# General > General >  What is the SNP?

## John Little

I  could post this on another thread but I have sworn not to, so must start another. 

I keep reading a lot of stuff about the SNP and what it offers, and after my last thread about Independence I have been doing a lot of thinking.

The arguments go this way and that over Scottish independence, but a lot of it is not all that relevant to the actual principle of the thing.

Scotland could go it alone.

There is no doubt on that score.

There would be adjustments, but its clear that a lot of Scottish prosperity, should they wish to continue with the same services they enjoy now, would depend on oil.  

Howsoever, that is not the point either.  

 I have been born and brought up in a country called the UK.

As a citizen of the UK and of largely Scots descent, Id be happier about this whole thing if the Scottish Nationalist Party changed its name.

Why?

Because it gives the wrong sense of what they are about.

Firstly, it is Scottish only in that it based in Scotland.  To qualify to vote in its referendum you only have to be resident in Scotland.  So its a polyglot and multi-cultural organization, and not based on nationality in any ethnic sense.  Yet it taps into this ethnicity as well, appealing to an historic sense of grievance going back hundreds of years (despite the fact that it appears that many of its members do not have roots in Scotland that far back.)

So it tries to be both Scottish and Nationalist  yet cannot define itself in the sense of nationality because many native born Scots living outside Scotland will have no say in the upcoming referendum.

Secondly, it is Nationalist only in the sense of residency, and not of race.  If it were of race, then it would run the danger of being tagged as being right wing and obsessed with ethnicity as its defining characteristic.

Yet among its most vocal supporters are people who are not of Scots descent; which is amazingly PC but leads to an examination of what they are about.

The thesis seems to be that Scots  (by which they mean residents of Scotland) are currently living in some sort of condition which would be improved, of Scotland were independent.  A Utopian vision of how things might be is dangled in front of people who are invited to don rosy specs and accept this offering as unquestionable truth.  Recent posts on the Org have spoken of redistribution of wealth and land which are straight out of  Marx.  I wonder what the right wing of the SNP make of that?

It seems that the SNP offer something to everyone  and they might well deliver, if the oil price holds up.

Thirdly, is the SNP a party- or is it really two?

It is hard to deny the gut appeal of genuine Scottish Nationalists- for they have a case.  The yearning to be a nation once again, running ones own affairs from Edinburgh, sovereign and independent  I can relate to that and as a native born Scot then it would have a lot of romantic and emotional appeal to me. Geographically the case is not so good.  Inverness might be 600 miles from Westminster but Los Angeles is 3000 miles from Washington and it does not seem to bother them all that much.

But thats not the main thrust of the case being made by the SNP.  The main thrust is economic and thats not a Nationalist argument  its a Secessionist one.

The main thrust invites people to vote for a better future, better roads (which must have been much better before 1707) etc etc etc.

In other words, for economic advantage.

Economic advantage over the rest of us UK citizens and over what exists now in Scotland... maybe.

The message seems to be We dont like things as they are, so we want to build a nice new estate with gates to keep out the hoi-polloi and do things our way.  The current elite are not doing it right  so lets have our own elite.


So  Scottish Nationalist Party seems a misnomer to me.  If economics are the main reason for breaking up the UK, for a section of Britain to gain advantage at the expense of others, then that is not quite so laudable as appears.

It could even be seen as divisive, elitist and parochial.

Or selfish.


I would like to see what the SNP wants, rolled out across the whole of the UK.  We all want better services, roads, schools etc but for a group to set up to break away from Britain on economic grounds implies that Cornwall, Yorkshire and other areas of the UK which might be economically viable, could do the same- and to me that makes little sense. Cornwall has its own flag, language and culture so its not impossible.

These things have nothing to do with Nationality.

They have to do with Class.  The Haves and the Have -nots.

And it is not solely a Scottish concern but affects the whole UK.  Not a reason to break up the UK, but to change the UK.


Which is why, for the first time in my life, I will be voting Labour next time round- because the UK deserves a better future than the Lib-Dems or the Tories can offer. 

And I would rather not see my country, Great Britain and Northern Ireland, broken up.

----------


## ducati

Interesting post John. I've just been rubbing shoulders with some English people  ::  and as soon as they find out where I live (and I'm obviously not Scots as you know) I get aggrieved semi-banter about independence and the SNP. The overwhelming feeling I come away with is of bitterness about the whole thing.

I can imagine a reverse scenario, where post independence (hypothetically cos I don't think it will happen) the rest of the UK will carry a grudge for the next 300 years. But joking aside, Scotland will be in a very difficult situation if the rest of the UK is not minded to be very accommodating and co-operative, certainly in the early years. And it is allegedly the voters that tell the government what to do and if they aint happy.........

----------


## maverick

I think the SNP are playing Russian Roulette with Scotland, the whole issue of Independence is as clear as mud.
I have heard that some businesses that have considered coming to Scotland are postponing plans until the Independence issue is resolved. Ok I will accept that the current economic situation probably has a hand in this as well. Even though companies not willing to invest in Scotland because of the uncertainty of the Independence vote is not a good thing.
I am not saying that the SNP are all bad or that all the policies are totally wrong, as with every barrel of apples there will be a few bad ones. 
On the issue of Independence, I feel that the SNP could do more harm than good.

----------


## theone

I think the SNP are a fundamentally racist, with a hatred of either England or the English which knows no bounds.

Through personal experience I know that is certainly the case with some of their members.

The Nazi's hid behind a veil of political free speech and by playing on the heart strings of their people. The SNP do the same.

----------


## squidge

Im shocked by that comment theone - I have been around and about SNP members for several years now and I do not believe that is true of the party - it may be true of individual members but I believe that they are few in numbers and not representative of the party as a whole. 

Look around you – wherever you are just now, whether you are minded to  be a yes voter or a no voter, look at those people who are Scottish  Nationalists. Look at the people you work with, the people you live  with, stand at the school gates with, the people you serve in a shop,  restaurant or pub. Are they English or Scottish or from somewhere else?  Does it matter? Do they care where you are from? I doubt it. Interested  in your life and your story they may be… Plotting your imminent demise  or some wicked racist atrocity, they are probably not. I never heard the  saying “All Jock Tamson’s bairns” until I came to Scotland but there is  a feeling in Scotland that you can be here and be Scots whether you are  from here or elsewhere. Many, many people with Scottish parents or  ancestors delight in their Scottishness. Most people coming to live here  in Scotland from England or elsewhere feel at home, like this is their  “place” and when asked where they are from will happily correct the  assumption that they are from England with “ No I’m from Scotland”. 

theone your Scotland may be a land full of English hating Nationalist bigots and  those who would  turn on their neighbours and friends but  mine and most other people’s Scotland isn’t. When you walk the  streets a wee bit, drink in the pubs a wee bit, drop in at some  toddler groups or youth clubs or workplaces I will happily bet that you  would find many of “Jock Tamson’s bairns” happily playing, living and  working together. The referendum is not going to change that.

----------


## Corrie 3

> I think the SNP are a fundamentally racist, with a hatred of either England or the English which knows no bounds.


If the SNP were a racist party I doubt they would let anyone into the party who hasn't got full blown Scottish roots! Anyone is allowed to join the SNP whether you are brown, black, yellow, red or white in skin colour and no one is turned away purely on the fact of where they were born or where they come from.
John ask's what is the SNP, the SNP is a political party which is giving the the voters of Scotland a chance to get away from the mainstream parties which have got the stranglehold of power in the UK. How many people are fed up of power jumping from Labour to Tory and then back again? The SNP gives us a choice to get away from the main three parties, if you are happy having Labour and Tory rule swapping every few years then dont vote for the SNP, at the end of the day it's your choice.

C3.............. ::

----------


## gerry4

> I think the SNP are a fundamentally racist, with a hatred of either England or the English which knows no bounds.
> 
> Through personal experience I know that is certainly the case with some of their members.
> 
> The Nazi's hid behind a veil of political free speech and by playing on the heart strings of their people. The SNP do the same.


What utter rubbish. I have voted SNP, I want Independence, and I was born in England with an English mother. I have 2 daughters, 2 step sons and 8 grandchildren.  All of my kids were born in England. I am married to a Lancashire lass. How could I be said to be racist against the English? 

I find your views offensive, bring the Nazi's into it. You do not have a grasp of what happened in Germany in the 30's & 40's then. I suggest you go away and find out before posting any more rubbish like this.

Secondly, Independence & supporting the SNP are not the same thing. Independence supporters are in all of the parties, Labour, LibDem's, Greens, Tory, etc. Once Independence happens who is to say which party/parties will be voted into power.

----------


## theone

> Im shocked by that comment theone - I have been around and about SNP members for several years now and I do not believe that is true of the party - it may be true of individual members but I believe that they are few in numbers and not representative of the party as a whole.


Maybe Squidge, and I know it would be foolish to think all members are the same, but I do have personal experience of one member who I know very well and their friends, and that is the experience I have of them.




> Look around you  wherever you are just now, whether you are minded to  be a yes voter or a no voter, look at those people who are Scottish  Nationalists.


Just to clarify, I am not speaking about people who want independence, or even for people who vote for the party. I am speaking about my personal experience of people within the party.




> The SNP gives us a choice to get away from the main three parties, if you are happy having Labour and Tory rule swapping every few years then dont vote for the SNP, at the end of the day it's your choice.


Of course. And believe it or not I do agree with many of their policies. Others must too or they wouldn't be in power! I just do not agree with their no.1 policy, their no.1 priority.




> What utter rubbish. I have voted SNP, I want Independence, and I was born in England with an English mother. I have 2 daughters, 2 step sons and 8 grandchildren.  All of my kids were born in England. I am married to a Lancashire lass. How could I be said to be racist against the English?


As above, I'm not speaking about people who vote SNP, I was speaking about the party and my experience of its members.




> I find your views offensive, bring the Nazi's into it. You do not have a grasp of what happened in Germany in the 30's & 40's then. I suggest you go away and find out before posting any more rubbish like this.


You must be easily offended.

You have know idea of my knowledge of what happened in Germany. One way the Nazi's gained support was by highlighting how the people were being oppressed and could be better off. If you can't see a similarity there, then you are blind. 

And before you get offended again, I am speaking about the political methods, not viewpoints.





> Secondly, Independence & supporting the SNP are not the same thing. Independence supporters are in all of the parties, Labour, LibDem's, Greens, Tory, etc. Once Independence happens who is to say which party/parties will be voted into power.


Of course. 

But Labour/Liberal and the Tories do no want independence. They do not think it is in our best interests. Yes, they could be voted into power in an independent Scotland, but that is, in effect, putting a party into power with one hand tied behind its back.

I don't doubt many members of the SNP would happily disappear from politics once their fundamental goal, the "one way street" of independence was granted. Leaving the whole population to suffer the consequences.

----------


## Rheghead

> The Nazi's hid behind a veil of political free speech and by playing on the heart strings of their people. The SNP do the same.


Now you come to mention it, I somehow remember the Nazis did actually include into their ranks all sorts of races, nationalities and creeds whether they be German, Ukrainian, Slavs and muslims.  They fed into their multiculturalism in order to unite against certain undesirable ethnic types.  In time, I have no doubt these would have gone the same way as the _undesirables_ once they had solidified their grip on world power.

----------


## David Banks

Well John, we all would like you to be happier about this whole thing, so please tell us what you would like the SNP to change its name to? By the way, I thought it was called the Scottish National Party. I wonder if you are trying to make some points by your use of the terms Nationalist and Secessionist, and I am just too thick to get it. In the case of the latter, are you suggesting something illegal is going on?

I see no problem with the referendum on Scottish independence being voted on only be residents of Scotland, as it comprises people who were born there and have chosen to stay, AND people who have chosen to move there. Although there may be arguments for allowing people of Scottish ancestry living abroad to vote, I could see such becoming very complicated to administer fairly.

On the question of whether or not it is a single party, again I dont see the problem. Once the primary objective of independence is achieved, I would not be surprised if it dissolves into a variety of other parties.

I understand what seems to be your discomfort at the potential break-up of the UK. I felt a similar discomfort at the thought of the break-up of Canada, because (a) a separate Quebec would have cut off the provinces of Atlantic Canada from the rest of the country and (b) there are significant pockets of French-speaking people in every province, where I feared a backlash effect. However, the history of Scotland as a separate country does not compare to the presence of the French in Canada.

Where I must disagree with you is in your assertion that The main thrust is economic. In fact, you may already have an inkling of the real reasons.

You say that you are of largely Scots descent. You would not say such a thing unless it conjured up some feeling, some meaning for you, which may be difficult to put into words.

Secondly, from what I remember of elections many years ago, England and Wales were predominantly conservative, and Scotland was predominantly NOT conservative. The will of the Scottish electorate was often swamped numerically. Scotland has always seemed to me to be politically much closer to Scandinavia - something Northern perhaps. You may have tapped into that way of thinking by telling us that you will vote Labour next time.

Why not establish a Scottish residence for just long enough to allow you to vote for independence? You will always be welcomed there.

----------


## John Little

I think I would prefer something like 'The Secessionist Party of Scotland'  which would be honest; because that is what it is.

If it is not defined by race or ethnicity but by the prospect of getting a better life - economic advantage- then its aims are exactly that.  Economic.

I have not said anything about it being illegal - plainly it is not- but I say again,- I live in the UK.

If a sectional group wishes to break away from the UK for economic reasons, feeling that they can do better on their own, then I do not see that as Nationalist.  How you can disagree that the SNP's main thrust is on the prospect of the economic advantages of independence, I do not know- a cursory glance at just about any discussion on independence would show you that.

So, a group, not defined by nationality or ethnicity wishes to secede from the UK.

For what they can get that is better.


I'd be happier if they dropped the pretence of Nationalism and just said - 'Hey guys - we have a real chance to grab loads of goodies for ourselves- so let's go for it.

Do it for freedom, for your history, for grievance, for oppression, for the right of Scots (whatever they are) to rule Scots - fine,   You are a nationalist and the economics of it do not matter.  I can dig that,

But do it to get a better life than the majority of the rest of the schmucks in the UK and you are just trying to get a better share of the pie for yourself.

So the 'Selfish Party'  (which is a nickname for the Tories here) would be more accurate.

Independence is largely being sold on the strength of more pie.


And they dress it up as Nationalism..

----------


## oldmarine

Ouch, my head hurts after reading all of that.  I did learn something new. I am not a citizen of GB (including England & Scotland). I have traveled through both countries and worked a spell at Thurso designing and installing a satellite communications system. I had a preferance for the highlands of Scotland due to the fact that's where I spent most of my time. I will not get envolved with the political scene because it is none of my business.  However, I will express my fondness for the Scottish & English people due to the fact that my country served with the countries of GB during that great war of WW2 of which I was a part.

----------


## piratelassie

theone,     Your comments about the nazi,s is both offencive and ignroant, I suggest you educate yourself .


> I think the SNP are a fundamentally racist, with a hatred of either England or the English which knows no bounds.
> 
> Through personal experience I know that is certainly the case with some of their members.
> 
> The Nazi's hid behind a veil of political free speech and by playing on the heart strings of their people. The SNP do the same.

----------


## maverick

> theone,     Your comments about the nazi,s is both offencive and ignroant, I suggest you educate yourself .


I can,t imagine how anybody could be offended by making derogatory comments about the Nazi's, weren't they the most evil political party in history. After all we did not gas our Jews in Britain?

----------


## theone

> theone,     Your comments about the nazi,s is both offencive and ignroant, I suggest you educate yourself .


Let's learn how to spell offensive and ignorant before we speak about education.

Do you see what I did there?

----------


## Oddquine

> Let's learn how to spell offensive and ignorant before we speak about education.
> 
> Do you see what I did there?


Yep....I saw what you did........engaged in your usual supercilious and ignorant (and somewhat trolling) attitude. But is that not what we are learning to expect now from Unionists.

----------


## Corrie 3

> But is that not what we are learning to expect now from Unionists.


It would appear that way, none more so than the ones on the .Org.
  I never thought the day would come when I would have to put a Member on "Ignore" but because of the bitterness, backbiting, name calling and persecution I reluctantly have had to do so.
 I refuse to be drawn into a situation where I get suspended ever again so "Ignore" seems to be the best way forward. No doubt this post will draw a snide reply from said member.

C3................. ::  ::

----------


## theone

> Yep....I saw what you did........engaged in your usual supercilious and ignorant (and somewhat trolling) attitude. But is that not what we are learning to expect now from Unionists.


There has to be an irony there.

----------


## John Little

It’s an interesting knee jerk reaction that people get when they mention the N word.

A red mist comes over folk's eyes and they lash out, outraged, overcome with righteous indignation and they tower in wrath to smite the rash and cowering wretch that dared to even imply that they might share any characteristics at all with the hated N’s.

Articulate, educated and intelligent members of the SNP must be terminally embarrassed away from some of what is freely available on the internet.  Despite constant denials, and the disciplining of dissidents who make homophobic remarks the comments that you come across quite a lot show quite a lot of ill feeling towards England.

It would be unwise to link to some of them of course because I would get banned, but anyone wishing to go to Youtube and search for “Independence for Scotland” who wishes to browse the comments underneath could see a few for themselves.  On Facebook there’s a page for a Scot burning an English flag; that's on Youtube too.

The SNP may wish to move the hem of their garment away, but those things are still there.

Saying that it ain’t there don’t make it so.


Now as to the Nazis.

In the study of Propaganda the Nazis are quite fascinating, because they were very effective.
From having 12 members of the German Parliament in 1928, they had over 260 by 1933.  This was achieved largely by Propaganda, so any party with a publicity department worth its salt would do well to study how they did this.

I won’t strain your patience by developing this, but if I were in charge of raising public awareness for the Tories, Lib-Dems or Labour, then I would study the Nazis and would be delighted if I could copy their success in Propaganda methods.

At least one supporter of Scottish Independence is using one of their most blatant methods.

http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman...ommentsSection


Scroll down to the bottom - click on just about any page...

----------


## John Little

There is something that puzzles me.

Perhaps an SNP supporter can clear something up for me?

The SNP is committed to renewables and reducing carbon emissions as well as being anti-nuclear.  So they fully support loads and loads of windmills being built all over the place.

Naturally, although Scotland sits on 600 years worth of coal, the SNP would not be in favour of developing that, because it is a polluting energy source.

The SNP is thus impeccably Green.

But how does that square with the position that it's Scotland's oil and that most of the UK's oil revenues would go to Scotland after independence?

Isn't oil a fossil fuel, gives off a lot of pollution and rich in greenhouse gases?

Why is one dirty pollutant a rich resource to be developed whilst another, very similar, is to be shunned and not used?

----------


## golach

What is the SNP? A laughing  stock the world over, Eck gets booed at the Ryder Cup, where next?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnFou...&feature=share

----------


## squidge

> Well Squidge - here's a few more musings;
> 
> I really am grateful to Fidelis for implying that the upcoming referendum on Independence was not my affair, because it concentrated my mind wonderfully.
> 
> Because I am English  is it my affair?
> 
> Thats probably the knee jerk reaction of many English people to the news that the Scots are going to have a referendum on Independence.
> 
> But it got me to thinking  Why might it be my affair?
> ...


Ok Ok OK Ill bite - but only cos I am doing a shift tonight and its mega quiet and I have nothing more interesting to do.  

I am English too John, but I live here and therefore I have the RIGHT to vote on this issue.  Does it matter whether I was born here? Here is where my life is, where my home is, my work, here is the society and community that I contribute towards, my children are educated here, I do voluntary work here, I pay my taxes here, the people that I love are here and the issues that impact on my life and that of those around me are here. If all these things apply, does it matter if I was born here, in poland, in uzbekistan, or china or syria or australia or canada or wherever?  The SNP said at the start of all this that the decision was for the people of Scotland - not for ethnic scots but for those people living here - making their lives here and this has been upheld by the UK government. 

In January 2012, Labour MSP Elaine Murray apparently led a debate arguing that the opportunity to vote should be extended to Scots living outside Scotland.  This was opposed by the Scottish Government, who argued that it would  be too complex said that evidence  from the  UNited Nations Human rights committee showed that a referendum not based on residence would be queried by other nations. In the House of Lords, Baroness Symons argued that the rest of the United Kingdom should be allowed to vote on  Scottish independence, on the grounds that it would affect the whole  country. This argument was rejected by the *UK government*, with Jim Wallace pointing to the fact that only two of 11 referenda since 1973 had been across all of the United Kingdom.

The expat Scot has made their choice about where to build their life just like I have. I no longer live in  Manchester - why would I have expected to vote in the referendum about whether they should have a mayor?  Why would I have expected to vote in the referndum about congestion charging.  I am interested in what goes on there - I have an opinion but I dont live there and so I dont have the RIGHT to influence what happens in Manchester. Interestingly the rules are the same I think throughout the UK.... they are not peculiar to Scotland -For anyone living abroad, the current rules stipulate that if you had been registered to vote in the UK in the previous 15 years you can make an annual declaration allowing you to remain on the electoral register in the constituency where you were last registered while living in the UK.

        Once registered, you can vote at any UK parliamentary (general election)  or  European parliament election which occurs while you are on the register.  

         However, you cannot vote in local government elections or in  elections associated with the devolved administrations in Scotland,  Wales and Northern Ireland. So my parents who lived in Manchester for fifty years cannot vote in local government elections or local or regional referendums either.  This isnt just an SNP  policy  - it is the policy of the UK.... the LAW in fact.  I know it is always better if we can decry the policies of our enemies as something underhand but unfortunately this isnt the case with this particular issue. 

Mr Wallace and you for that matter John, can vote in the scottish referendum but you would have to move house - to live here. That is just that - the law the rules and the cut off point. Full Stop. 

As for your assertion that it doesnt matter who votes for independence well - it obviously does - it matters that those people who live here and who do all the things I mentioned above - like work, contribute and commit to Scotland as their home get the chance to vote.  That is precisely why your Mr Mazursky and my friends Marta and Anya get to vote because their commitment to The place they call home - here - gives them that right. You would be the first to shout from the rooftops if they said that only ethnic Scots can vote and so would I. That isnt the sort of politics I want to play. IT is RIGHT that Mr Mazursky and I CAN vote and Mr Wallace and YOU cannot. Thats it. 

As for Devo Max well John - dont hold your breath.  The Westminster government has said absolutely no vote on Devo max regardless of what the consultation shows and if there is a NO vote for independence there was recently a news item saying that  - I think Alistair Darling said - there will be no further powers for Scotland and if there are none for Scotland then there are none for england either.

----------


## John Little

Thank you for a good long reply.  My response need not be long, which I do not doubt will cause thanks in many hearts.

You have made it pellucidly clear that being Scots is almost an irrelevance in this vote.  In 2014 will be a referendum which may result in the destruction of the UK. Marta and Anya get a vote in that.

I don't.

This tars the SNP as no Nationalists but certainly as secessionist.

You seem to expect the British to accept this, all sweetness and light.  Well I may have to accept it, but I do assure you that if you break up the country I was born and bred in, and i am told its not my affair,then my feelings will be less than charitable.

Have a nice day.

----------


## squidge

I dont expect you to accept it John and certainly not with all sweetness and light ..... I expect and hope that we will see many coherent and challenging arguments both for and against an independent Scotland. The Better Together campaign has failed in that spectacularly and I hope absolutely that this improves - you speak as though the referendum is won - it isnt.  There are two whole years.  You have a voice regardless of whether you have a vote - lets see you use it to make respectful and thoughtful arguments FOR the continuation of the union which dont include 

pro independence supporters are stupid, thick or intellectually challenged
pro independence supporters are sheep following  their leader with no idea of the issues ( simply a variation of the above)
That solely comprise of ridiculing the leaders of the indpendence campaign 
That suggests that pro indy supporters  need to be silenced and to be shipped off to faraway places where they wont be trouble. 
That an independent Scotland is too wee too stupid and too poor and so that makes the idea of an independent Scotland absurd.

All these appear regularly here and elsewhere and add NOTHING to the debate.  This is just propoganda that has been around since the year dot in various guises and is as effective now as it ever was - that is not at all.  

Being Scots is not an irrelevance many people who are Scots ( although I am not sure about the definition) believe in their hearts that Scotland should and must be independent. Many people are nationalists of the heart and soul and mind and would take independence at any price.  You sneer at those who want an Independent Scotland for a better country and society as "seccessionists" As though it is a somehow less noble reason than a true "nationalist" who wants it because it is Scotland and they BELIEVE in an independent Scotland with their whole heart and would have it tomorrow. And yet others sneer at those people as "braveheart watching tartan clad shortbread tin" nationalists.  The truth is that people have different reasons for wanting independence like people have different reasons for watning to remain within the union. Damned if you do and damned if you dont....  but god forbid that you or anyone else should accept that people are actually THINKING about this and making DECISIONS and asking QUESTIONS which are helping them make their mind up.  

There is everything to play for John and using words is your tool of choice as is mine.  Lets hear it - huff about not getting a vote but neither you not  I will change that so lets talk about the things that matter.

----------


## ducati

You can't dismiss the main argument that the Scottish economy is too small.

It's easy to analyse. Just check how many large companies would be listed on a Scottish Stock Market and how much reliance would be on foreign companies.

Yes they employ local people. Yes they pay local taxes. But at the end of the day the revenue generated by the business's goes away and doesn't contribute to the economy. 

Look at the headline growth area, renewables. How many Scottish companies are manufacturing the equipment for Wind energy? How many Tidal and Wave energy companies are manufacturing anything?

How many oil and gas support companies are actually local? 

This is all very worrying because in a global economy (like it or not) these employers will go where they can make the most profit and this changes all the time.

----------


## John Little

@ Squidge

"pro independence supporters are stupid, thick or intellectually challenged
pro independence supporters are sheep following their leader with no idea of the issues ( simply a variation of the above)
That solely comprise of ridiculing the leaders of the indpendence campaign 
That suggests that pro indy supporters need to be silenced and to be shipped off to faraway places where they wont be trouble.
That an independent Scotland is too wee too stupid and too poor and so that makes the idea of an independent Scotland absurd."

I have done and said none of the above.  And Propaganda is something which cuts both ways.  I think the SNP is all about propaganda and froth with little substance.

But I do think you are missing the point.


If this WERE a Scots movement - the Bravehearts as you call them, and they voted for independence, then I would have no objection at all.  That would be the legitimate expression of nationhood.

But by your own admission it is NOT a Scots movement.  

It's a Resident's movement.

Indeed hundreds of thousands of Scots will be barred from voting.


So by your logic, all we have to do in order to decide the vote is to do what they used to do in the old days of Rotten Boroughs and ship in a few hundred thousand mixed migrants from all over the world, cue them to vote one way or another, and bob's your uncle - end of UK.

A rag tag and bobtail mixture originating of many nations may break up the UK and most of the UK gets no say.
How ironic is that?

Take the "Nationalist" or the Bravehearts out of your equation - and what are you left with?  
Economic arguments and aspirations for a 'better deal'.
Something shared by all of us.

Look at your last post and substitute 'Lancashire' for Scotland and tell me it does not fit.


The fact is that the whole thing is a con.  Try it in Lancashire and you'd get nowhere.

But Scotland has a history and its own structures of state where a secessionist party can pose as a nationalist party and a motley alliance of Scots, proper old style nationalists and 'new Scots' from all over the world can break up a 300 year old union with a great history, fine achievements and standing - and get away with it because of a historical anomaly.

The state of our union should have been sorted by our forefathers and mothers.  There have been plenty of Scots in positions of power in this union.

It still can be.

----------


## Corrie 3

If the boot was on the other foot and it was England that wanted to leave the Union would we as Scots living over the Border get a vote? I think not because if we did the English Govt would have to go Worldwide and give all English by birth a chance to vote which would be impossible.
Also, going Independent is looking to the future and the future of Scotland is down to the people who live here and who have chose to make it their home. Not someone who left years ago and have little chance of returning!
As for us all being thick and like sheep well we get used to that, it usually rears it's head when the pro-unionists have run out of reasonable argument!!

C3.

----------


## John Little

Why are you people bringing up the idea that you are thick and like sheep?

Where is that on this thread? Where have I said it?

You getting paranoid or something?


If the boot was on the other foot then I would expect and insist that the English government (if it ever exists) would give the vote to everyone registered to vote.  It's done in general elections by post - can it be done by the internet?

As to your discounting the 850,000 expatriates - I will not speak for them.  There's a few who look in here occasionally so they can do that for themselves.

My personal opinion is that the disenfranchising of such a significant proportion of the population on such a great matter is scandalous and shameful. (a thought shared by some SNP members on Mr Wallace's FB page)

----------


## Fidelis

> What is the SNP? A laughing  stock the world over, Eck gets booed at the Ryder Cup, where next?
> 
> hWttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnFouF8z360&feature=share


 Well, another "patriotic" Scot putting down the SNP, sad really, but I suppose every country has its proportion of similar citizens, who dont know their history or their economics or their international relations! I suppose you prefer the dream team of Joanne Lamont and Eric Milliband!

----------


## John Little

> Well, another "patriotic" Scot putting down the SNP, sad really, but I suppose every country has its proportion of similar citizens, who dont know their history or their economics or their international relations! I suppose you prefer the dream team of Joanne Lamont and Eric Milliband!


Please give us a lesson in History, Economics and International Relations.

I can't wait.



PS - who's Eric Milliband?

----------


## Corrie 3

> Why are you people bringing up the idea that you are thick and like sheep?
> 
> Where is that on this thread? Where have I said it?
> 
> You getting paranoid or something?


Sorry John, it's not you making those insults but if you look carefully there has been quite a few recently...It really doesn't help either side when name calling comes into it!!
My apologies if you thought it was you who had been giving out said insults!!
C3..

----------


## Oddquine

> Thank you for a good long reply.  My response need not be long, which I do not doubt will cause thanks in many hearts.
> 
> You have made it pellucidly clear that being Scots is almost an irrelevance in this vote.  In 2014 will be a referendum which may result in the destruction of the UK. Marta and Anya get a vote in that.
> 
> I don't.
> 
> This tars the SNP as no Nationalists but certainly as secessionist.
> 
> You seem to expect the British to accept this, all sweetness and light.  Well I may have to accept it, but I do assure you that if you break up the country I was born and bred in, and i am told its not my affair,then my feelings will be less than charitable.
> ...


Which part of the voting parameters/rules etc  in the UK..all parts of the UK... is a function reserved to the UK Parliament do you not quite understand, out of interest? Did you not grasp that fact of UK politics during all these months in which the UK Parliament has been telling the Scottish Government that it has to have its permission to hold a referendum, and without that permission from the UK Parliament, it would simply be a consultative referendum and ignorable, not binding (if they could hold any kind of referendum at all which was also being disputed)?   

I appreciate you appear to have a blind hatred for the Scottish National Party for some strange reason, but does it not seem at all illogical, even irrational, of you to blame the SNP for being bound by rules laid down by the UK Parliament.

If you think about it logically....a consultative referendum would, in the scheme of keeping the Union, have been the most sensible option  *if the  UK Government actually wanted the Union to continue.*  A consultative referendum could have offered all options.....the Status Quo, Independence and Devo-Max....and it is clear that the majority, even now, would vote for Devo-Max (ie a Federal system) which would have solved the West Lothian Question for the voter in England into the bargain. The majority in Scotland at the moment wants political change _within_ the Union...not Independence, the minority want to keep the Status Quo.

However, as squidge has said _As for Devo Max well John - dont hold your breath.  The Westminster  government has said absolutely no vote on Devo max regardless of what  the consultation shows and if there is a NO vote for independence there  was recently a news item saying that  - I think Alistair Darling said -  there will be no further powers for Scotland and if there are none for  Scotland then there are none for england either. 
_
And it is this fact which makes one wonder if the UK Government _does_ want to preserve the Union in any shape other than the current one which gives them complete economic control of everything. It does not seem to be the case that they do...so it would appear it is the control which is important to them, not the Union per se. It would be so easy for the UK Government to relinquish control and keep the Union, but they prefer to have a stand-up fight to hold on to the control with the possibility that it will lead to the end of the Union.  And it will eventually...if not this time, then next time...because there will be a next time..and it won't take a generation to arrive.

If you read, although I don't suppose you do, pro-independence websites and facebook pages, you will see slowly growing numbers saying that while they would prefer Devo-Max, if that is not an option on the table, they will vote for Independence because no meaningful change in the UK political system is not an option they can accept..so with two years to go there is still a lot to play for.   

Does the UK Government really want to keep Scotland in the Union.....because if so, the decades of trying (and failing) to puncture the wheels on the Scottish Independence bus has taught them nothing.....while it has taught those of us on the bus that UK Government promises mean nothing and tinkering around the outside edges of devolution accomplishes nothing.

----------


## John Little

@ Oddquine

I have noticed over many years that if one dares to analyse or criticise the policies of the Israeli government, then they react by demonising their critic as 'anti-semitic'.

I must assume that my 'blind hatred' of the SNP is a similar attempt by  you to demonise me because you do not like what I have been saying about the SNP.  My 'blind hatred' of the SNP is actually called by most normal people 'opposition'.

I do not agree with them.  

My reasons for not agreeing with them and the thought processes behind those reasons are set out in this thread, and it's a sort of ongoing process because my position has shifted greatly in this last year.

I am perfectly aware of the nature of the constitutional debate over the nature of the referendum - you seem not to be aware that any referendum, binding or not, if it had a majority for independence, would be politically irresistible. 


As to the UK government- I do not agree with them either.  They are a bunch of bungling incompetents, which is hardly surprising since our Prime Minister and Chancellor both never held office in any form before taking on the jobs they are doing.

I think they are a bunch of chancers, making it up as they go along, out of touch, and with the wrong social priorities.
Which is why I'll vote against them.

But just because I don;'t like them does not mean that I will head back up to Cumbria and set up a movement to secede from the Union on the grounds that the expressed wish of Cumbrian residents is to have their own government in Carlisle.

I do actually look at some pro-Independence sites and I've seen a lot of bile which balances out quite well with the rational stuff.

The most rational thing I have read about this whole issue was Rob Murray's thoughts on devo-max.

Whilst I wholly agree that the constitution of the UK needs wholesale revision, I do not take seriously your idea that the UK government wants to see the breakup of the Union.  I don't think Cameron has woken up to the danger - or is not taking it seriously enough.

If the SNP wants independence after 2014 then I think it will be disappointed, going by present polls.  If the SNP uses its present position to reform the UK then they do us all a favour.

If you don't like what I have said about the nature and aspirations of the SNP - then please feel free to refute anything I have said.

----------


## squidge

> Why are you people bringing up the idea that you are thick and like sheep?
> 
> Where is that on this thread? Where have I said it?
> 
> You getting paranoid or something?


you people?  And what might "you people" mean?  i am sorry if you thought I was saying that YOU had made these comments.  I was saying that the pro union debate seems to largely consist of these types of argument and that you are able to do so much more - and we need so much more. We need a robust and articulate defence of the union which doesnt consist of the stuff i quoted if we are to have an informed decision. I am sure that you can do that John.  

AS for the SNP I dont speak for them - I am not a member, i have voted for them in the past but I am not particularly tied to voting for them in the future. I will vote for the party which I believe offers the best option for Scotland and tackles the issues that are close to my heart. 

The voting rights of the people of the UK are what they are - I have no chance of changing them and neither do you.  Time to move on I think.

----------


## John Little

'You people' are the people who bring the idea onto this thread that the SNP are under attack on the grounds that you state.

Bringing them onto this thread could 'taint' it with arguments and ideas which have not actually appeared on this thread.

So I wonder at the motive or the logic for bringing them onto this thread.

Was there one?

As to your not being a member of the SNP - you have stated that repeatedly and I think it dissembles somewhat since on here and in other places you are strongly supportive of them.

Your political position as regards social matters is not all that far removed from my own and I regret deeply that you feel the need to fence your concerns off into an exclusive enclave and not address them nationally.

Your last sentence is expressive of the negativity on which the SNP's aspirations are founded.  The whole thing rests on 'giving up' on the UK.  The voting rights of the people of the UK have changed on a number of occasions and no doubt will continue to do so if enough pressure is put on our political leaders.

I sincerely hope that Johann Lamont's members are venting their spleen at her right now.  Labour began in Scotland and the dream of a better Britain for all had its genesis in Keir Hardie- he was a nationalist to begin with- but his vision was wide, international and inspiring. Labour needs to re-connect with its soul- and it is possible that they may do so.

Just because you wish to give up does not mean that you have to tear the nation down with your own disappointed hopes.

----------


## squidge

John - I am not giving up - I am only just starting.......  If we can improve things in Scotland whether we get independence or not then maybe, just maybe we can influence the rest of the UK.  If we secure independence we may do that by the development of new political parties or of existing political parties  reafirming their roots which will filter through to the rest of the UK and galvanise the political parties there to change and grow and be better than they are, if we do not secure independence then by shaking the bars and rattling the political establishment maybe we can galvanise the political parties to look more closely at their Raison d'etre and revisit their roots to benefit the people of the UK. 

As for tainting the thread, well the thread does not stand in Isolation -  The Better Together campaign has been TERRIBLE and the debates online and on this Discussion board have included many of the types of propaganda mentioned.  We MUST move away from that type of debate over the next two years if we are to get an informed and sensible argument and people who support the union are currently being badly let down on that score. The debate is there to be debated - the fight to be fought if you like.  Only by talking about it - only by respectful and sensible articulate and intelligent debate will we get anywhere.... It was an invitation to discuss things whilst avoiding the points I mentioned John, not an accusation.....

----------


## John Little

Aye - there's a lot of pious aspiration in the SNP but as Weezer points out - and others too - not a lot of substance.

Here's your big problem; I'm taking it that Oddquine is an SNP member;

"3.The SNP don't have to explain anything...what makes you think they have that obligation? Before 2016 and that election, the SNP's vision of how an an independent Scotland will work is no more valid or definitive than mine, or Squidge's or Recquery's....or the opinions of any other pro-independence supporter. The SNP vision is only valid if the SNP are in a position to implement it...and there are no guarantees of that..so there is no requirement to produce a costed manifesto four years ahead..particularly when we don't know our financial situation. We can probably assume that the precedents in International Law, if they exist, will prevail if negotiations break down...but negotiations and a mutually agreed outcome would be by far the best and most sensible option...but we haven't had them yet."


See?

You don't have to explain anything.

The message is surely quite clear.  A vote for the SNP is a leap of faith.

So those of a religious mind may feel able to take that leap.

Or perhaps the simple message could be drummed over and over again 'vote SNP or you're not a true Scot'....

I suspect that the hard headed folk of Scotland may need a little more than the above.

Don't you?

----------


## squidge

Of course people will need a little more -  but it is important to remember that there are two years to go yet.  The SNP is not the only party in Scotland and there are others - it is not "up to the SNP" to decide what Independence is going to look like.  They will need to give their options and opinions and no doubt other parties will do so as well.  There is a conference for Labour voters for independence soon and that might just see us start to get answers from Labour.  We have the SDA and the Green party whose manifesto's will develop and offer a different view.

We have the chance to influence these policies by talking about and debating the issues and that is what we need to do.

----------


## John Little

You know - that document that Weezer has linked on the other thread is dynamite.  I recommend you to read it.

----------


## squidge

I have done John.  I read it earlier this year and I read it a few weeks ago and I have looked at it again tonight. It raises several pertinent and interesting questions but it leaves unanswered some too. 

Oil is not the answer to the economy in an independent Scotland and you KNOW that I dont think it is.  Let me clarify my thoughts for you 

 " If you read the reports, there is between 1 day  and a million years’ worth of oil sitting beneath the North Sea. Some  would almost have us believe that the oil will run out the day after  Scotland becomes Independent, plunging Scotland into an economic decline  which will see us all homeless and toothless, queuing for bread and  burning our furniture to keep warm.  I know the oil will run out. I am  sure that all those people who are cleverer than me know it too. What I  don’t understand, is why people think that the economy will stand still,  that industry will not change.  If we look at industry over the last  fifty years then we can see that there is little resemblance between  today’s industrial landscape and that of our fathers or grandfathers.  The opening ceremony of the Olympics highlighted some of the many  changes and so we can expect and indeed, we should strive to change the  landscape over the next fifty years.  Whether it is renewables, or  another digital or scientific revolution or a return to heavier  industry, an Independent Scotland can work to ensure that we are  prepared for the demise of the oil industry so that well before it runs  out Scotland no longer needs oil."

----------


## John Little

Well fine.  No use of oil.  No use of coal.  Increasingly globalised markets.  Best of British luck.  You're going to need it.

----------


## squidge

Well fine???????  

Thats the response I get from my 17 year old when I dont say the things HE wants.   You know what - I have better things to do than entertain grown up teenagers - you 'll be saying yeah yeah yeah whatever next.   :: 

Off to do something worthwhile.......

----------


## John Little

> Well fine???????  Thats the response I get from my 17 year old when I dont say the things HE wants.   You know what - I have better things to do than entertain grown up teenagers - you 'll be saying yeah yeah yeah whatever next.  Off to do something worthwhile.......


There is little else to be said.  

There's none so blind as them that don't want to see.  

You won't see.  

What else is there to say?


Btw - what was that you said about calling people names?

----------


## Corrie 3

> Well fine.  No use of oil.  No use of coal.  Increasingly globalised markets.  Best of British luck.  You're going to need it.


Tut tut John..........When the oil runs out it will run out for the UK, coal is all but finished in the UK now thanks to Maggie, the Unions,the Greens and the high price of having to import it. And dont forget, gas will be running out for the Uk before very long so it's not only Scotland that needs your best of British luck is it?

C3.

----------


## John Little

Did I say it was?

----------


## John Little

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...er-stations-uk

http://www.ukcoal.com/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18611647

None of those allowed in SNP Scotland...

No nuclear either.


Going to build a new industrial base on wind and wave?

----------


## weezer 316

> Tut tut John..........When the oil runs out it will run out for the UK, coal is all but finished in the UK now thanks to Maggie, the Unions,the Greens and the high price of having to import it. And dont forget, gas will be running out for the Uk before very long so it's not only Scotland that needs your best of British luck is it?
> 
> C3.


Maggie and the unions...........working together where they!!

It just couldnt be that we couldnt subsidies loss maknig pits any more could it? it couldnt be that could it? She did it for the crack clearly.....

Mindnumbing.....

Forget about Thatcher. Her name doenst resonate with people our age as looking back it pretty clear something drastic needed done or Britain was finished. I would put your energies into trying to convince they tin hat mob the tories have taken their benefits and now they are after their thoughts....and fat eck can save you by building wind farms to interfere with the signal.

----------


## ducati

The main change in industrial Scotland over the last 30 years is all the industry has been bought and sold to foreign interests.

Anyone notice that when a professor of this or that is trotted out to try to explain the latest innovation being worked on at this or that University in Scotland, they are always Dutch, Norwegien, Italian, Spanish, Canadian.............

Just an observation, I don't know what it means.

----------


## secrets in symmetry

> @ Squidge
> 
> "pro independence supporters are stupid, thick or intellectually challenged
> pro independence supporters are sheep following their leader with no idea of the issues ( simply a variation of the above).


I might not have put it quite so bluntly as she did, but the evidence from their posts on this forum would certainly support those claims - especially since these were evidently their own words lol.

----------


## John Little

Before this little discussion shambles off into the hell of sullen silence I am going to take the liberty of elaborating some of what Weezer has already pointed out.

The government bases its shifts in policy on advice it gets from various sources.  These sources come in a number of forms – Royal Commissions, Parliamentary Commissions and Civil Service Commissions are the main ones.  If a minister wishes to make a decision then he/she needs state of the art information and instructs a civil servant to prepare a briefing document after consultation with appropriate experts and authorities.  

Weezer has provided a link to such a document.

Sometimes they are wrong – as in the information given to the Transport Minister over rail franchising- but that mistake was over forecasting.  Weezer’s link is not about forecasting but about what has happened already.

Such mistakes are as rare as hen’s teeth in practice because the civil servant who makes them suddenly finds that their career is finished.

Which means that the overwhelming probability is that the information in Weezer’s link is accurate.

I take the liberty of reproducing the last part of it here;


*“Oil fund*
An oil fund works on the basis that all oil revenues are paid into the fund and only interest gained is taken out. If this same approach to an oil fund had been in place in Scotland since North Sea oil was discovered then there would have been a fiscal deficit every year – totalling almost £150bn over the last 27 years. If instead oil revenue was paid into an oil fund only once the budget was balanced then there would only have been nine years when any money would have been paid into a fund, and since 1989-90 there would have been 18 years when even with oil revenues being used to support Scotland’s public finances there would still have been a fiscal deficit.
Oil revenues can be used only once, you can’t spend them to offset an expenditure black hole and invest them in an oil fund at the same time.

*Conclusion*
− North Sea oil revenues are volatile and difficult to forecast because of movements in the price of oil, production levels and costs as shown in the data presented and the evidence from the Commission on Scottish Devolution report.
−            Oil production from the North Sea is declining −            Scottish fiscal balance has never been in surplus without oil revenues, and
has been in surplus for only 9 years even when all oil revenues are allocated to Scotland
Scotland has seen a public sector deficit in every year since 1980-81 when no direct share of oil revenues is allocated.
Even with all oil revenues allocated to Scotland there would have been only nine years out of twenty-seven where there would have been a surplus, none of them since 1988-89.
With all oil revenues accruing to Scotland there would still have been a cumulative net deficit of around £20bn over twenty-seven years.
Oil is a diminishing resource. Production has fallen year on year since 1999 (bar 2007, when the large Buzzard Field started production), and is currently declining at around five per cent per annum.
The price of oil is exceptionally volatile. It has fallen to a value today of less than half of what it was a year ago.
Since 2002-03 total Exchequer revenues from taxes on profits from oil and gas production have year on year fallen by 16%, increased by 21%, increased by 82%, fallen by 3%, fallen by 14%, and increased by 66% - and have over this time variously made up around a sixth to a third of the total Scottish budget. This would make forward budgeting extremely difficult for an independent Scotland.”

http://www.scotlandoffice.gov.uk/sco...nd%20paper.pdf

All of which exposes the SNPs  position as rather airy posturing.  Something to be glazed over because it is inconvenient.

There is an ice-berg ahead and the Captain has just ordered full steam ahead.

In reality Weezer has shot their fantasy straight through the head – stone dead.



But will they notice?

----------


## pmcd

But John - surely you know that the SNP response to these figures will be "Figures as published by the same UK government which wishes to  keep the UK together. Are these figures to be trusted? Figures which were created by the same people who totally messed up the banks, the economy, the railway franchises, etc." Then followed by the usual emotive statements featuring they great "they" - Maggie Thatcher, The Tories", bloated plutocrats, bread snatchers, etc. Face it John, the Secessionists don't do facts - at least, no facts which don't suit.

----------


## John Little

True, I talk of dreams, 
Which are the children of an idle brain, 
Begot of nothing but vain fantasy, 
Which is as thin of substance as the air 
And more inconstant than the wind, who woos 
Even now the frozen bosom of the north, 
And, being anger'd, puffs away from thence, 
Turning his face to the dew-dropping south.

----------


## pmcd

The problem with telling decent people that they are victims, and are oppressed, is that gradually they come to believe it, and then become it.

----------


## John Little

> The problem with telling decent people that they are victims, and are oppressed, is that gradually they come to believe it, and then become it.


I believe that you are correct.  I really do.

Mind you, Johan Lamont suddenly looks rather sensible in the light of that document.  Things have to be paid for do they not?

The contribution of Scots to the general UK economy is enormous - three quarters of a million working in England alone, and heaven knows how many in Wales and Northern Ireland.  We all generate revenue that goes into a common pot.

If we have a common pot then it matters not a whit where the revenue originates.  It ain't Scottish or English etc - it's British.

But split up the UK so they have to rely on revenue generated in one particular area and I fear that within a very short time the greatest export in that area will be its people.

----------


## John Little

> But John - surely you know that the SNP response to these figures will be "Figures as published by the same UK government which wishes to  keep the UK together. Are these figures to be trusted? Figures which were created by the same people who totally messed up the banks, the economy, the railway franchises, etc." Then followed by the usual emotive statements featuring they great "they" - Maggie Thatcher, The Tories", bloated plutocrats, bread snatchers, etc. Face it John, the Secessionists don't do facts - at least, no facts which don't suit.


SNP conference 2020?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJ599TQUiug

----------


## Corrie 3

> I fear that within a very short time the greatest export in that area will be its people.


It is now John and has been for years, 90% of our young have to leave the Highlands and Islands to get something like a decent job. It's no wonder people are voting for change, the 3 main parties have let us down for decades, no wonder our islands are empty of teenagers and young adults, where else can they go but down south to get decent employment? And they are being replaced by aging incomers who are a drain on our NHS funds and contribute very little to the local economy. You have an alternative with voting for UKIP, we have an alternative with voting for the SNP. Or we can carry on voting for the 3 main party Muppets who keep letting us all down time after time. Who will you be voting for next at the elections John, I would love to know!!!

C3.

----------


## John Little

C3 - I have you in my head as an honest man.  Facing the figures that Weezer  brought up, surely you can see that any promise to make a better Scotland based on a.  The available cash  and b, the ideology that refuses to use resources that the rest of the world persists in using is a hollow souffle - full of hot air?

Weezer has convinced me that the SNP are charlatans.  They promise mountains but I think they will be hard pushed to deliver molehills.

As to population- Scotland's population is going up.  Lots and lots of people are coming in - can't be so short of jobs as you think;
http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/files...8/j1119801.htm

Even New Scots have to have employment- no?

Ukip?  There's another bunch of chancers - no thanks.

I shall vote Labour - as I have said before.  I have never voted Labour in my life but better that than this bunch of idiots we have now.  At least Miliband is making an effort and he may shape up.  I hope so.

It ain't much but I'm willing to give it a try.

If you wonder why the gas power stations and the nuclear new builds and the coal mines are not in Scotland then ask the SNP.  Their green ideology makes them move the hem of their garment away from such things.

Pity that China and Brazil and India do not have the same scruples.

Those figures tell a tale C3.  You're too wise a man to be taken in by pink fluffy dreams.

Lamont is being realistic - things have to be paid for.  You know that.

Look at that document - look at the graphs.


The fact is that we are interdependent.  We need each other to prosper.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interdependence


Split us and we all lose.

----------


## weezer 316

> It is now John and has been for years, 90% of our young have to leave the Highlands and Islands to get something like a decent job. It's no wonder people are voting for change, the 3 main parties have let us down for decades, no wonder our islands are empty of teenagers and young adults, where else can they go but down south to get decent employment? And they are being replaced by aging incomers who are a drain on our NHS funds and contribute very little to the local economy. You have an alternative with voting for UKIP, we have an alternative with voting for the SNP. Or we can carry on voting for the 3 main party Muppets who keep letting us all down time after time. Who will you be voting for next at the elections John, I would love to know!!!
> 
> C3.


Oh corrie corrie corrie......

You have made a link between the SNP and retention of people my age in the highlands...

Dounreay employs a fair chunk of my mates + 2000 others......

Most of the rest work in places dependent on dounreay to varying degrees (contruction firms, JGC, retail etc).......

Most of that will be gone in 10-15 years time. I might be in my 40s.....


What exactly, or even vaguely,  is the SNP doing that will keep more people and therefore more young people in this area in anything even like the numbers dounreay does?

And before you answer, if you do, I should want you I have looked.....

----------


## golach

Not a lot has changed up in the Highlands, in 1946 my Father and two other familys of Ploughmen became economic migrants and had to leave Caithness to take up employment in the richer south sic Perthshire, for the next 10 years my father and my family were in 3 separate farms, I was in 4 different schools, accommodation varied a lot in one farm cottage we had no electricity, no water in the house, and no flushable toilet facilities. while 100 yards up the road was a German POW camp with all mod cons, of course the cottage was rent free, and my fathers wages were £7.00 a quarter, with free milk and a half hundredweight of oatmeal per  month. And I never knew we were poor.
So there are no jobs up there now, nothings changed much in 66 years, I left home at the age of 16 to go to the job I wanted, to be at sea. and we did not heed the nutters that were the SNP in those days either.

----------


## John Little

> The problem with telling decent people that they are victims, and are oppressed, is that gradually they come to believe it, and then become it.


@PMCD

What you said here made me think.- a lot.  There is a perception about that Scotland is a victim and oppressed and is the junior partner in a bad marriage.

It seems to me that once again it’s the SNP who have set the terms of reference here – or maybe even James 1 himself, who wanted the union of the crowns to be seen as a marriage.

It’s actually a wrong perception, because the joining of two countries is not like a marriage, and their splitting up is nothing like a divorce- I used to think it was too but have changed much over the last year.

If one insists on using such a scenario, then it’s very easy to present one partner as badly done to, especially given the difference in populations.

But it’s a totally false analogy and should be rejected, because the Union is actually a much more complicated business than a marriage between two individuals.  When two countries join, then it may be likened to a marriage for a while – but the union of the crowns was 400 years ago and the actual Union 300 years ago.

The forces of Geography have taken over and the United Kingdom has become an Interdependent country – that is to say that its industry, commerce, culture and activities of all kinds have become so intermingled that in effect they form a unitary whole in many ways – but not all.  

The United Kingdom is thus the ‘Child’ of the Union and rather than seeing the arrangement as a marriage it might be better to see it as a large human body- let us call it ‘The Body Politic’.


By and large the body politic is healthy- occasionally it gets ill though and at the moment it is suffering from Recession Flu.  It works, makes its way in the world and the blood of its commerce supports and nourishes the cells who make it up – which is us.

The parts of the body depend on each other.  The Heart cannot function without the head, nor the spleen without the liver  - and so on.

If the head has a violent argument with the torso, then the resulting loss of blood, shock etc would kill the body politic.  How could it do otherwise?

As to the blood – are we to argue that the marrow in a leg bone is more important because it produces more blood cells than an arm bone?

That would be absurd.

The point is that the blood is produced and it nourishes the whole.

Use this analogy, which seems more valid than marriage, and where is the sense of victimhood and oppression- or of inferiority? 

Just change the narrative.

After all- however Brave the Heart, if you cut it out of the body, then it dies and the body dies too.

Who benefits from that?

----------


## secrets in symmetry

> Before this little discussion shambles off into the hell of sullen silence I am going to take the liberty of elaborating some of what Weezer has already pointed out.
> 
> The government bases its shifts in policy on advice it gets from various sources.  These sources come in a number of forms – Royal Commissions, Parliamentary Commissions and Civil Service Commissions are the main ones.  If a minister wishes to make a decision then he/she needs state of the art information and instructs a civil servant to prepare a briefing document after consultation with appropriate experts and authorities.  
> 
> Weezer has provided a link to such a document.
> 
> Sometimes they are wrong – as in the information given to the Transport Minister over rail franchising- but that mistake was over forecasting.  Weezer’s link is not about forecasting but about what has happened already.
> 
> Such mistakes are as rare as hen’s teeth in practice because the civil servant who makes them suddenly finds that their career is finished.
> ...


It took you a while John, but you got one of the points - eventually.  :: 

As I've said many times, secessionists don't seem to be able to see past numbers. They will post and try to rebut your statements, but they will get it wrong because they're incapable of understanding the issues.

You might be interested to know there are some mistakes in that document. Correcting these mistakes makes the problem much worse. One mistake is a very standard one - they don't understand exponential growth, their linear approximation is wrong. Another is that they don't correct for inflation in oil revenues. A third is that they don't understand the destruction power of fluctuations in oil revenues - mostly because they're using the same linear thinking that most politicians/economists/forum-schoolboys use. Having said that, they are so far ahead of any secessionists on this forum that the latter won't ever understand what the problem is.

----------


## John Little

I shall take your word for it SiS - indeed I do not doubt your expertise in the area.

Despite posts which purport to have read the document, but which clearly have not understood it, I do know that you cannot spend the same money twice.

And if a Scottish government would set the levels of its expenditure differently than a parliament which clearly has no Scots in it at all at all, then, like Weezer, I await with eagerness to see where the axe will fall. 

I imagine that 7000 poor souls at Faslane will feel the pinch first.Interesting that the brave new world is to be built on fossil fuel money though ain't it?

And benefit levels?

Suddenly Ms Lamont looks a lot lot better...

----------


## Kenn

Snotty nosed parents?
Grabs hard hat and dives for the bunker!

----------


## weezer 316

> I shall take your word for it SiS - indeed I do not doubt your expertise in the area.
> 
> Despite posts which purport to have read the document, but which clearly have not understood it, I do know that you cannot spend the same money twice.
> 
> And if a Scottish government would set the levels of its expenditure differently than a parliament which clearly has no Scots in it at all at all, then, like Weezer, I await with eagerness to see where the axe will fall. 
> 
> I imagine that 7000 poor souls at Faslane will feel the pinch first.Interesting that the brave new world is to be built on fossil fuel money though ain't it?
> 
> And benefit levels?
> ...


It will be interesting indeed. I am especially curious as to exactly how they plan on dealing with he large bills Westminster picks up at present like pensions and benefits, defence and debt repayment. They already get about 70% of the tax raised in Scotland (2010 figures here from the top of my head) yet only have approximtely half the bills to pay. And thats minus the 10 000 armed forces personnel that would hen become their responsibility.

I am eager for an answer or even some kind of vague plan but no one has one.....

----------


## John Little

Yes - that bit in the introduction - first bullet point, where it says that if Scotland had received ALL of the North Sea oil revenues they would still only have been in surplus in 9 years out of the last 27 has been skated over.

And although the mccrone report is ancient history as far as the North Sea is concerned, it was plainly wrong with Scotland in the UK.  Unless a lot of money had remained unspent on what some of the SNP feel are not important.This implies massive cuts in spending post independence and it will be very interesting to see where they come - indeed.

But of course there are activities which are not to happen in Scotland because of SNP scruples.You will not use your coal.  Gas is a no no.  No fracking in Scotland.  No nuclear in future.

But no problem with oil. Even though they are against fossil fuels.

Seems to me that it will be a bit like trying to run with a ball and chain round your leg - placed there not by the demons of 'Westminster'. ( a tyrannical place where there are no Scots but makes Scotland do what they want it to.). But by your own free will.


Very strange.

----------


## Oddquine

> Yes - that bit in the introduction - first bullet point, where it says that if Scotland had received ALL of the North Sea oil revenues they would still only have been in surplus in 9 years out of the last 27 has been skated over.
> 
> And although the mccrone report is ancient history as far as the North Sea is concerned, it was plainly wrong with Scotland in the UK.  Unless a lot of money had remained unspent on what some of the SNP feel are not important.This implies massive cuts in spending post independence and it will be very interesting to see where they come - indeed.
> 
> But of course there are activities which are not to happen in Scotland because of SNP scruples.You will not use your coal.  Gas is a no no.  No fracking in Scotland.  No nuclear in future.
> 
> But no problem with oil. Even though they are against fossil fuels.
> 
> Seems to me that it will be a bit like trying to run with a ball and chain round your leg - placed there not by the demons of 'Westminster'. ( a tyrannical place where there are no Scots but makes Scotland do what they want it to.). But by your own free will.
> ...


How can you skate over something which is a hypothetical premise based on a spending regime by another political set up? It isn't skating over it...it is ignoring it as a complete  irrelevance to the future of Scotland.

Funnily enough....according to a report updated in July this year, by the Economics and Statistics section of the UK Parliament : _Since 1970, the government has had a surplus in only six years_ _(_which is_ 6_ years in_ 42)_, which makes Scotland's performance look a lot better, doesn't it....given that the UK has had every penny of every pound of taxation from all countries in the UK providing input to the UK coffers..plus  100% of all Oil, Gas, Crown Estate Revenues etc.  That fact might be less of an irrelevance to the Unionists, however, if Scotland becomes Independent and the input from Scotland is removed from the exchequer of rUK.

Never quite understood, though, how estimates produced by the Unionist parties in the Scottish Office before Devolution and which continued to be compiled in much the same way by Unionist parties in the Scottish Government until 2005-2006 are perceived as fact, while the GERS  reports themselves admit: _ The calculations to derive a fiscal position for Scotland are subject to inevitable imprecision due to the need to estimate a number of elements of both expenditure and revenue. The calculation of expenditure for Scotland (specifically the non-identifiable and other expenditure components) cannot be carried out with the same accuracy as that for the UK as a whole. Moreover, there are practical and theoretical difficulties in determining an appropriate share of UK revenues to allocate to Scotland._ 

The fact of discrepancies in GERS figures over the time of their production was reported here in 2007 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6267881.stm    For those interested, the Cuthberts' website is here http://www.cuthbert1.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/   and on there, among other items, is a letter itemising further discrepancies found after their original paper was accepted. 

The McCrone Report  is ancient history in as far as it refers to a situation which is past......just as every response against Independence refers to the past history of the UK, as the link re oil does, rather than the future.   It is, however,  a reminder.....illustrating why it would be more than foolish to base any decisions on the possibilities/promises uttered by UK politicians and others with vested interests without studying the facts and figures..provided those facts and figures aren't kept secret by the UK politicians to protect their own positions, of course.

The Environment Scotland site says _Scottish coal has the potential to make a major contribution to the  country's energy budget for many years to come. However, the use of coal  would need to be balanced with the drive towards a low carbon economy,  for example through the use of carbon capture and storage_..so  nothing is ruled out there, and couldn't be by any Government for the  next one elected, anyway.   One Government can't make binding decisions on the one following them....so no Government needs to do anything just because a previous one said they would do it. New governments can even change laws made by previous ones....haven't you noticed.

Anyway, which part of the SNP will not necessarily become the Government in Scotland in 2016 if we vote for Independence,  do you still fail to understand, despite it being repeatedly reiterated on here? And which part of every party is not going to be an SNP clone do you not quite get? Scotland after Independence is most unlikely to have all the main political parties singing from pretty much the same hymn sheet with minor variations....unlike in the UK.  So why would you assume eternal control by political parties with much the same mindsets being the inevitable outcome of democracy in a Western country, just because it is happening in the UK?

----------


## Rheghead

I read today that a big SNPer thought that there were only 4% of the total who were Scottish MPs at Westminster and that was their reason for independence.  I wish they would get their facts right.  I'd hate them to vote Yes out of being misinformed!!  ::  ::  ::

----------


## John Little

You may have noticed that by the time you wrote an answer, this thread had dropped right to the bottom of the page; my interest in it had waned and I was prepared to let it go because I was satisfied with the figures that Weezer provided.  

Based on those figures a vote for independence would be a massive leap into the unknown.

Is is right to promise the people who live in Scotland a better future on the basis of a great unknown? To offer a glittering Chimera with doubtful substance?

I could and can answer your post above paragraph by paragraph but I think it's getting a little bit too much like tennis and the game is beginning to resemble 'Oh yes you did - Oh no you did'nt'. I shall have to think on whether or not I can be bothered.

I have a certain faith in the figures provided by Weezer.

You do not.

I distrust profoundly what you set out, both as a basis for Independence, and as reason for breaking up the United Kingdom.

You have a dream; it is just that - a dream


I started this thread but I think that in the light of what has been said, I shall not post again on it unless something fresh is said which causes me to rethink.

It is doubtful if that will happen.


*Post Scriptum.
*
Time 19;46

The post which is about to appear below will say nothing fresh or new.  It will be a rehash of what has already been said and a refusal to acknowledge the validity of Weezer’s document.

I shall not be replying to it.

*PPS

*
Gone!  You were replying!  Where are you?

I don't mind you having the last word - honest.  All been said before so it makes little difference.

Go on - spoil yourself.  You know you want to.   

I knew you would. 

 MEOw sptttzzz. Meowrr...

----------


## Oddquine

> You may have noticed that by the time you wrote an answer, this thread had dropped right to the bottom of the page; my interest in it had waned and I was prepared to let it go because I was satisfied with the figures that Weezer provided.  
> 
> Based on those figures a vote for independence would be a massive leap into the unknown.
> 
> Is is right to promise the people who live in Scotland a better future on the basis of a great unknown? To offer a glittering Chimera with doubtful substance?
> 
> I could and can answer your post above paragraph by paragraph but I think it's getting a little bit too much like tennis and the game is beginning to resemble 'Oh yes you did - Oh no you did'nt'. I shall have to think on whether or not I can be bothered.
> 
> I have a certain faith in the figures provided by Weezer.
> ...


Now isn't it amusing..and so typical of your obsession that you actually notice when I am online for a while, and assume I am preparing a response to you as if you are the only person posting on this thread or on forums on the internet...  and wait for my responses! I generally have a fair few tabs open so appear to be online all over the place.   :: 

I undoubtedly will respond to your post, sans the PS and the PPS, though perhaps not before I respond to others who have posted. My response (s), will arrive ._in my own good time_, and not to suit your agenda. Out of interest..what happened to *I shall not post again on it unless something fresh is said which causes me to rethink.*  ::  

Seems kinda pathetic that you post that bolded above....then hover around the thread for a further  2 hour 45 minutes and add a PS....and when that doesn't get a response, a PPS..neither of which project any more intelligence than the original post, tbh.

I will respond to whoever I wish to address when I have researched what I want to say. 

You are, I assume, aware that nobody on either side of the independence debate is posting for the benefit of those with entrenched attitudes, but to give those undecided something on which to base a decision......or at the very least, something to think about......which is not, it appears your aim in this debate. If taking my time to give facts and figures as accurate as they can be means that the thread reappears having dropped out of sight......then that is what will happen.  

Shame the ability to close threads you started when you have run out of things to say appears to have been removed, isn't it?  ::

----------


## Phill

I thought I'd post this here as opposed to starting another independence thread or hijacking the currency one. This seems the most relevant (I think).

The SNP now want into NATO: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-19993694
Is this just further watering down the 'independence' to a devo max anyway, so even if Salmond get's his independence in name both 'sides' can claim the victory?
I'm sensing this NATO mularky is the beginning of the backpeddling for Faslane & Trident.

----------


## golach

Splits are appearing in the Snp already, thats 2 msp's resigned over the membership of Nato issue. I wonder how many more will go by 2014?

----------


## Phill

Plenty of time though for a New SNP. Like the New Labour that acted like the tories.

----------


## Oddquine

> I shall take your word for it SiS - indeed I do not doubt your expertise in the area.
> 
> Despite posts which purport to have read the document, but which clearly have not understood it, I do know that you cannot spend the same money twice.
> 
> And if a Scottish government would set the levels of its expenditure differently than a parliament which clearly has no Scots in it at all at all, then, like Weezer, I await with eagerness to see where the axe will fall. 
> 
> I imagine that 7000 poor souls at Faslane will feel the pinch first.Interesting that the brave new world is to be built on fossil fuel money though ain't it?
> 
> And benefit levels?
> ...


Why can't you spend it twice when the UK Government counts the money Scotland gets twice?

----------


## Oddquine

> I thought I'd post this here as opposed to starting another independence thread or hijacking the currency one. This seems the most relevant (I think).
> 
> The SNP now want into NATO: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-19993694
> Is this just further watering down the 'independence' to a devo max anyway, so even if Salmond get's his independence in name both 'sides' can claim the victory?
> I'm sensing this NATO mularky is the beginning of the backpeddling for Faslane & Trident.


What do "splits" within the SNP have to do with the pro-independence movement, out of interest. What does this split in the SNP really mean for the pro-independence movement bar that makes two other people who will vote for Independence come the day but not as SNP party members...so they will just add to the tens of thousand of us, won't they...and they will still support the SNP policies, which do not include anything to do with NATO, in Parliament?  The "Yes" campaign isn't going to die without the SNP. If it did, then it didn't ever really exist at all.....and believe me it does, because membership of the SNP isn't a prerequisite for wanting Scottish independence, but certainly the existence of the SNP over decades has given the movement a focus to latch onto and use to grow.  

What does possible NATO membership voted for by the SNP for *after* a "Yes " vote, if they become the Government have to do with anything at all, unless you personally intended to vote for the SNP after Independence, and the NATO issue has made that impossible for you?  What would definitely stop me voting SNP in an Independent Scotland..is windmill proliferation and a refusal of a referendum on EU and NATO membership....but sure as hell the possibility of being in the minority and ending up with a Government whose policies I didn't like won't stop me voting YES.....because even a Government I don't like will be a Scottish Government running the country for the benefit of the Scottish people 
(and probably yes to maintain their jobs, as they are politicians....but if it works for us....why shouldn't they benefit as well provide they don't take the proverbial?) 

Get real all you people who keep on latching onto media reports written by Unionist sympathisers focusing on SNP policies without differentiating between future manifestos of single parties for an Independent Scotland, and the SNP which is currently the Scottish government and will be charged with negotiating with the rUK to leave the Union, if that is what we choose.  The Trident issue and the very few other defence establishments in Scotland is something subject to negotiations prior to Independence (and I do hope that those negotiations will have people representing all Independence minded supporters of all Scottish Parties, not just the SNP) ...which would be included among the the division of debts/assets on divorce. What Scotland will be like after Independence will depend on the manifestos of the party we actually elect as our Government. 

Trashing the SNP now is the reaction of a bear (and I'm not unaware of the connotation of bear in Scottish Idiotic Unionist sectarianim but was more thinking of Winnie the Pooh..the bear of very little brain) because _the SNP could not be doing what they are doing if the Scottish voter had not forced the issue_ _by voting in a majority SNP Government._  That is democracy..the SNP has been charged with delivering a referendum.....which they will do....and we, the Scottish voter base, is charged with voting according to our preferences. There is nothing in the 2011 SNP election manifesto, as far as I'm aware which states that on achieving Independence the SNP will become the de facto permanent government of Scotland..and all youse who appear/pretend to think that are lying through your teeth.

I await the usual ad hominem responses from the usual org suspects. Such a pity that nobody has yet come up with any positive reason for Scotland to remain in the Union....but then if UK politicians can't, why would I expect ordinary punters to manage?

----------


## Phill

I don't know, what do the splits mean?

More interesting developments on nuclear weapons: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-20075674

It appears to be thinned out even more, possibly.

----------


## squidge

I was thinking about the resignations and you know - both these MSPs are list seat MSPs which means they are only in parliament because they are SNP members. Surely if they resign from their party they have no right to be MSPs. They weren't elected personally and they are no longer members of the party who holds the seats.  How can they then keep their seats? 

That seems out of order to me.

----------


## Rheghead

> I was thinking about the resignations and you know - both these MSPs are list seat MSPs which means they are only in parliament because they are SNP members. Surely if they resign from their party they have no right to be MSPs. They weren't elected personally and they are no longer members of the party who holds the seats.  How can they then keep their seats? 
> 
> That seems out of order to me.


That is a very good point, well spotted.

----------


## golach

So now it is Andrew Neil's fault that Alex Salmond (and the YES Scotland campaign team and all the SNP activists who pedalled this assertion to the public) lied to the people of Scotland. What will they think of next to wriggle out this one?

Independent investigators will look into whether the first minister breached the ministerial code in relation to an ongoing legal row

How much is this going to cost us now?

----------


## Rheghead

> So now it is Andrew Neil's fault that Alex Salmond (and the YES Scotland campaign team and all the SNP activists who pedalled this assertion to the public) lied to the people of Scotland. What will they think of next to wriggle out this one?


We'd have more respect for him and the furore would be much less if he was honest and just admitted that he was gilding the lily to make the best case for independence.  Crikey, we all expect him to do that. He is just digging himself a bigger hole.

----------


## weezer 316

> What do "splits" within the SNP have to do with the pro-independence movement, out of interest. What does this split in the SNP really mean for the pro-independence movement bar that makes two other people who will vote for Independence come the day but not as SNP party members...so they will just add to the tens of thousand of us, won't they...and they will still support the SNP policies, which do not include anything to do with NATO, in Parliament?  The "Yes" campaign isn't going to die without the SNP. If it did, then it didn't ever really exist at all.....and believe me it does, because membership of the SNP isn't a prerequisite for wanting Scottish independence, but certainly the existence of the SNP over decades has given the movement a focus to latch onto and use to grow.  
> 
> What does possible NATO membership voted for by the SNP for *after* a "Yes " vote, if they become the Government have to do with anything at all, unless you personally intended to vote for the SNP after Independence, and the NATO issue has made that impossible for you?  What would definitely stop me voting SNP in an Independent Scotland..is windmill proliferation and a refusal of a referendum on EU and NATO membership....but sure as hell the possibility of being in the minority and ending up with a Government whose policies I didn't like won't stop me voting YES.....because even a Government I don't like will be a Scottish Government running the country for the benefit of the Scottish people 
> (and probably yes to maintain their jobs, as they are politicians....but if it works for us....why shouldn't they benefit as well provide they don't take the proverbial?) 
> 
> Get real all you people who keep on latching onto media reports written by Unionist sympathisers focusing on SNP policies without differentiating between future manifestos of single parties for an Independent Scotland, and the SNP which is currently the Scottish government and will be charged with negotiating with the rUK to leave the Union, if that is what we choose.  The Trident issue and the very few other defence establishments in Scotland is something subject to negotiations prior to Independence (and I do hope that those negotiations will have people representing all Independence minded supporters of all Scottish Parties, not just the SNP) ...which would be included among the the division of debts/assets on divorce. What Scotland will be like after Independence will depend on the manifestos of the party we actually elect as our Government. 
> 
> Trashing the SNP now is the reaction of a bear (and I'm not unaware of the connotation of bear in Scottish Idiotic Unionist sectarianim but was more thinking of Winnie the Pooh..the bear of very little brain) because _the SNP could not be doing what they are doing if the Scottish voter had not forced the issue_ _by voting in a majority SNP Government._  That is democracy..the SNP has been charged with delivering a referendum.....which they will do....and we, the Scottish voter base, is charged with voting according to our preferences. There is nothing in the 2011 SNP election manifesto, as far as I'm aware which states that on achieving Independence the SNP will become the de facto permanent government of Scotland..and all youse who appear/pretend to think that are lying through your teeth.
> 
> I await the usual ad hominem responses from the usual org suspects. Such a pity that nobody has yet come up with any positive reason for Scotland to remain in the Union....but then if UK politicians can't, why would I expect ordinary punters to manage?


Lol! Comedy gold! All your points have been answered, you just refuse to accept the answers. 

But keep it coming anyway

----------


## golach

YouGov interviewed over 1000 Scottish adults across Scotland after the SNP's annual conference in Perth, but before this week's controversy over whether an independent Scotland would be in the EU which led to First Minister Alex Salmond being accused of ''lying''.  

 Nationally, 55% said ''No'' to the question ''Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?'', with 29% saying ''Yes'' and 14% undecided.  The regional breakdown shows marginally greater support for independence in Tayside and Fife at 32% but still with a clear majority  55%  against.

----------


## ducati

> I don't know, what do the splits mean?
> 
> More interesting developments on nuclear weapons: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-20075674
> 
> It appears to be thinned out even more, possibly.


What they could do is sail away with the Subs and instead of spending all that time and money decomissioning the base, just leave a trident behind on a timer.

 Fred! FRED!

----------


## Oddquine

> YouGov interviewed over 1000 Scottish adults across Scotland after the SNP's annual conference in Perth, but before this week's controversy over whether an independent Scotland would be in the EU which led to First Minister Alex Salmond being accused of ''lying''.  
> 
>  Nationally, 55% said ''No'' to the question ''Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?'', with 29% saying ''Yes'' and 14% undecided.  The regional breakdown shows marginally greater support for independence in Tayside and Fife at 32% but still with a clear majority  55%  against.


I'm not going to go into the accuracy of Polls...but wasn't it YouGov who had Labour winning the 2011 election?   Their figures...Constituency: CON 15%, LAB 41%, LDEM 8%, SNP 32%    Regional: CON 15%, LAB 40%, LDEM 7%, SNP 26%, GRN 6%.  Actual results according to BBC results site, and assuming others to be mostly Greens (see...I can do assuming just as easily as polling "experts" do).......Constituency: CON 13.9%, LAB 31.7%, LDEM 7.9%, SNP 45.4%    Regional: CON 12.4%, LAB 26.3%, LDEM 5.2%, SNP 44%, GRN 12.1% 

I'm more interested in the fact, if the poll is correct, that _after_ *305 years* "_reaping the benefits of the Union_" only 55-57% of Scots actually *like* being involved in it, and want to continue that involvement, and another 14% or so would happily get out of it if they could be convinced we'd at least be no worse off than we are now, so that is 43-45% of Scots who don't like the way the Union is going, some definitely and some still fence sitting, but who are as yet too feart to let go of the UK security blanket...and that is two years _ahead_ of any vote with two years of UK "we are mostly all in it together, unless you are a pensioner, big business or rich, when you are protected because you provide votes..or money we can use for propaganda to convince the sheeple that we know best". Not what anyone would consider a ringing endorsement of Governance of Scotland by the UK is it? Really? Though, to be fair, it might be if democracy in the UK actually existed (FPTP isn't democracy...it is a tacit acknowledgment that a minority of voters will elect Governments.....which is only democracy in the minds of those who like the system (as in UK elected politicians.) 

Admittedly there is a lot of self interest in poll results, as you'd expect when polling individuals, they _will_ tend to go for the option which will hopefully improve their lives in the short term, or at least not worsen them....do you know turkeys who would vote for Christmas, because I don't, bar maybe me?  I'm inclined to think that the likes of people who worry about stuff like how they are going to get their pensions and perks in an Independent Scotland are only worrying about themselves, and intent on holding on to their current lifestyles right now, and not considering the future of their children/grandchildren/great grandchildren living their lives in a region of the UK North of Watford, which is not worth bothering  about in a London-centric Government mindset. 

Personally, as a pensioner...I'd be completely removing our vote in favour of the 16+ one.....because our lives, even if we actually still have a reasonably long term one, (unlikely given the UK Government's attack on the NHS and welfare benefits etc,) our lives are still drawing to an inevitable close _long_ before the end of the world as we know it, like it or lump it...and the lives of the 16+ year olds as adults are just starting and they have decades more than we have to live in Scotland...so why do we think we have the right to choose their lives for them? What right do we old folks, approaching the end of our lives, have to insist, because there is still a lot of us brought up in the "we worked, the Government wasn't arsed to put aside the NI we contributed to meet our pensions (because they were economically incompetent then and nothing has changed since), so now everybody else has to work to pay our pensions now..BECAUSE WE ARE FECKING ENTITLED!"...while those working now have to pay _not only for our pensions,_ they have to make provision for their own pensions in the future. 

Where is the fairness and equity in that in that?  Really?

----------


## golach

55% for the Union is a lot better than 29% against IMHO

----------


## golach

http://www.inverness-courier.co.uk/N...P-19102012.htm
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politi...-nato.19239714

Another two jump ship, Ochone ochone.

----------

