SNP to break up Britian?
- Thread starter jsmoke
- Start date
Associate
I'll be voting No. Originally I was voting Yes, until my grandad (also going to vote Yes) told me how it'd mean more power locally for the councils, meaning that decisions would be much closer to home. Although chances are I won't actually come back from Amsterdam until after the referendum (at which point I might get kicked out for no longer living in an EU member state...) so I might not get a vote at all.
I immediately realised how utterly incompetent Edinburgh City Council are, and realised just how badly this is going to go. Someone once told me that we could save £2bn by not paying Scotland's share of the new Trident replacement, and that the £2bn could be spent on some hospitals, schools and infrastructure improvements. I pointed out that it could pay twice over for a tram that runs from one end of the city, to the airport on the other, 10 minutes less than the current bus route. I then asked them to think on what it's more likely that the £2bn would be spent on.
Another thing I can't understand is the love of the SNP by a lot of people I know. These people love to drink, and are constantly complaining that we don't have offers on alcohol any more, and telling everyone that minimum pricing is a terrible idea. Yet they voted the SNP into a majority position to enact these laws!?
Maybe I'm just seeing things differently now that I've seen how a well-run city/country can operate... Did you know for example, that your rubbish gets collected twice weekly here? Contrast Edinburgh, where the council in their infinite wisdom changed it to every second week until it literally began piling up at the side of the road. Or how about that there's no congestion in the city centre? Caveat: no one drives, because they either cycle because it's safe enough to do so, or use the extremely well organised public transport?
I'll be honest though, my opinion now is that the only crap thing about Amsterdam is the tourists!
I immediately realised how utterly incompetent Edinburgh City Council are, and realised just how badly this is going to go. Someone once told me that we could save £2bn by not paying Scotland's share of the new Trident replacement, and that the £2bn could be spent on some hospitals, schools and infrastructure improvements. I pointed out that it could pay twice over for a tram that runs from one end of the city, to the airport on the other, 10 minutes less than the current bus route. I then asked them to think on what it's more likely that the £2bn would be spent on.
Another thing I can't understand is the love of the SNP by a lot of people I know. These people love to drink, and are constantly complaining that we don't have offers on alcohol any more, and telling everyone that minimum pricing is a terrible idea. Yet they voted the SNP into a majority position to enact these laws!?
Maybe I'm just seeing things differently now that I've seen how a well-run city/country can operate... Did you know for example, that your rubbish gets collected twice weekly here? Contrast Edinburgh, where the council in their infinite wisdom changed it to every second week until it literally began piling up at the side of the road. Or how about that there's no congestion in the city centre? Caveat: no one drives, because they either cycle because it's safe enough to do so, or use the extremely well organised public transport?
I'll be honest though, my opinion now is that the only crap thing about Amsterdam is the tourists!
Don't they want to maintain the Pound though? You'll still be tied to BOE policies, also the Scottish got an extra 10% uk public spending per capita last year.
You didn't do bad out of the deal.
TBH the SNP don't really have a tied down plan it appears and there's a lot more questions than answers. How much power would the SNP have to get the BOE to print them a few quid if they need it, and the Uk doesn't? Why should the UK have to deal with more GBP in circulation if Scotland needs it?
You only have to look at Cyprus and Greece to see what can happen when you don't have your own central bank.
Last edited:
You've just committed the greatest sin of all, conflating directly the UK for English and Westminster Rule for England.
It simply isn't true, or not for the vast majority of those who contest the current arrangements.
There has long been use of negative and pejorative language, in jest and otherwise, between Scotland and England it isn't exclusive to the rise of Scottish nationalism.
If anything this antagonism has always been there, it was particularly harsh in the opening years of the Union.
Dare I say that the civil service is quite another thing from party leadership, and thus national leadership.
I just struggle to accept your opinion on this, if he isn't good enough to lead an independent nation (ignoring valid comparisons to call me Dave) then who in Scottish politics is semi?
If he isn't capable, the most capable politician on these islands, who is?
And every single football World Cup and Euros (when England qualify, that is!)
Agreed.
On that basis no one could lead an independent Scotland by mere virtue of no one having experience of it, yet plenty of inexperienced people swing through the doors of No 10 & 11.
It's just another false obstacle. It's fine for the UK, obviously not for Scotland. There is a lot of this in the so called debate.
It's the total opposite of what your grandfather told you I'm afraid.
The anti-independence cabal are trying to undermine future gains of power to Holyrood to damage the SNP (now apparently accepting they can't touch them in an election as they remain stubbornly popular in polls).
Instead, if Scotland votes no, they plan on undermining Holyrood at Westminster by pushing for a 'localisation' agenda moving power away from the devolved parliament and across to council level.
It's to circumvent SNP power at Holyrood.
I too hate what Labour have done to City of Edinburgh Council, I hate that place to the bone, which is why I will be voting YES to avoid Labour's duplicity in trying to power strip Holyrood to Councillor level trapping the Governance of Scotland to these buffoons.
Wings Over Scotland said:Unsteady Eddie
We gather a few refreshments are usually taken at party conferences, so given that Eddie Barnes of the Scotsman is in Inverness covering the Scottish Labour gathering, perhaps a hangover explains his rather confused piece for Scotland on Sunday today.
There are three particularly notable passages, which we’ll take you through quickly here so you don’t have to go and read them on the paper’s website.
“On one level, there is a self-interested concern; a further extension of Holyrood’s powers, MPs fear, could mean a further cut in the number of Scottish MPs at Westminster, thereby handing the Conservatives a UK general election victory on a plate.”
(Our emphasis in all cases.) Oh dear God. We suppose we could cut Mr Barnes some slack on this one, as it could be argued that he’s merely discussing the idiocy of Scottish Labour MPs rather than perpetuating it himself.
But all modesty aside, our article explaining in detail why the scenario described above is a complete myth has now been read by tens of thousands of people since we wrote it over a year ago. It’s been linked far and wide, and picked up by others. And even if a serious Scottish newspaper’s political editor hasn’t read it here, he ought to at least be smart and diligent enough to have worked it out for himself from the easily-available statistics. No excuses.
“And then there is a question of principle – if the UK is a state which seeks to redistribute cash from poor parts of the country to the wealthy why is the single biggest tax in the system in one part of the country suddenly off limits?”
The Scotsman is a Tory paper. We believe that’s called a Freudian slip.
“Aside from tactics, proponents of the ‘devo-more’ model also argue they have to espouse change to bring about a culture shift at Holyrood – a culture, they argue, which currently gives the SNP a free ride to popularity, and leads to bad decisions”
Here, though, Eddie stumbles from laziness to howler into an insightful point. We’ve highlighted recently how both Johann Lamont’s and Ruth Davidson’s visions for a Holyrood with “more powers” actually translates to “more responsibilities, without any benefit to Scotland”, and Mr Barnes perceptively highlights the reason why: neither proposal is aimed at helping Scots, but at hindering the SNP, crushing it under a weight of expensive, pointless, unpopular bureaucracy.
However much we castigate and mock Scotland’s mainstream media for its frequent failings, the people producing it are still by and large skilled professional journalists and sometimes they just can’t help writing the truth, which is this: faced with unmoving polls despite years of unremitting negativity, both of Scotland’s serious opposition parties have given up on defeating the SNP democratically. The Tories want to instead turn them into budget-slashing tax collectors, and Labour to do the same while also diverting power to their corrupt, crony-stuffed local councils.
That, not a beefed-up Scottish Parliament, is the true meaning of a No vote.
Last edited:
The longer that England accepts mediocrity for leadership, the easier it is to validate leaving, no intelligent individual in Scotland is somehow denying it would not simply occur in Scotland anyway, but at least we would not be at the behest of 50+ million other people and their irrelevant opinions (To Scotland anyway), there is only so much you can put up with for so long.
Associate
This is quite the unfair representation since Labour haven't had a majority in Edinburgh since 2007... when the Lib Dems of all people had the largest share of the vote and formed the coalition with the SNP.
Admittedly since the backlash of the Lib Dem's performance in Westminster and the council elections in 2012, it's now a Labour/SNP coalition, but I still say it's unfair to put the entirety of the blame on Labour.
In my opinion, none of them have done a good job.
Scotland is a net contributor to the UK, as the third most prosperous region and second most prosperous nation in the UK we do not survive on hand outs from London or England.
The people of Scotland do not want to be in England's pocket, and vice versa, this topic has been so horrifically abused for political purposes that Scots want financial freedom from the rest of the UK.
I envisage Scotland sticking with the pound for a decade or so before floating a Scots pound pegged against the English pound.
Last edited:
You know how Labour left the UK treasury with a note saying "Sorry there is no money left"?
They done the exact same with Edinburgh, and all the other councils, while happily spending our future taxes on PFI nightmares.
We are still dealing with Labours legacy in Edinburgh, not least of which the trams.
Edinburgh City Council since then has suffered a global recession, it doesn't matter what or who is in power now it's been crippled ever since.
Labour allowed no resilience, and we all suffer for that now.
I'm no so sure, the political and fiscal damage was done. Edinburgh City Council has long provoked fierce criticisms from residents, it's the ethos of the place and the firm hands departments take. I've come across good councillors, but still even with an SNP majority in there I'd still want to tear it down.
You envisage?
Sounds like a credible plan you are all voting for! Seriously, how can you vote in favour of something where there is no credible idea on how you are actually going to pay for stuff, other than we might stick with GBP, (The UK will still give us bailouts though! Won't they?) or we may join the Euro (Only problem is all the sane Scots don't want that, nor does the EU after bailing out Greece and Cyprus.) Or we'll print a Scottish quid when we can prove to the world its worth something in the next decade or two. (Can we still have a bailout?)
Do you envisage getting the last 30 years of the oil tax revenue also?
Last edited:
You envisage?
Sounds like a credible plan you are all voting for! Seriously, how can you vote in favour of something where there is no credible idea on how you are actually going to pay for stuff, other than we might stick with GBP, (The UK will still give us bailouts though! Won't they?) or we may join the Euro (Only problem is all the sane Scots don't want that, nor does the EU after bailing out Greece and Cyprus.) Or we'll print a Scottish quid when we can prove to the world its worth something in the next decade or two. (Can we still have a bailout?)
Do you envisage getting the last 30 years of the oil tax revenue also?
Oh, how is that any different from now?
So do you want to be independent or not?
Lets say in 5 years the UK hits a bit of a growth boom and there is high pressure on the inflation rate and one of the Scottish banks gets in trouble and needs a few dozen billion printing to stop it collapsing, or vice versa?
What happens then? 8 years ago this stuff with have been magical mystical fairy stories, but we don't have to look far to see that it is not anymore.
It just seems like a money grab with the backup of a UK taxpayer bailout to me. Independence indeed.
Last edited:
Then that's bad luck.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
It's not luck, its the sort of situation that can and does occur when you have no control over your monetary policy. It's one of the problems with the Eurozone - the correct monetary policy for Germany is not the same as the correct policy for say Spain, but because there is only one central bank there is only one policy decision.
The same would happen if Scotland used Sterling - they'd have no choice but to use English monetary policy which might be tailored towards specific English economy issues or circumstances.
[TW]Fox;24158098 said:
It is in an actual capitalist nation, of which there are none currently.
We seem to live in a fairy tale where businesses are just allowed to exist no matter their faults, i may have geared my statement more toward this than anything else, however i suppose this is more personal opinion than ever being reality.