SNP to break up Britian?

[Biohazard]

**Additional disclaimer**, it was from memory and almost certainly had historical, political, legal and other inaccuracies but it's in the right spirit

lol aye.

Although there is that same discussion to be had with the monarchical aspect.

 

[Macro]

Great Britain was the union of the English and Scottish crowns and the UK was the union of Great Britain with Ireland.

So I still stand by Great Britain dissolving and the union remaining between England and (now) Northern Ireland.

Put Wales in there as well after as it's a bit silly at the moment.

I could be wrong here but Great Britain is a geographical reference to the mainland of Britain (i.e. England, Wales and Scotland) as being the Great(er) of the British Isles (i.e. largest).

United Kingdom refers to a political set of parameters (i.e. the Union of the English, and Scottish crowns and governments).

 

[FoxEye]

Not all under 18 year olds are school "kids".

The ones who I would entrust the power to vote are few and far between.

Of course, there are plenty of adults who vote from a position of ignorance too

Let's face it, how many of us actually read the manifestos and are aware of key policies before voting? (I don't vote, btw ) As opposed to those who vote because "we don't like the Tories/Labour", etc. Or based their decision entirely on one TV debate, or vote for X because they've always voted for X...

 

[Pudney]

I could be wrong here but Great Britain is a geographical reference to the mainland of Britain (i.e. England, Wales and Scotland) as being the Great(er) of the British Isles (i.e. largest).

United Kingdom refers to a political set of parameters (i.e. the Union of the English, and Scottish crowns and governments).

From the Act of Union with Scotland 1706, I imagine there's a paragraph the other way with the Scottish act.

That the two Kingdoms of England and Scotland shall upon the First day of May which shall be in the year One thousand seven hundred and seven and for ever after be united into one Kingdom by the name of Great Britain

Other side says:

That the Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England shall upon the first day of May next ensuing the date hereof and forever after be United into One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain

Edit: Although it also refers to United Kingdom. I dunno, this isn't my area of expertise

 

[Biohazard]

I'm still not really sure I see the point. All the arguments 'for' it seem to be mostly a matter of principle, nationalistic pride and history and not something that really makes any difference.

'Oh but they control us!!'

Frankly unless your name is Alex Salmond it's not as if you'll suddenly be in control of your own destiny come 2015...

Reasons against?

 

[Biohazard]

The ones who I would entrust the power to vote are few and far between.

Of course, there are plenty of adults who vote from a position of ignorance too

Exactly, if we must discuss it in these terms.

So why descriminate.

Let's face it, how many of us actually read the manifestos and are aware of key policies before voting? (I don't vote, btw ) As opposed to those who vote because "we don't like the Tories/Labour", etc. Or based their decision entirely on one TV debate, or vote for X because they've always voted for X...

It doesn't really matter though, what can you say marks a 17 year old from an 18 year old?

Or an educated voter to someone who has a limited grasp?

Does it matter when we are commited, apparently, to democracy?

There is disparency in this area, I can remember feeling it myself at that age and resented then and now other people holding excuses about others as a reason to keep the disenfranchisement in place.

IMO.

 

[[TW]Fox]

We are stronger as one country. It is easier to do business as one country. Most things just work better as one country. You already get many of the benefits of being an independant nation (Like the ability to give everyone except the English free Uni education) without many of the disadvantages (ie access to the funds required to sort the banks when it was needed). Scotland is a country of just 5 million people but able to access the resources and economies of scale of a country 10 times the size whilst retaining the 'feel' of a smaller country.

Whats the point in changing it? It's hardly a great time economically for Alex Salmond to convince everyone to let him have his dream of being in charge of an independant nation either, is it?

This is all about nationalistic rivalry really isn't it - seems to be the dream of the 'Anyone but England' crowd. What about those of us both sides of the border who far from 'hating' the other side are actually very proud to be part of the same country? Scotland is a fantastic place and a jewel in the crown of the UK.

 

[Macro]

Personally I think Devo Max is the way to go,it gives us the benefits of an independent nation,which we almost are anyway,whilst remaining part of the UK.

It's just my personal opinion but I suspect "Devo Max" would be the answer Alex Salmond would (secretly) quite like as well. It could gain Scotland significant autonomy and political power for the "ruling" party, whilst not incurring many of the inconveniences and costs of independence. Of course anything that then goes wrong can be addressed with "of course this would never have happened in an truly independent Scotland"

It would also allow AS and the SNP to continue to rail against the unfair referendum, Westminster influence and a reason for Scots to keep AS in power for another 20 years until another referendum on independence can be brought "building on Devo Max as "an important stepping stone" and " the resounding expression of the Scottish peoples dissatisfaction with Westminster rule".

Actually I have no concrete evidence for this whatsoever but it all hangs together well in my mind, which is not necessarily a great recommendation

 

[MCMLX]

It's just my personal opinion but I suspect "Devo Max" would be the answer Alex Salmond would (secretly) quite like as well. It could gain Scotland significant autonomy and political power for the "ruling" party, whilst not incurring many of the inconveniences and costs of independence. Of course anything that then goes wrong can be addressed with "of course this would never have happened in an truly independent Scotland"

It would also allow AS and the SNP to continue to rail against the unfair referendum, Westminster influence and a reason for Scots to keep AS in power for another 20 years until another referendum on independence can be brought "building on Devo Max as "an important stepping stone" and " the resounding expression of the Scottish peoples dissatisfaction with Westminster rule".

Actually I have no concrete evidence for this whatsoever but it all hangs together well in my mind, which is not necessarily a great recommendation

You could be bang on there!!

 

[aln]

I'm still not really sure I see the point. All the arguments 'for' it seem to be mostly a matter of principle, nationalistic pride and history and not something that really makes any difference.

'Oh but they control us!!'

Frankly unless your name is Alex Salmond it's not as if you'll suddenly be in control of your own destiny come 2015...

The point is that most of the legacy arguments for the "No" vote, is that we cannot cope alone. I think you might have quoted the wrong part of my post, but either way, I already pre-emptied your point. You honestly think the average vote is privy to the information which suggests whether or not we'd be better off alone or not? I honestly think you're nuts, if you feel that way. We can only really base our opinions on who we feel would be better off leading us. From my point of view, we get to choose between UK political system:-

Iraq Scandal
McCrone report
Expenses Scandal
Lack of regulation debatably leading to the banking crisis
MPs which tell us we'd be hopeless without England.
Historically lower levels of health / expiration dates of citizens.
Ridiculous amounts of borrowing
Government that won't build High Speed Rail to Scotland, because we're not important enough.
Completely mawled and neglected by 1 of the two parities
Monumental wastages such contracts being handed to capata despite their grand failures
ID badges
Cuddling up to big media
Keeping nukes in Scotland despite the fact it seems clear we don't want to be a target.

OK, I pulled those examples out of my arse, but honestly there doesn't seem to be a grand deal of benefit being part of the UK, only negatives based on a inept government that I'd happily vote out if the political system wasn't completely stacked in favour of Lab/Con switching every few terms. The other alternative seems to be the SNP:-

A positive outlook.
Doing a decent job so far with the limited power given to them, better than labour were.
Far less scandals even just counting Scotland.
Better system to represent votes (PR based system, as opposed to FPTP)

I can't really think of much bad to say about the SNP. The real question is are you actually happy with your Government? If not, then you can understand why Scotland would consider the chance to opt out. If you are, you'll probably always disagree. Honestly, I think the SNP are doing a much better job, though after we gain independence I'd be hoping for more parties to be formed over issues other than this sticking point.

We are stronger as one country. It is easier to do business as one country. Most things just work better as one country. You already get many of the benefits of being an independant nation (Like the ability to give everyone except the English free Uni education) without many of the disadvantages (ie access to the funds required to sort the banks when it was needed). Scotland is a country of just 5 million people but able to access the resources and economies of scale of a country 10 times the size whilst retaining the 'feel' of a smaller country.

The UK didn't do much to help the North of England, and Scotland, when many of its industries dried up. Hell, they basically didn't give a ****. People in those areas are suffering and nothing is being done. Honestly, I don't see how you can sit there and say we're stronger together when in reality the majority of companies are directed straight to London. If the north east had autonomy, they could be perhaps attempt to compete with London, but at the moment its a largely depressed area.

P.S. Fairly sure we pay for our free education and would continue to do so after the split. The fact that educating people is so expensive in the first place is something that should be being looked at though.

This is all about nationalistic rivalry really isn't it - seems to be the dream of the 'Anyone but England' crowd. What about those of us both sides of the border who far from 'hating' the other side are actually very proud to be part of the same country? Scotland is a fantastic place and a jewel in the crown of the UK.

Nowt to do with England or the English for me personally. I think the UK.gov sucks *****. They're a bunch of posh ***** looking for ways to get paid. Course we're probably going to run into the same problems as an independent country, but I believe in trying anyway, at least until we solve all those problems.

P.S. Thats not to say everythings all bad. I think we should all feel pretty lucky to be living here, but that doesn't mean we can't strive to be better.

 

[[TW]Fox]

The real question is are you actually happy with your Government? If not, then you can understand why Scotland would consider the chance to opt out. If you are, you'll probably always disagree.

Seems a rather drastic and misguided answer to me. Not happy with the government? Vote for another? What makes you think Alex Salmonds independant government would be some sort of utopia of perfection anyway? Surely they are simply yet another political party at the end of the day?

As for things like the expenses scandal, really? Thats a reason for independance? No Scottish MP's involved at all then?

What exactly does having nuclear weapons in Scotland make you a target for then? When was the last time somebody attacked them?

Ridiculous amounts of borrowing? What, so Scotland wouldn't borrow?

ID badges? What?

I think your best one is 'cuddling up to big media'. You think Scotland would best off independant because English politicians 'cuddle up to big media'?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...almond-was-ready-to-lobby-for-BSkyB-deal.html

It would be disasterous if people like yourself were to vote for independance for the reasons you've given because I can't see why that sort of thing would suddenly cease to be an issue if you won.

And the only reason Lab and Con switch every 2 terms is because Scotland traditionally votes Labour!

 

[Biohazard]

We are stronger as one country. It is easier to do business as one country. Most things just work better as one country. You already get many of the benefits of being an independant nation (Like the ability to give everyone except the English free Uni education) without many of the disadvantages (ie access to the funds required to sort the banks when it was needed). Scotland is a country of just 5 million people but able to access the resources and economies of scale of a country 10 times the size whilst retaining the 'feel' of a smaller country.

That's good.

Quickly, we are disadvantaged in many overlooked ways particularly in influence for Scotland. It may have changed sounds recently, but it is recent. Trade - European free trade. England being the pioneer is unlikely to abandon that principle in the advent of the agreement ceasing or membership ceasing.

Whats the point in changing it? It's hardly a great time economically for Alex Salmond to convince everyone to let him have his dream of being in charge of an independant nation either, is it?

I think it is a good time for change because of the apparent or percieved mismanagement of the economy currently and historically, which is probably why FFA is so popular in opinion. Mismanagement politically has resulted in the want for decisions to be made in Scotland.

It's between some FFA come Devo Max and Independence that the argument lies, not the status quo as it has been resoundingly rejected in polls for years.

Scots feel mismanaged by Westminster, sometimes picked upon and do not have much trust in the arrangement.

What remains is an apparent will to keep military and foreign policy together, and lingering concerns around the fiscal viability and potential tax increases.

This is all about nationalistic rivalry really isn't it - seems to be the dream of the 'Anyone but England' crowd. What about those of us both sides of the border who far from 'hating' the other side are actually very proud to be part of the same country? Scotland is a fantastic place and a jewel in the crown of the UK.

You can dismiss the political opinion of Scotland as that, but I don't think our own reflection of our nation and particularly the political component is anti-english at all.

I think that's an age old myth come slur that will not dissapear after independence should it occur. Scots want decisions, broadly, that effect Scotland to be made in Scotland.

That isn't anti English.

 

[Biohazard]

Seems a rather drastic and misguided answer to me. Not happy with the government? Vote for another? What makes you think Alex Salmonds independant government would be some sort of utopia of perfection anyway? Surely they are simply yet another political party at the end of the day?

People have been diverging away from Westminster for a while, it's not quite as simple as popularity but perceptions of competence intent and trust.

Fox]As for things like the expenses scandal, really? Thats a reason for independance? No Scottish MP's involved at all then?

Was Westminster and Unionists as far as I am aware.

Fox]QUOTWhat exactly does having nuclear weapons in Scotland make you a target for then? When was the last time somebody attacked them?

Boom!

Irrespective, they aren't welcome.

Fox]Ridiculous amounts of borrowing? What, so Scotland wouldn't borrow?

Oil! Braveheart!! Argggh!

 

[[TW]Fox]

I think that's an age old myth come slur that will not dissapear after independence should it occur. Scots want decisions, broadly, that effect Scotland to be made in Scotland.

Where do you draw the line? What about decisions that affect Inverness being made in Inverness? I still think most of this is just principles. In the grand scheme of thing does it really make any difference where a decision is made provided the right people make it with the right level of involvement from the appropriate elected representatives of the people?

I agree would be ridiculous for English people who never visit Scotland to sit in England and decide what happens about Scottish issue X in Scottish Area Y. If that happens it should change, but my understanding is that generally this isn't how it works anyway.

Scotland is already able to make many of its own decisions (Like for example decisions such as 'English people must pay to go to University in Scotland but Irish people can have free education here').

Irrespective, they aren't welcome.

As far as you are concerned, obviously (Which is a totally valid opinion to hold but it doesn't mean that nobody in Scotland wants them. There will be people who don't care and there will be people who DO want them. I for example live in a city where nuclear submarines are stored and refitted. Doesn't bother me).

 

[aln]

Seems a rather drastic and misguided answer to me. Not happy with the government? Vote for another? What makes you think Alex Salmonds independant government would be some sort of utopia of perfection anyway? Surely they are simply yet another political party at the end of the day?

As for things like the expenses scandal, really? Thats a reason for independance? No Scottish MP's involved at all then?

What exactly does having nuclear weapons in Scotland make you a target for then? When was the last time somebody attacked them?

Ridiculous amounts of borrowing? What, so Scotland wouldn't borrow?

ID badges? What?

I think your best one is 'cuddling up to big media'. You think Scotland would best off independant because English politicians 'cuddle up to big media'?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...almond-was-ready-to-lobby-for-BSkyB-deal.html

It would be disasterous if people like yourself were to vote for independance for the reasons you've given because I can't see why that sort of thing would suddenly cease to be an issue if you won.

And the only reason Lab and Con switch every 2 terms is because Scotland traditionally votes Labour!

Apparently you seemed to get the overreaching point that we have a Government which doesn't particularly represents us, holds us in contempt and blatently lies to us.

Each point it fairly trivial by itself, the point is they don't stand alone and it's hard to see any potential progress with our political system given FPTP and the forever ending cycle of switching betweem the same two parities who are intent on keeping the status quo.

It seems perfectly resonable if we cannot work within the system, we should opt out of the system, especially as we have a better one up here that'll be more likely to get stuff done I suspect.

Your arguments seem to be based on the ability of us to push around other countries and economic success. The latter is important, but I couldn't care less about the former. In reality, the latter will take care of itself, and thus beyond that, we can only hope the Scottish society becomes better with Scottish MPs voting on Scottish issues, without the pettyness of labour blocking every SNP mandate even when they agree with it.

As for things like the expenses scandal, really? Thats a reason for independance? No Scottish MP's involved at all then?

I'm sure there were many. The real problem was a political rules which allowed wholesale abuse. This didn't come from Scotland, its a UK problem.

What exactly does having nuclear weapons in Scotland make you a target for then? When was the last time somebody attacked them?

Oh then you agree they're not needed and will take them away?

ID badges? What?
I think your best one is 'cuddling up to big media'. You think Scotland would best off independant because English politicians 'cuddle up to big media'?

They're examples of MPs not really working for the population. The former was a contract that was cut losing quite a bit of money I imagine, the latter spending money on network tracking systems. Add in other examples such as the war on drugs, the regulations on government contracts that excludes almost anyone competent. Again, alone they're all petty examples, but it all adds up.

And the only reason Lab and Con switch every 2 terms is because Scotland traditionally votes Labour!

Thats because, historically, Con is bad for Scotland. The problem nowadays, Lab is bad for everyone.

It would be disasterous if people like yourself were to vote for independance for the reasons you've given because I can't see why that sort of thing would suddenly cease to be an issue if you won.

Thanks for that. How about some reasons to stay, then?

Seems a rather drastic and misguided answer to me. Not happy with the government? Vote for another? What makes you think Alex Salmonds independant government would be some sort of utopia of perfection anyway? Surely they are simply yet another political party at the end of the day?

Honestly? I think the FPTP system is superior, and sharing power is benifical. Obviously important issues should be a slam dunk, for everyone else, they'll struggle with agendas that only 30% of the country support.

Hopefully with such power, we can work towards more transparancy, removing as much corruption and BS as possible. Fringe parties like the Greens or the Pirates would be more represented. Basically, we'd be better for it, in my opinion.

P.S. Wrong big media example, I honestly don't care if he were to control BskyB.

 

[[TW]Fox]

I gave some examples to stay earlier on in the thread. The rest of your views seem to be based on the deeply flawed premise that everything wrong with politics would be right with independant Scottish politics. This seems completley illogical but it's your opinion and you are entitled to it.

I do find it amusing that you claim the government doesn't represent you? No, it doesn't represent you. Or me. It represents *US* - the United Kingdom. Scottish people have as much or as little involvement in it as they wish, as do English people. The fact that for 13 of the past 15 years the highest position in office in our political system has been held not by an Englishman but by a Scot is testement to that. The idea that you seem to think a government run by a Scot held Scotland in contempt is bizarre, or are you just referring to the past 2 years? I do hope not, opting out of a many-hundreds-of-years unity based on the last 2 years in politics would seem daft. You mention Iraq - no idea why but if you insist please remind me which country the man with the final say-so on Iraq is from?

England and Scotland are better off together. They both have strengths and weaknesses and unity reinforces the strengths and puts us in a better place to deal with the weaknesses.

 

[aln]

I gave some examples to stay earlier on in the thread. The rest of your views seem to be based on the deeply flawed premise that everything wrong with politics would be right with independant Scottish politics. This seems completley illogical but it's your opinion and you are entitled to it.

I never actually said that.

I gave the view that I believe it would be easier to work towards correcting these issues if we were not working within the constraints of (in my opinion) a completely corrupt political system, and wasn't switching between a FPTP system with bad and worse.

To add to that I honestly believe it'd be easier to sway opinion and win votes in a country of 5 million, as opposed to 60million, especially when the latter is already bought and paid for. Even if the reality is incorrect, smaller more local Governments feel a lot more answerable to their population.

You seem to give the view point that everything would fall apart if we voted for independence. I do not feel that way, rather I think life will go on, and we'll have a different system to try and work through to achieve something better.

It may or may not work, but I'm fairly certian the old guard aint gonna give us nothing.

The fact that for 13 of the past 15 years the highest position in office in our political system has been held not by an Englishman but by a Scot is testement to that.

If the country were ran by one man, that may be relevant. Also, you must reckon the world started around 15 years ago eh? Theres a reason Scotland will continue voting labour for potentially disastrous consequences. They may not hold us in contempt, but sadly they're incompetent.

P.S. I'm done anyway. Fed up of your smarmy comments, and don't really need the permaban I'll get for telling you what I think of your opinions.

 

[Biohazard]

Where do you draw the line? What about decisions that affect Inverness being made in Inverness? I still think most of this is just principles. In the grand scheme of thing does it really make any difference where a decision is made provided the right people make it with the right level of involvement from the appropriate elected representatives of the people?

Nation states is where I draw the line. I do see the point you are making, however if regionalisation and devolution to local areas is the undermining factor of Holyrood Rule then it is also to a greater extent undermining the Westminster Rule argument. Remember, the status quo isn't popular.

It clearly matters to a lot of people if poll are anything to go by.

I think the grand scheme of things is society and government, most people are influenced or effected by it so it's only right that if people are unhappy with our current situation that we reflect on it.

I agree would be ridiculous for English people who never visit Scotland to sit in England and decide what happens about Scottish issue X in Scottish Area Y. If that happens it should change, but my understanding is that generally this isn't how it works anyway.

It does with many things.

Everything that is reserved essentially.

Holyrood is only responsible for around 10% of spending in Scotland. Some departments that rule Scotland don't even have a footprint or staff here.

Scotland is already able to make many of its own decisions (Like for example decisions such as 'English people must pay to go to University in Scotland but Irish people can have free education here').

The people apparently want the decisions that effect us the most to be taken here.

As for university funding we cannot stop EU students, and the charge of English people is not quite right. It's based on domicile status and has not yet been challenged.

As far as you are concerned, obviously (Which is a totally valid opinion to hold but it doesn't mean that nobody in Scotland wants them. There will be people who don't care and there will be people who DO want them. I for example live in a city where nuclear submarines are stored and refitted. Doesn't bother me).

Civic Scotland does not want them, and still broadly rejects them.

There will be those who do want weapons of mass destruction in Scottish Waters or the Clyde but they are apparently a small minority.

 

[Mercutio]

David Cameron would be very happy for Scotland to be an independant nation again.

It would mean that the Tories would be in government 100% of the time.

Not too sure that people in the North (of England) would be able to handle that for too long.

This is an angle I was expecting much earlier in the thread. Basically, give Scotland independence and labour will be unlikely to see power again in a LOOOONG time, if ever.

 

[Angilion]

Meh, let him have his referendum, if he loses, then he can bugger off, if he wins then it'll be a shame, but to be honest I don't think Scotland contributes much to the union, wouldn't the rest of the UK actually be better off financially as Scotland takes more than it gives?

If you ask 5 people that question, you'll get at least 8 answers

I did look into it myself, but there's so much smokescreen thrown about that I couldn't easily see the answer.

Some of it is obvious if you look. For example, some pro-independence Scots are actually claiming that Scottish territorial water stretches right the way down to the Isle of Wight and that it includes some land south of London! Many of those people are so ignorant that they don't even know that's what they're doing, but it is what they're doing.

But (and this is a key point) how many people would know that's what behind some of the claims? Who actually bothers checking? Hardly anyone.

Even the more moderate Scottish claims often require redrawing national boundaries in ways which may contravene international law. If you look at a sea map of oil and gas fields with the internationally agreed borders shown, you'd be surprised how much oil and gas is in English waters anyway. North Sea oil and gas stretches down as far as Dorset.

It looks to me like pro-independence Scots mostly haven't looked at the situation in any detail and mostly still want England's money anyway, just via the EU. Have your cake and eat it, the usual human thing.

Although there's a new energy related issue in the offing. If you look at a sea map of potential wave and tidal power sites it's a very different thing - they're mostly in Scottish waters. Pentland Firth alone could theoretically supply 20GW. But who's paying for the research and development costs? A free clue: it's not Scotland.

Also, there's the issue of Shetland and Orkney. They could plausibly claim independence too, or reunify with Norway. Note reunify. Who'd own the oil and wave and tidal power then?

The history of these islands is a right mess.