1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Scottish Nationalists set for a majority

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by ThePirateHulk, May 6, 2011.

  1. RDM


    Joined: Feb 1, 2007

    Posts: 20,213

    If those figures are correct then it looks like North Wales is actually over-represented rather than under-represented? Which seems to be the opposite to what ubersonic is suggesting?
  2. Mr Jack


    Joined: May 19, 2004

    Posts: 17,423

    Location: Kiel, Germany


    Oh, and to complete the list Mid and West Wales - where PC actually got their best result - returns 12 members from 436000.
    Last edited: May 6, 2011
  3. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 47,539

    Location: Plymouth

    I would point out that my support for independence is because I support the right of the Scottish people to decide their own destiny, the economic issues, although beneficial, are not the root of my support.

    However, I would again point out (and I know we have discussed it before), that the split of the UK is not just a scottish issue, and would require negotiations and support of both sides. The rest of the UK would certainly expect Scotland to take their share of the national debt (as defined by the Barnett formula, what's good for spending...), as well as scottish specific liabilities such as RBS. There would be substantial negotiation around defence and what Scotland would get and so on.

    Most independence calculations done by the Scots seem to work on the 'we get the good stuff and leave the bad stuff with the UK' principle, which is almost certainly not what is going to happen.
  4. Biohazard


    Joined: Aug 29, 2003

    Posts: 31,334

    That is very open minded of you, a shame not all your fellow citizens cannot follow your respectful example.



    Scotland would still benefit.

    Here is what the man himself has to say on his own creation, and I think Westminster has left him a very bitter man;


    It isn't uniquely Scottish, some of their investment businesses are registered down south.

    Would you like to answer my question above on this matter?

    Indeed, and you can have your bloody nukes back. :p

    I can't say I've seen that at all, certainly not in the serious sphere.
  5. scorza


    Joined: Jun 22, 2004

    Posts: 26,685

    Location: Deep England

    For sure, I don't think Scotland would have the option to keep the nukes. Plus you'll have to agree to pay your share of the future nuclear maintenance and disposal liabilities.
  6. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 47,539

    Location: Plymouth

    Done correctly, I think both could benefit. The spending priorities of the two areas are different, but that isn't to say they are wrong.


    Which question specifically?

    I'd welcome them, and I live close to the only other place in the UK kitted out to take them :)

    Perhaps it's a perception difference, because it often seems that way to me. There is a lot of talk about oil money and the like, and very little acknowledgement of the loss of UK public service industries, military bases and so on, and also very little talk about scotland's share of the debt and so on.
  7. PermaBanned


    Joined: Jul 7, 2009

    Posts: 16,239

    Location: Newcastle/Aberdeen

    Because the coalition's going to last that long, isn't it? :p
  8. quickshot89

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Feb 1, 2009

    Posts: 2,016

    i hope it can, shame labour got back in newcastle, more useless spending to come :(
  9. Mr Jack


    Joined: May 19, 2004

    Posts: 17,423

    Location: Kiel, Germany

    I think it will, because both parties will suffer if things split before then but - yes - it may not last. Especially after the Libs do the sensible thing and put Clegg to the sword.
  10. Faustus


    Joined: Mar 20, 2007

    Posts: 5,363

    I'm pleased about the Scottish result as I will now sit back and await meltdown. The SNP have made promises they can't possibly afford to carry out, it could make the Irish financial crisis look like lost pocket money by comparison. This result should help Labour make a huge comeback next time around.

    On independence though, I would support the North of England breaking away from the South with the South making an appropriate compensation contribution for the way they have raped the North of wealth over the last 150years or so. I couldn't help but notice in today's elections how the shire counties continue to vote blue. Let's face it, it isn't people in those locations who are suffering in Cameron's Britain.
  11. ubersonic


    Joined: May 26, 2009

    Posts: 20,666

    Firstly "where PC actually got their best result" was actually north west Wales where they won 57% of the vote, secondly voters does not equal population, not everybody is registered, hence why those figures combined are much lower than the population for Wales. North Wales has just under a million residents which compared to south Wales just under two million is only 50% of the people, North Wales has less than 50% of the seats South Wales does...
  12. Biohazard


    Joined: Aug 29, 2003

    Posts: 31,334

    Individually, no not at all. Collectively, theoretically not at all but the problem arises quite simply from a one size fits all approach. Fiscal autonomy would go some way to prevent this situation decaying drastically, but it would be very unlikely to pacify snp-independence supporters and depending on the long term effect then you may get some more momentum.

    The Scotland bill was amended into a nice Trojan horse, with an SNP majority it's going to meet a lot more scrutiny objection and public analysis now. Importantly the SNP now leaves the election with the clear endorsement for it's governance for Scotland (not independence) in broadsheet and rag; something it hasn't had for decades. That's not to say the garden will stay all rosy, but you will appreciate if handled with a velvet glove it will be a vital component in getting what we want to say heard.

    I saw Dave's statement today, I was impressed. While he has congratulated the winners also (I believe), I can't help but feel at the same time it's just going to end up as the inevitable 'it's bash the Nats time' or wheel out the myth & smear wheelbarrow - Westminster and the establishment rarely play fair or positive with Scotland, let alone it's own electorate by the looks of other news lately, or historically for that matter. I'll bite my tongue just now and wait and see to give him his chance; but I'm not holding my breath either.

    While I realise "respect" probably won't last very long given the diametrically opposed groups, if it does descend into mud slinging when Scotland has broken history and returned a near impossible majority government (something that even call me Dave couldn't manage himself requiring a petulant lib-dem prop) it may end up entrenching opinion and stance here.. maybe. Wait and see.
    I don’t agree with tone or presentational facts, but it is still interesting and Westminster seems to chew up everyone that goes near it sometimes.

    This question here which I used to answer your question;

    Assets like RBS are going to make returns on taxpayers money regardless, so what is worse servicing the liability or the end profit on selling the asset?

    (granted I've taken certain political assumptions in my response)

    I just thought it oddly simple for you to ask of me and likewise the question you posed in the GD thread to Jokester; you've talked to us for years especially on subjects like this so why ask questions you know we are highly likely already going to know?

    What happened to the bamboozling attempts with the formula etc? ;)

    What ever floats your boat, no pun intended.

    I thought you wouldn't approve of them either, could England afford the pretense of nuclear arm's when a carrier is out of the question?

    It is seriously expensive for no use at all.

    So other than an economic kickback to the yanks, why exactly would Nuclear weapons sat outside your front window make you as a neo liberal conservative; happy??. This could be used as an opportunity to reposition England well for the future. I can’t say weapons of mass destruction are it, and we could genuinely show the world as a moral example that disarmament is possible for a state.

    Would the collective English hubris allow this? Is that your stumbling block?

    Can I think out your plan for England instead? I might to a better job. :p

    On reflection I appreciate this point more; you always get various levels of understanding for any followings, groups or ideologies. From basic premise or framework understanding up to expertly refined analysis with absolute clarity.

    Look at the dreaded 'left/right' debacles here, and the differing levels of contribution relating to levels of background knowledge. It depends on your levels of exposure to the various levels at random unforunately.

    A few of the points you raise are actually quite variable and subject to almost near change as we progress, even potentially unknown/unquantifiable however the key answer to this (which I am sure you will appreciate) is targeted private sector driven growth. I’m sure you could insert the rest yourself…
    Last edited: May 7, 2011
  13. zorrofox


    Joined: Dec 11, 2005

    Posts: 123

    Location: Dundee, Scotland

    Please allow me to point something out here. I'm old enough to remember what the drive for Scottish independence actually was (is?). I support independence for my Country because I believe in the right to self-determination. It has never for me been about money. Ever since I came out of my Mothers womb I've been encouraged to be independent. To take my decisions for myself. To take what I naturally have and run with it. Make it more, bigger & better. If I succeed then so be it. If I fail then so be it. It's never been about money for people like me. The financial arguments raised by the SNP mainly during and since the '70's are there to motivate those that maybe don't possess that 'natural' instinct to look after themselves.

    Here's one interesting point though - I'm a white van man and I'm in St Andres pretty regularly. There was some wedding or other (you remember?) a week ago and I can tell you that on the Thursday before the wedding on Friday the town was pretty much decked out in Union flags. A week later the town votes (via it's larger constituency) actually votes for a pro-independence party. I'm not saying they voted for independence per se but it's an interesting perspective. I'll wager that the Union flags were provided by the incomers (students, hangers on et al) and that the vote a week later was cast by the indigenous people. This may or may not demonstrate something. But it does cast an interesting light on the Welsh conundrum. I've never been to Wales but I think it's maybe true to say that the people who consider themselves to be "Real Welsh" mainly occupy the north of the country and the "incoming" population stick to the south. Given this, and the fact that the south is the most densely populated does it not follow that Wales is just more and more likely to be subsumed by Greater England? The incomers are far more likely to vote for a pro UK party than another. Just a thought.

    Having said that I lived in the north-west highlands for a number of years and there were a huge number of English people living there. On my Welsh theory you might expect them all to be Tories through and through yet this was not the case. A significant number of these incomers would and did vote for the SNP and indeed I've heard some actually argue the case for Scottish independence. There's nowt as queer as folk.
  14. Mr Jack


    Joined: May 19, 2004

    Posts: 17,423

    Location: Kiel, Germany

    In just one constituency, Arfon, did they get such a share of the vote. Labour got more support overall in North Wales. Making up easily verifiable facts does not help your argument.

    The major reason voter count and population differ is that people under 18 don't vote. There is some non registration, of course, but little reason to think there is a systematic difference between north and south Wales, certainly not one sufficient to overturn the bias in voters per seat. I'd also point out that, in general, fewer city voters than rural voters are registered so the bias is more likely to go the other way.
  15. Orcish-Horde


    Joined: Jun 17, 2004

    Posts: 3,692

    Just looking at a map on the BBC site in which there is a clear split in voting patterns, not an equal but geographical split. I have a thinking that a referendum would to a greater extent show clear splits. I don't think the SNP can transform its vote into a nationalist vote Scotland wide in a referendum and win a majority Scotland wide. In a way much like Ireland before partition, with a back drop of sectarianism and the SNP giving of about it at the old firm matchs. With a turn out of 50% and the SNP only getting 45.4% of the turn out, it could very easily end in a divided Scotland.
  16. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 47,539

    Location: Plymouth

    Contrary to what many seem to believe, I don't actually have an issue with high spending and correspondingly high tax rates. I have a problem with unfair tax rates (such as stepped income tax bands) and unfair spending (throwing money at people because they are poor). Progessive taxation should be created by single rates with high qualifications, or by balancing a payment against tax liability, which ensures everyone gets the same treatment from the state.

    From the English perspective, the issue with Scottish spending is not what they spend it on, but the fact that, per capita, they have more money to start with from the central pot.

    I would support fiscal autonomy for Scotland, the freedom to set both taxation and spending rates, provided a fiscally autonomous Scotland was truly self-financing.

    On the flip side, from the English perspective, Scotland doesn't 'play fair' with the rest of the UK either. I too thought Cameron's speech was good, it is the right view to acknowledge choice and congratulate, while ensuring that the potential for future disagreements is acknowledged.

    It is certainly an interesting time, that is for sure.

    Our political system is damaged by the fact that probably 99% of the population (irrespective of who they vote for) are complete idiots.

    That depends on the size of the liability and the liquidity of the asset, as well as the impact of the required announced sale of the asset (see the Brown Bottom for an example). I'm not fully aware of the current facts around RBS, so I wouldn't like to say for sure.

    Because in the past, some of the answers recieved haven't been very convincing. Also the nature of the problem, especially around RBS/HBOS and the failure of Iceland/Ireland have moved the goalposts somewhat.

    We already refit and refurbish the subs at Devonport, so we do much of the dangerous work, and the additional work for the dockyard and naval base would be welcome.

    In terms of the financial issues, I largely disagree with your assessment. Our nuclear deterrent is very cost effective, indeed if we really needed to cut our armed forces, keeping the nuclear deterrent would be vital, because it is the best defence mechanism that we have. Replacing Trident is going to cost in the region of £20-30bn over 20 years, that's damn cost effective.

    It's also worth noting that the use of the deterrent is not in the use of the weapons, but in their presence. As such, they are used every day, because they are always patrolling.

    We disagree on the nature of use of the weapons and so on, which I would guess is at the crux of our opposing views. The cost of the nuclear deterrent is a pittance in the grand scheme of things, and it punches way over it's weight in value for money terms.

    Indeed, I'm not raising the points I do because I think they should stop independence, but because they need to be considered, and I'm far from convinced they always are. It's the same with most independence movements, it is certainly not unique to the Scottish movement.
  17. Biohazard


    Joined: Aug 29, 2003

    Posts: 31,334

    I agree. (Not on the fiscal balance mind..)

    How so?

    Because of the spending 'disparancy'?

    Oh come on, I'm sure the Lord there is intelligent enough (though not quite smart enough to work out what he had created)... and neither were the people who used his work - as you may know. They aren't the stupid electorate.

    I don't know, I don't think they are the primary problem. You can't blame the electorate for swings in a system designed for swings, or perhaps not designed but in use that's what ends up happening.

    It will, it will have to for the UK tax payer anyway!!

    What the economic argument?

    Not greatly I have to say. If anything, it's just re-inforced a significant proportion of them.

    The threat for the comming century is terrorism not conventional warfare, and certainly not nuclear weapons of which their use could be constituted as being illegal anyway.

    They aren't cost effective when we are never going to use them.

    I would rather they went to take the strain off the conventional forces.

    The total cost of replacement and maintence over its lifetime is about 3-4 times that much. Entirely frivolous government spending of which significants amount of the money do not even go to our own arms industry.

    We should lead by example in doing what we profess, nuclear dissarmament.

    The cold war is over, Britain isn't at threat from Taliban ICBM's :p

    I see nothing to deter mysekf, personally.

    There will be a lot of dialogue, headscratching and writings before the question comes.

    Up here anyway I doubt the discussion will leave any stone unturned.
    Last edited: May 7, 2011
  18. Macro


    Joined: Jun 9, 2006

    Posts: 5,689

    It'll be interesting to see if the SNPs enthusiasm for independence will stretch to giving Shetland and Orkney the opportunity to vote on independence from Scotland. Either following the model of the Isle of Man/Channel Islands, remaining in the Union, or rejoining Norway.

    I suspect given the oil and other resource implications the SNP passion for independence may not extend that far if push comes to shove.
  19. Biohazard


    Joined: Aug 29, 2003

    Posts: 31,334

    I'm sure there would be if they showed that will in due political process, but it doesn't appear to be there at present. Quite the opposite, they are returning British Unionist parties.

    I've heard a few councillors talk of devolved power, potential independence even but I don't think anyone seriously is mooting a return to the Norweigian reign. Most of the complaints surround the distance from centre of power from Holyrood; the same as what Scotland suffers from with Wesminster.

    Devolution would be the best solution for the islanders from Scotland if discontent really grew, Oslo is further away than Edinburgh in that respect. Idependence could make them one of the richest nations on earth per capita, the long term longevity beyond oil would by my concern for the islanders.
    Last edited: May 7, 2011
  20. Castiel

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: Jun 26, 2010

    Posts: 63,651

    I'm not convinced the SNP would win a referendum anyway. There are a fair few Scots (my old man for example) who are of the opinion that they already have the best of both worlds with devolution.

    Also regarding the Orkneys/Shetland, they are likely to want to remain within the Union and I expect that any deal for independence would account for any demands to that effect from the Islanders, especially if Westminster gave them autonomy under devolution, which would royally screw the economic models for an independent Scotland I suspect.

    Scottish Independence will take far more than a referendum.

    Can Holyrood even hold such a referendum without Westminster approval? serious question.
    Last edited: May 7, 2011