not get the vote, nor would someone in further education? Not disagreeing, just want to be clear.

 

[Biohazard]

So you're suggesting 16years olds should only get to vote if they pay one of the taxes you mention? 17 year olds who only earn £7k per year would not get the vote, nor would someone in further education? Not disagreeing, just want to be clear.

No I think the principle is fine broadly speaking, taxation is a good highlight to the inadequecy of representation of our young adults.

In Scotland you can marry at 16, making many life changing decisions including having children and earn a living under 18 and the ability to have a say politically is not that much of an increadible jump of liberty.

 

[Biohazard]

And Scottish people have been in charge of our government in Westminster for as long as most people on this forum have had any real awareness or interest in politics...

Voted in by a majority of people who weren't Scottish.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Because it ceases to exist, at least in current form, due to the equal partner leaving the unitary state that in part created the UK framework.

So why would it cease to exist? Scotland would leave the UK - the UK would surely continue without Scotland (and be worse for it, IMHO).

If thats not the case then frankly the consequences of a breakup are far, far too great for only less than 10% of the residents of the UK to have any sort of say in!