SNP to break up Britian?

[Castiel]

They do, but Scotland still doesn't decide its own Government. Other people do, and it's been shown time and time again.

Yet Scotland are proportionally represented in any UK Government...and given the historical Labour centric voting of Scotland in UK elections, could it not be argued that a Labour Govt would indeed be representative of Scotland if they returned a majority of Labour MPs?

Biting my tongue while saying this, yes they do. That they have representation isn't necessarily make the Government representative of them. This, I suspect, is why most Scots wish the decisions that effect their everyday lives to be taken in Scotland. It's this, again, that the UK is showing itself unresponsive with by failing again to set the agenda for devolution to match this aspiration.

I think we all want more local decision making, that is fairly universal across the UK.

We already know we disagree. It's not semantic at all, responsive would be engaged, reactive was due to the inherent political pressures involved at that time and the fear of rising nationalism. In fact, Whitehall nearly split over it.

No doubt, it is a difficult political position to give power to any regional part of a State (even when that region is a country in their own right) without considering how the rest will react...Politics is hardly the least divisive of occupations after all. The important part is that the UK Govt listened, considered, argued and eventually acceded....this would imply a least some representative position of the Scots (and others) when considering such matters.

Yes.

But would that coalition have been made up of Labour and Liberal Democrat...and therefore representative of the voting in Scotland?

There is much debate, and key principles parties suggest. A constitutional convention would take place in the advent of independence with all sections of Scottish society and politics involved following international precedents and examples.

So in effect, the Scottish Govt are asking the Scottish people to decide on a constitutional matter without having a draft constitution on which to base their decision?

Is that not like asking people to vote for a candidate, but not telling them who they are or what their manifesto is until after they are elected?

 

[kitch9]

Yet Scotland are proportionally represented in any UK Government...and given the historical Labour centric voting of Scotland in UK elections, could it not be argued that a Labour Govt would indeed be representative of Scotland if they returned a majority of Labour MPs?




I think we all want more local decision making, that is fairly universal across the UK.



No doubt, it is a difficult political position to give power to any regional part of a State (even when that region is a country in their own right) without considering how the rest will react...Politics is hardly the least divisive of occupations after all. The important part is that the UK Govt listened, considered, argued and eventually acceded....this would imply a least some representative position of the Scots (and others) when considering such matters.



But would that coalition have been made up of Labour and Liberal Democrat...and therefore representative of the voting in Scotland?



So in effect, the Scottish Govt are asking the Scottish people to decide on a constitutional matter without having a draft constitution on which to base their decision?

Is that not like asking people to vote for a candidate, but not telling them who they are or what their manifesto is until after they are elected?

Yes but oil!

Seriously, thats the SNP's manifesto. Oil. Someone else will drill it, we'll get tax on it. Honest. They don't even appear to have figured anything else out or even have the starting of a workable plan.

 

[kitch9]

The Scots are already pretty much powerless. Our 8% of the population doesn't exactly garner us much say and what the Bank of England and the UK Government do on the whole is to the benefit London, the currency itself, or to the UK on the whole.

If those could prosper at the detriment of Scotland, I have no doubt it would be done, but I hazard a guess that Scotland being worse off will not benefit the rest of the UK in either event.



Because, evidently, they're making it up as they go along. There is no "better together" campaign, there always was and always will be a scaremongering campaign. This seems to be working on my fellow Scots for the time being, but it setting up a massive swing should the "yes campaign" counter this, which they'll be best doing closer to the time.

Yet when RBS fell flat on its face the entire UK bailed it out.

Hard done by the Scots.

 

[Docaroo]

Yet when RBS fell flat on its face the entire UK bailed it out.

Hard done by the Scots.

Will you watch this video that was already posted before you keep talking crap:

There's no excuse for this level of ignorance to facts.

 

[[TW]Fox]

It isn't in isolation however, quite clearly.

The general consensus, or the will, is clearly not in bed with Tory Thatcherism with the accompanying trademark attacks on societal fabrics. The majority of people in Scotland voted against Tory rule; the Liberal Democrats actively campaigned here to "keep the Tories out". Through UK representation in elections, it doesn't matter what Scotland - or the vast majority of it if you are anal enough - wants, it gets lumbered with the choice of another group of people, clearly with different values.

That is perfect enough reason alone, and is partly why the answer in constitutional reform lies between devo-max and independence.

Interesting. Because in 1997 the winning Labour government was representative of the voting of Scotland (as you say I doubt many voted Tory). As a result of that we had a Labour government led by Scots for 13 consecutive years. So just because this time the Tories got in suddenly it's all a travesty against the will of Scotland and you want to pick your ball up and run off?

The current administrators not being your preferred choice is far too short term to be a reason for independence. It's not as if they are going to win a second term!

 

[kitch9]

Will you watch this video that was already posted before you keep talking crap:

There's no excuse for this level of ignorance to facts.

Oh look, a video with more what ifs and maybes and nothing concrete. That makes it alright then!

I didn't say Scotland wouldn't have survived the RBS bailout by the way......

 

[StriderX]

Interesting. Because in 1997 the winning Labour government was representative of the voting of Scotland (as you say I doubt many voted Tory). As a result of that we had a Labour government led by Scots for 13 consecutive years. So just because this time the Tories got in suddenly it's all a travesty against the will of Scotland and you want to pick your ball up and run off?

The current administrators not being your preferred choice is far too short term to be a reason for independence. It's not as if they are going to win a second term!

Oh come on, you are seriously suggesting this is just an issue that was created in the last few years?

Even considering that the SNP was actually founded almost a century ago, that is some awkward opinion, though while Bio's post was pretty centred on it, it didn't require such belittling.

 

[platypus]

On a another, slightly related note..what plans are there to release a draft constitution prior to the referendum?

One presumes this will take place post a succesful referendum for Alex Salmond. Although quite when he'll have time whilst rolling around in all that money from oil revenues I'm not sure.

Like everything about the freedom campaign, there is nothing concrete about what will happen afterwards. But hey, vote for it because it makes sense!

 

[GAC]

Scotland is voting to leave or stay with the United Kingdom. Not England. There are more countries within this nation.

so why is it so hard for them to come up with the question. like iv said above i cant see this being as simple as it should be. because at the end of the day politicians are involved.

 

[RDM]

so why is it so hard for them to come up with the question. like iv said above i cant see this being as simple as it should be. because at the end of the day politicians are involved.

Not really sure what you are going on about here, the question has been decided for quite a while now, they are going with the Electoral Commission's neutral wording:

"Should Scotland be an independent country?"

With a simple Yes/No response.

 

[GAC]

ahhh. god knows how i missed that one. as im sure i saw someone waffling on the tv a few weeks ago about having to choose the question carefully. hence my thinking it was still up in the air.

 

[aln]

Yet when RBS fell flat on its face the entire UK bailed it out.

Hard done by the Scots.

Sigh.

You realise the RBS and every other bank that fell, whether headquartered above or below the border are UK banks? They are working within the constructs of UK regulations and paying UK taxes. Do you honestly believe Scotland should bare the burden of bailing them out alone in that case?

Your points are so petty that you either must trolling or 12 years old.

 

[Bear]

Sigh.

You realise the RBS and every other bank that fell, whether headquartered above or below the border are UK banks? They are working within the constructs of UK regulations and paying UK taxes. Do you honestly believe Scotland should bare the burden of bailing them out alone in that case?

Your points are so petty that you either must trolling or 12 years old.

Yeah, UK banks cause they are in ****, Scottish oil because its money in the bank for an independent Scotland. Had RBS avoided the crisis and was a booming business you would no doubt be singing from the rafters that its a Scottish bank and all tax of profits should be Scotland's.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Oh come on, you are seriously suggesting this is just an issue that was created in the last few years?

Even considering that the SNP was actually founded almost a century ago, that is some awkward opinion, though while Bio's post was pretty centred on it, it didn't require such belittling.

I agree. Therefore I don't see why continually mentioning the coalition's general policies is at all relevent in the debate. They are a temporary political power, who knows what the next administration will be and what policies they'll have?

 

[aln]

Yeah, UK banks cause they are in ****, Scottish oil because its money in the bank for an independent Scotland. Had RBS avoided the crisis and was a booming business you would no doubt be singing from the rafters that its a Scottish bank and all tax of profits should be Scotland's.

There's actually a significant difference between land and assosicated resources and where businesses pay their taxes. For all we know, RBS could choose to headquater in London in the event of a split.

Also last I checked RBS isn't really "in the ****", is it? It's largely owned by the taxpayer, and in the event of any split the public ownership would be split with over 90% of that going to the UK Government, unless other deals were made on the matter.

You seriously think you're making good points?

 

[Bear]

There's actually a significant difference between land and assosicated resources and where businesses pay their taxes. For all we know, RBS could choose to headquater in London in the event of a split.

Also last I checked RBS isn't really "in the ****", is it? It's largely owned by the taxpayer, and in the event of any split the public ownership would be split with over 90% of that going to the UK Government, unless other deals were made on the matter.

You seriously think you're making good points?

No more or less than the effort you originally quoted but at least I'm not a hypocrite.

 

[aln]

No more or less than the effort you originally quoted but at least I'm not a hypocrite.

Neither am I, at least on these points. That you fail to see that reflects on you, not myself.

 

[Biohazard]

Sturgeon vs Moore

Televised debates have started.

I'd say Nicola came away better from that one, be interesting if we could get Salmond and Cameron together.

 

[Monkeynut]

Sturgeon vs Moore

Televised debates have started.

I'd say Nicola came away better from that one, be interesting if we could get Salmond and Cameron together.

I don't think Cameron would, but I think Alistair Darling could make an appearance?

 

[=XDC=FluphyBunny]

So they are debating and the vote will happen.

Can someone tell me what Scotland are going to do if the yes vote wins?

I can't help feeling that those who may vote still haven't been informed as to what they are voting for. Shouldn't something be in place, currency, Europe etc.

Also one other point. Do people genuinely trust Alex Salmond? I think he makes Cameron look like a paragon of virtue. Is voting for Scottish independence a vote for Salmond?