Scotland to get the vote in 2 years

[scotty]

Er...only 34% indicate they are pro it now... and thats because that **** Salmond has been pushing the emotional rhetoric. Couple of things before we get more jingoistic little Englander nonsense spouted on here. MOST people have an natural emotional desire for greater local autonomy - But what gave the SNP a minor foothold was not some anti -english nonsense, but a response to the way Thatcher and her cronies treated Scotland as the place to test her loony policies - remember the poll tax? I am sure it gave her some sort of warped pleasure knowing that it was dominated by Labour constituencies, but she allowed the SNP to grow beyond some fring minority spouting ****** about North Sea oil and 'braveheart' and gave them a platform... And whilst the SNP may have a small majority within the Scottish parliament, most folk still go back to a more rounded pparty when it comes to teh important things dealt with by Westminster.

 

What most Scots i speak to say is that they vote SNP in teh Scottish elections, because the SNP have been reasonably appealing in within the devolved environment - and free prescription and universtity places are affordable becuase of the smaller size... but many at least right now know Salmond has no real practical manifesto yet - its the simple things that could prove so costly, and impact on many... moving Tax offices, settingup the hideousness of civil service, defence, passports, etc... what about thos eliving in Sxcotland that work i England... where doews their tax go and do they get the same service? simple yet important issues that will prove vastly expensive to resolve - yet right now all he is trying to feed on is the whole 'braveheart' shiedt - with w&nkers like sean connery (who has not lived in Scotland for nigh on 30 years - ****) calling the emotive tune... sure there will be some youngsters who buy it, but most are more pragmatic and to paraphrase Sir Walter Scot said... the union is like a marriage and most know how painful and costly a divorce can be.

 

 

I agree, as it happens. When the vote comes, (which is what this threads about,) I cant see the scottish electorate going for independence. If they were to, then I dont have a problem with that.

 

Just got back from a couple of days at Loch Ness, btw.

[dune]

I think the tactic that Cameron should take (or one of the tactics) is to talk about our bonds in the millitary, particularly in the first and second world wars. Under Salmond all that would be consigned to history, and we would both be poorer and weaker for it. He needs to tug at family heart strings on this because a huge number of the great unwashed have this in their family history and they are very proud of it.

Edited 27 May, 2012 by dune

[dune]

R.e FC's post, most Scots (and I have some Jock blood) aren't stupid, and when it comes to money they are on the ball. They love Salmond (suffer the odious slug) because he bangs the separitist drum and the Westminster fools throw money at them in bribes to try to pacify them. The status quo is perfect for them and they know it. Independence would put all that on the line.

Edited 27 May, 2012 by dune

[Frank's cousin]

If they do get independence, does that mean we'll lose all those Labour MPs and never have a Labour government again?

 

Although tongue in cheek whitey, its a serious point in some respects. Older wiser Tory voters/Labour votes and those with a reasonable political awareness, know that no matter which party you support or which way your political leanings are, there is a need to have a credible and strong opposition you can respect, whoever is in power. Large scale majorities lead to complacency and pollitical stagnation... and whenever any party has 2-4 election wins on the trot, you end up dodgy goings on or policies enginered by the extreme wings of the party.

 

Labour traditionally wins in Scotland and without that, it would be a struggle for them to gain a Westminster majority. With the Lib Dems in such a mess/politica wilderness, would it really be healthy for England to be in effect a one party state?

 

One thing that I mind most puzzling about politics these days is why there is not more unity (for the good of the nation) on certain key elements. Surely Education, Health, Defence/transport etc need consistency both in funding and policy/strategy to thrive in an efficient manner. The reason why so many feel disenfanchised from politics is because those core services are constantly a battleground with the victors constantly shifting strategy that is just plain wasteful as it is pointless. I would like to see such services reviewed by a cross party group to determine the most effective way forward long term and gain all party agreement based on what is best for the people of Britain/future and not tied to old school rhetoric or a vote winning jingosim.

 

Sadly, there is too much immaturity and rhetoric in politics to make this a viable option.

[buctootim]

R.e FC's post, most Scots (and I have some Jock blood) aren't stupid, and when it comes to money they are on the ball. They love Salmond (suffer the odious slug) because he bangs the separitist drum and the Westminster fools throw money at them in bribes to try to pacify them. The status quo is perfect for them and they know it. Independence would put all that on the line.

 

 

Very true. You can understand a Labour Government falling for that, because they need the Scottish votes. The Tories motivation seems to be to keep the UK together and the Queen as their head of state - which seems no justification at all to me.

[Frank's cousin]

Very true. You can understand a Labour Government falling for that, because they need the Scottish votes. The Tories motivation seems to be to keep the UK together and the Queen as their head of state - which seems no justification at all to me.

 

It is one question that baffles me... why the Tories are so keen to keep the Union, given that Scotland is a political wilderness for them. Can only be as you say, some sort of historical context. For Labour its obvious given the happy hunting ground it is for them.

 

My biggest concern is that Salmond knows he will have a tough battle on his hands, which is why he is desperate to get 16 year olds included in the vote - he knows he can appeal to the immature voters with teh joingositic braveheart shiedt and many of them fail to comprehend that its not something they can simply 'try for a while' - its is amazing the number of numpties interviewed from teh pro camp who have absolutely no idea it would be permanent - but seem happy to 'give it a try and if it does not work...' Jeez

 

The no camp MUST make a strong and simple case for why its not an 'experiement' that can be changed later and communicate the logistical knightmare and costs effectively yet without sounding like the whingers at a party - they also need to appeal for common sense and the fact that devolution actually works - allowing Scots to decide on the very day things that impact lives, yet benefitting from a strong currancy, defence etc of the Union - in addition it should be important to highlight that the Union has never erooded any Scots cultural identity... indeed it could be argued that it has strengthened it.... sadly I see an almighty feck up by the no campaign, similiarly to how bad the yes campaign was for the voting system change... and that's the problem.

[buctootim]

The no camp MUST make a strong and simple case for why its not an 'experiement' that can be changed later and communicate the logistical knightmare and costs effectively yet without sounding like the whingers at a party - they also need to appeal for common sense and the fact that devolution actually works - allowing Scots to decide on the very day things that impact lives' date=' yet benefitting from a strong currancy, defence etc of the Union - in addition it should be important to highlight that the Union has never erooded any Scots cultural identity... indeed it could be argued that it has strengthened it.... sadly I see an almighty feck up by the no campaign, similiarly to how bad the yes campaign was for the voting system change... and that's the problem.[/quote']

 

Why? In reality independence will make next to bugger all difference to either the Scots or the English as long as both are in the EU. The economic differences will be marginal and the right to live and work in either country will not change. If Scotland wants to go, let them. If they want to stay let them. The only option that isnt acceptable is constantly using the threat of independence to get a better deal at the expense of the rest of the country.

[Viking Warrior]

some views from Shetland

 

The SNP haven’t thought this out and so have vague answers on important issues like the currency we would have; the position of our armed forces; what happens with embassies; and the share of oil revenues we would get. Braveheart nationalism is no alternative to the security we get by being in the UK.

 

An independent Scotland would spell economic disaster for Scotland and Shetland because our country lacks the economic means to survive on its own. The fact is that it was Westminster that bailed out our Scottish banks and saved us from the experience of Iceland and Ireland.

 

Shetland’s future is best served by the continuation of the Union and if Salmond ever did win I would worry about the centralising plans of the SNP, which would be against Shetland’s interests. On the other hand I would not like the SIC to have more powers as their track record proves they are incapable of handling more power.

 

An independent Orkney or Shetland is a fantasy and hardly worth taking seriously. Nobody believes it would work and why should Orkney and Shetland go it alone when other parts of Scotland cannot?

 

On Scottish independence I would say it is not a viable path for Scotland to take, and certainly not at this time of economic instability. It’s hard to see how the markets could favourably view an independent Scotland which has lost any say over sterling and is no longer part of a union that has been beneficial.

 

It is irresponsible of the SNP to try to introduce such a radical and far reaching change to the running of the country at a time when we should be focusing on recovery as part of the union.

 

 

 

While Scotland is capable of being independent, why risk an uncertain future as we can continue where we are with support from the rest of the United Kingdom?

 

It was shown in the banking crisis that Scotland does need help in some situations as Westminster had the resources to bail out Scottish and other banks, with the result that nobody lost their savings.

 

Going for independence is a risk which could fail, leading Scotland to being economically damaged in the future. If independence does fail we cannot go back and people should remember this when they cast their votes in 2014.

 

If Scotland does become independent there will be a government in Edinburgh with local councils all over the country. Shetland should not seek independence, nor gain any more financial power as we have spent a lot of money on various projects that have not come about – the Bressay bridge and the new AHS to name a few.

 

 

Some people seem to have forgotten that England helped us with the Treaty of Union as our economy wasn’t doing well with the failure of the Darien scheme.

 

It’s being suggested by the SNP that we turn our backs on 300 years of history and also our identity as Great Britain in the modern world. Losing this will take away much of our influence globally.

 

I think that Shetlanders should vote no to independence in the referendum. If Scotland was independent it would probably need to increase taxes to maintain this standard of living in a smaller country.

 

 

 

 

 

For Independence

[stev2001]

I can now see why Alex Salmond wants to wait till 2014. He knows he hasn't a hope in hell of winning this and this gives him 2 years of banging the drum looking important.

[The9]

Why do we not have an English parliament? Because if we got something the Scots didn't they would say they are being unfairly treated and a disproportionate amount of money was going to England and not the other countries etc. there would be loads of unrest. However it's OK for scotland to have free universities etc.

 

 

Because England decided not to bother with regional assemblies when Scotland got their Parliament and Wales their Assembly. The idiocy coming out of the Welsh Assembly was one of the reasons I actually left Wales to move to Southampton. I didn't have a problem with free parking at hospitals or free prescriptions, I'd just about had enough of my local train station broadcasting destinations in welsh first in an area with less than 5% welsh speakers - before they made it compulsory in schools to make the stats look better.

[stev2001]

Because England decided not to bother with regional assemblies when Scotland got their Parliament and Wales their Assembly. The idiocy coming out of the Welsh Assembly was one of the reasons I actually left Wales to move to Southampton. I didn't have a problem with free parking at hospitals or free prescriptions, I'd just about had enough of my local train station broadcasting destinations in welsh first in an area with less than 5% welsh speakers - before they made it compulsory in schools to make the stats look better.

 

I could very well be wrong on this but I can't remember voting not to have our own parliament or assembly.

[Frank's cousin]

Of course the logical and common sense approach (rather than the additional cost of new parliaments and assemblies + another load of sponging politicos to pay for would have been time set aside for regional matters in the house voted on and debated only by those from that country... but hey devolution meant MORE politicians with a chance of earning a wedge talking mostly ****** and spending 4 years in power unravelling and redoing the work of the previous 4 years with the associated wasteage of cash...

[trousers]

I could very well be wrong on this but I can't remember voting not to have our own parliament or assembly.

 

We didn't. In the same way we're not going to get a say on the potential breaking up of the United Kingdom (or ' 'Scottish Independence' as some like to call it.

[Lord Duckhunter]

I could very well be wrong on this but I can't remember voting not to have our own parliament or assembly.

 

The Labour Govt were going to allow a vote on 3 regional assemblies, in North East England, North West England and Yorkshire and the Humber. All Labour supporting areas, but I guess that was just a coincidence????

 

They suffered a humilating defeat in the 1st one (The North east voted 78% against) so quietly dropped the other proposed votes.It has however, allowed them to defend themselves agains various arguements. When asked about the West Lothian question you will hear Labour spokesmen saying that an attempt to answer that (English regional assemblies) was rejected by the voters. You even had an example of this on QT this week. John Prescott was asked why we cant have an in/out Euro vote, and replied that Labour were for referendum and to prove it quoted the one held in the North east.

 

I'm all for the break up of the UK and The Jocks going their own way, I'm even behind the Labour idea of regional assemblies in England. The Jocks can keep their oil, and us in the South can keep all our tax revenues.

Edited 28 May, 2012 by Lord Duckhunter

[trousers]

Don't the oil fields belong to the UK....or the Crown Estate to be more precise?

[Viking Warrior]

SNP have lost the plot with giving the ferry service to Serco.

The Natives up here are very angry especially with them cutting the mid day sailing from stromness to scrabster.

and changing fares un les you book well in advance

[Hamilton Saint]

Scotland doesn't have the vote? Well ... no wonder they want to separate!