Do you consider us to have Germanic Rule at the present moment?
SNP to break up Britian?
- Thread starter jsmoke
- Start date
Do you consider us to have Germanic Rule at the present moment?
Tam Dalyell, Labour member for West Lothian (and the "Question"), was the anti-democratic perpetrator of the amendement in question there.
You can find him in this video, from 1997, trying to scare they hell out of Scots about devolution.
His out of touch efforts were in vain, as I suspect will happen with the current equivilents.
It's worth a watch, if only to see politicians try to fight the very same principles now, for Independence, as they once ascribed to and professed for Scottish Devolution.
Moral and intellecual bankruptcy particularly from the now "Lord Wallace". No wonder he just huffs and puffs in debate now, the Scottish electorate have pulled the rug from underneath him.
Tax reciepts over the last 30 years would testify other wise - co-incidental in a week where Denis Healey admits to lying to Scotland about the value of our resources - and money isn't everything but seeing Scotland mismanaged economically as it has been while our tax surplus is spirited away for good use elsewhere is a situation that has to end be it FFA or Independence.
As FFA is off the table by Tory wishes - who ignored Scots democracy for a decade - so the only option available now for reform of a discredited and unpopular system is Independence.
It depends on the agreed transition to independence and successor status.
It has benefits and pitfalls both ways, of which both are equally possible and achievable.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
Is this figure adjusted for the expected number of people who wouldn't live and pay tax in Scotland were it not part of the UK?
[TW]Fox;24318344 said:
It clearly matters if the majority of Scots would wish to remain in the EU.
[TW]Fox;24318344 said:
They can do anything with Parliamentary Sovereignty, manifestos are not legally binding, so while the stated intention is to hold one next year there is no technicallity that prevents any Government from acting as it wishes. The stated intention is in the next administration if elected, and that this could be a possibility - with a system that would reflect the wishes of people who on a whole have a difference of opinion on EU membership - is only natural and logical to be a consideration, in terms of outlook and likelihood on their decision about Scottish Independence.
If it isn't about the money, or the complaints from yesteryear, it's got nothing to do with what the future is likely to bring either?
That's just as well then, I can just completely ignore the 50,000 Scottish children that are projected to be catapulted into poverty by the Coalition's welfare and economic policies in Westminster then..
Phew!
Last edited:
Well that's not strictly true, is it? A Scottish Dollar would equal a government with no fiscal track record and a minor reserve currency.
The coalition won't even exist a year after the referendum. Why do they matter so much? You want to pick up your ball and go home just because you don't like the current goalkeeper? What happens when you don't like the new goalkeeper either?
The current government is irrelevent to the independance question. It has less than 2 years of life left. Then we all get to pick a new one.
Scotland would have a strong currency, and it would be able to sustain shocks and market fluctuations like other successful small nations.
Would it?
[TW]Fox;24318740 said:
I was using the polite name, I can call it a Tory Government, which it is, all the same.
The coalition will still be in power after the Scottish referendum I may add, and again I have to explain to you that it isn't so much who is possibly going to yank us out of Europe but if anyone is in the first place.
It's not hard.
So, what is the referendum about then Fox? What considerations should the people of Scotland reflect upon?
You seem to dislike historic policy, or grievances, you dislike the economic arguments, and now social and political projections are out of the window (in the same week the Treasury again drops a demographic "timebomb" on the debate)...
[TW]Fox;24318740 said:
Of course they aren't irrelevent, they're involved the debate for heavens sake. They are the ones setting the vast majority of policy, and give indications towards the future.
For some reason, you don't want people to think about that. Instead it's shortbread tins and bagpipes.
Yes.
[TW]Fox;24318960 said:
Scotland is an economically and socially developed country, with a vast array of resources.
The irony of you proding at the misfortune of others while the UK limps along in relative decline isn't lost on me anyway. Heaven forbid anyone looks at the larger picture that includes nations that can successfully manage their affairs irrespective of geographic or population size.
I'm struggling to see how...
What makes it so different from other small nations like Ireland, Iceland etc?
Endless contentiousness.
Why those two nations specifically?