|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Vote on Scottish Independence
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Scotland runs its own NHS, but the money for that is still decided in Westminster, isn't it? Suppose that there are cuts to NHS income, made by a right-wing governemnt - why would Scotland be exempt from this?
It wouldn't. That's one of the issues.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Scotland runs its own NHS, but the money for that is still decided in Westminster, isn't it? Suppose that there are cuts to NHS income, made by a right-wing governemnt - why would Scotland be exempt from this?
The money comes from Westminster, of course raised from taxing the people of Scotland. At present the Scottish government decides (within some boundaries defined under devolution) how to spend that money. So, on the NHS we don't pay prescription charges, have free eye tests etc. Without independence the Westminster government could impose restrictions on how tax payers money is to spent - the "he who pays the piper" principal. Of course it would be a political stink of the highest order if Westminster made, say, introducing prescription charges a requirement on receiving money from the UK treasury. But, they hold the purse strings.
Independence, or at the very least full control over tax revenue, would enable Scotland to spend tax revenue as we see fit without standing at the beck and call of a distant government that happens to hold the purse strings.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Oh, and to everyone here who’s posted that Scotland has only been bailed out once, I give you … RBS, which had to be rescued by taxpayers at the cost of £45.2 billion. Located in Edinburgh.
There are a number of assumptions here. At the time of the bailout the vast majority of RBS's liabilities were south of the border. Which points to a second thing, that you are generally bailed out where the risk of contagion is high - hence why the Fed US bailed out Barclays (a nominally 'UK' bank).
In the case of total failure, the vast majority of the RBS retail customers were still south of the border, so bailing them out would have still been up to the British tax payer via deposit insurance (as it would be if say the British bit of Santander was in the same situation).
Finally, there is the assumption that RBS would stay nominally headquartered in Edinburgh - this is by no means certain, and in the case of a yes vote, they'd at the very least set up a separate rUK arm in the manner of most international banks operating in the UK (and quite unlike the Icelandic Banks - which were in most cases operating over here as branches of their home banks).
In all cases, if a future crisis meant that the risk of contagion was high in the rUK, we would still bail them out.
[ 10. September 2014, 12:19: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Alan Cresswell quote:
I'm attracted to a part of the political spectrum strongly represented in Scotland but woefully scarce in the SE of England and hence in the British government dominated by that small corner of the island.
You mean Labour Party politics singularised by corruption, bullying and nepotism?
You surely mean a situation where a small constituent part of the whole is able, through over-representation, to skew the results of elections.
You mean a view that 'spend now, pay whenever' is a responsible and legitimate way to run an economy?
For some reason my mind's eye is seeing those ridiculous road signs such as 'Brent - a nuclear free zone'... ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
I'm not quite sure where you get that picture from. Well, other than Brent that is ... which is not exactly a stunning reference to Scottish politics.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Well, I think there would probably be a messy transition period for any government in an independent Scotland. Thus, the transition in Ireland was very messy; for example, the Free State was not a republic, causing some Irish people to say it was a sell-out to England. There was in fact, an oath of allegiance to the Crown, which was hard to swallow for some.
Anyway, my point is that there are bound to be lots of problems, and incoherent policies, in such a separation. It is not an immaculate conception!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
The main issue for me is whether we in England will have to pay more or less in tax if Scotland votes Yes.
Hopefully it will be less, which is a win-win as far as I can see.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Scotland runs its own NHS, but the money for that is still decided in Westminster, isn't it? Suppose that there are cuts to NHS income, made by a right-wing governemnt - why would Scotland be exempt from this?
AIUI the overall level of government funding is linked to overall funding in England, but money is not hypothecated within the general settlement. So the Westminster government could- and I think has- cut the overall funding settlement but within that settlement the Scottish Government can allocate the money as it wishes. Of course, the Scots do have powers to vary income tax rates, but have not used them. The Conservatives are I think keen to get the devolved administrations to take taxation powers, because that then pushes responsibility for taxation and overall spending levels in Scotland and Wales onto their own governments, with the potential for unpopularity, and the removal of the 'blame Westminster' excuse, that that implies. For AFAICS precisely that reason, Carwyn Jones, out First Minister, has said that he doesn't want Wales to have taxation powers, which I think is rather a shameful cop-out.
Didn't the Scottish also turn down the NHS supplement that they were offered? (This could be a Metro lie though).
If the Yes vote does win the day, it will be interesting to see just how much of a pickle they get themselves in once they no longer have Westminster to blame for unpopular / stupid decisions. Although I imagine they've already got, "We wouldn't have to do this [terrible thing], if it wasn't for years of mis-management from Westminister" taped and on a loop.
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Wood: quote:
However in my experience, a lot of Scots people (and Welsh people) have expressed the idea to me that they feel like the English behave like Scotland is a vassal, to which the natural response from the English I know who engage on this is "no, we don't," which misses the point in a profound way.
Well, I understand your point - and also the more general one you made about English identity. But I come from a little village that you've probably never heard of that owed allegiance to the Scottish Crown back in the 11th century and is about 30 miles south of the current border (we have a local stone circle too - older than the Picts). I don't identify with the Home Counties is-there-honey-still-for-tea Englishness any more than you do.
Let's face it, to Londoners we are all vassals. With luck, if there is a Yes vote it will result in more power being devolved to Wales and the English regions and more investment outside the South-East.
NEQ, on Michael Gove: quote:
Seriously, you can keep him.
One of the advantages of a 'Yes' vote (from a rUK point of view) is that we could deport him...
The sight of Cameron et al. weeping crocodile tears over the Union would incline me to vote 'Yes' as well, if I had a say in the matter.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
The sight of Cameron et al. weeping crocodile tears over the Union would incline me to vote 'Yes' as well, if I had a say in the matter.
Agreed ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
posted by Alan Cresswell quote:
The money comes from Westminster, of course raised from taxing the people of Scotland.
And the people of Wales, Northern Ireland and England.
We've all been lectured by Mr Salmond about 'Scottish' money being used to underwrite the UK before and its simply not true.
But if Mr Salmond - and by extension anyone foolhardy enough to vote for this second-rate snake oil salesman - wishes to run an independent Scotland based on his view that 'Scottish' money should stay north of the border, then fine: and we'll take him at his word and insist that 'non-Scottish' money stays south.
So, Scotland will have to live within its means - from the word go, because no sensible investors will be prepared to sink funds into an untried government so credit will be virtually unobtainable.
And the first thing that will be to be budgeted for is the Scottish contribution to those functions it will still be relying on the rest of the UK for - cheap things like defence.
Of course, he could turn to the EU for help - oh no, wait, the position of the EU is that by opting out of being part of the UK it will also be opting out of the UK's EU membership: so no bailouts (sorry, loans) from the European Bank.
Never mind the people of South-East England, towards whom you seem to have a particular animus, I think you'll find the 'hard-working families' (to quote a Scottish politician) of Wales and Northern Ireland won't be at the front of the queue to cut Scotland any slack either - after all, they too have their own needs and wants which probably come a fair bit ahead of propping up a spendthrift experiment in Scotland.
Just for openers, do you think at that point Scots politicians might want to re-visit the idea of occupying their Parliament building - you know, looks fantastic, cost more than ten (10 !) times the forecast so-called budget cost, has running costs seven times higher than that same forecast?
A YES vote may make you feel all warm, cosy and sentimental - appealing to your inner Dave Spart, if you like - but its unlikely to lead to some tartan nirvana, far more likely to lead to Scotland being something like Detroit.
There's also an interesting point whether any majority for YES should be regarded as valid since Mr Salmond is only likely to achieve this with the votes of the 16 and 17 year olds he has enfranchised specially for the occasion: can the UK as a whole be bound by an election where the votes of people unable to vote in UK-wide elections were the deciding factor in the result?
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Let's face it, to Londoners we are all vassals.
Yes. So much yes.
quote:
With luck, if there is a Yes vote it will result in more power being devolved to Wales and the English regions and more investment outside the South-East.
Fingers crossed.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I think a lot of stuff done by the no campaign has been a recruiting sergeant for yes. I suppose it's difficult to campaign on no, but there seems to be a distinct lack of enthusiasm, whereas the yes campaign, understandably, seems full of youthful energy and idealism. Of course, that doesn't mean that they're right, but it's infectious.
Somehow the sight of Darling, Brown, Cameron and Miliband is a mournful one, and also a ridiculous one. Should that count in one's decision? I don't know, but it might.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
posted by Jane R quote:
The sight of Cameron et al. weeping crocodile tears over the Union would incline me to vote 'Yes' as well, if I had a say in the matter.
Childish.
Worrying that its that kind of knee-jerk reaction, particularly from 16 and 17 year olds, that will decide the vote.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
The main issue for me is whether we in England will have to pay more or less in tax if Scotland votes Yes.
Hopefully it will be less, which is a win-win as far as I can see.
Maybe not in the short term. Independence would most likely be the cause of a serious financial upheaval for both Scotland and the UK - look at what happened to the pound and the London stock market the other day, just on one queasy opinion poll result. Between "Yes" and independence you'd get companies undertaking all sorts of financial gymnastics, hedging their bets on which side of the border they'd rather be based on, come the Great Day.
(The likelihood is, most would want to be based in the UK for tax purposes. UK governments of all colours have at least a track record that companies to look at, whereas Salmond just seems to be wanting to go on a spending spree.)
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Jane R quote:
The sight of Cameron et al. weeping crocodile tears over the Union would incline me to vote 'Yes' as well, if I had a say in the matter.
Childish.
Worrying that its that kind of knee-jerk reaction, particularly from 16 and 17 year olds, that will decide the vote.
Whereas comments about Salmond being a snake-oil salesman, are oh, so mature.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Oh, and to everyone here who’s posted that Scotland has only been bailed out once, I give you … RBS, which had to be rescued by taxpayers at the cost of £45.2 billion. Located in Edinburgh.
There are a number of assumptions here. At the time of the bailout the vast majority of RBS's liabilities were south of the border. Which points to a second thing, that you are generally bailed out where the risk of contagion is high - hence why the Fed US bailed out Barclays (a nominally 'UK' bank).
In the case of total failure, the vast majority of the RBS retail customers were still south of the border, so bailing them out would have still been up to the British tax payer via deposit insurance (as it would be if say the British bit of Santander was in the same situation).
Finally, there is the assumption that RBS would stay nominally headquartered in Edinburgh - this is by no means certain, and in the case of a yes vote, they'd at the very least set up a separate rUK arm in the manner of most international banks operating in the UK (and quite unlike the Icelandic Banks - which were in most cases operating over here as branches of their home banks).
In all cases, if a future crisis meant that the risk of contagion was high in the rUK, we would still bail them out.
True that, but it's still likely that Scotland would have had to pay something towards the bailout of RBS as some of it was triggered by the activities of their commercial arm and the purchase of ABN AMRO. The UK government would have been liable for the retail deposits of people located here, but not necessarily all the other stuff. Then there's the HBOS ...
Scotland would have ended up bailing out their dysfunctional banks in the same way as everyone else. Might not have been as much, but if they're truely trying to pretend that 2008 wouldn't have impacted an independent Scotland in someway, then they are fibbing.
Tubbs
[ 10. September 2014, 13:12: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
L'organist: quote:
Childish.
Worrying that its that kind of knee-jerk reaction, particularly from 16 and 17 year olds, that will decide the vote.
You haven't been shy about commenting on your own emotional reaction to Alex Salmond. Emotions do play a part in politics; why do you think the Big Four traipsed all the way up to Edinburgh? Their mistake is in thinking that an emotional appeal along the lines of 'we'll be heartbroken if you leave' is likely to swing the election in their favour. Most people don't care about hurting politicians' feelings.
I think you are underestimating the intelligence of 16 and 17 year olds. Perhaps older people are more likely to vote for the status quo (as they may feel they have more to lose) but I doubt they are less likely to be taken in by snake oil salesmen - from either campaign.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
The sight of Cameron et al. weeping crocodile tears over the Union would incline me to vote 'Yes' as well, if I had a say in the matter.
Agreed
Why do you say 'crocodile tears'? You might not like the guy (or any of them) but can you not accept that they might genuinely not want their country torn apart?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Why do you say 'crocodile tears'? You might not like the guy (or any of them) but can you not accept that they might genuinely not want their country torn apart?
So why didn't they say all this years ago?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Why do you say 'crocodile tears'? You might not like the guy (or any of them) but can you not accept that they might genuinely not want their country torn apart?
So why didn't they say all this years ago?
Because there wasn't a referendum then.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Why do you say 'crocodile tears'? You might not like the guy (or any of them) but can you not accept that they might genuinely not want their country torn apart?
So why didn't they say all this years ago?
Or why didn't they agree to a three-question referendum, which would not have resulted in a vote for Independence?
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Why do you say 'crocodile tears'? You might not like the guy (or any of them) but can you not accept that they might genuinely not want their country torn apart?
So why didn't they say all this years ago?
Or why didn't they agree to a three-question referendum, which would not have resulted in a vote for Independence?
Are we sure a two-vote one will?
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Why do you say 'crocodile tears'? You might not like the guy (or any of them) but can you not accept that they might genuinely not want their country torn apart?
So why didn't they say all this years ago?
There's never been any doubt, surely, that David Cameron is an ardent Unionist? Or are we talking at cross-purposes?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Anglican't: quote:
Why do you say 'crocodile tears'? You might not like the guy (or any of them) but can you not accept that they might genuinely not want their country torn apart?
Crocodile tears are produced for effect. Can you not accept that politicians sometimes do and say things that are expedient and are not always acting from deep-held convictions?
As Boogie says, why didn't they say all this earlier in the campaign? A lot of people have already voted.
On the other hand, I am sure they are very sincere in their support for the 'No' campaign. If 'Yes' wins it will create a huge amount of extra work for all of them.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Originally posted by Wood:
quote:
Are we sure a two-vote one will?
No. But it's close enough to be scaring Cameron. He gambled on a No vote, and I'm guessing he's starting to regret that gamble.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Why do you say 'crocodile tears'? You might not like the guy (or any of them) but can you not accept that they might genuinely not want their country torn apart?
So why didn't they say all this years ago?
Because they are idiots and because they probably thought it was never going to be this close ... This is their own stupid fault. They underestimated the strength of feeling there is about this; insisted on a straight yes or no vote and mis-managed the whole campaign.
What happens next is going to be fascinating ...
The SNP probably never thought it would happen and now have lots to make good on. They've promised beer, skittles and endless sun-shine.
The Tories - some of whom probably want Scotland to leave as they hope it means they'll be in power for ever - may implode in a mass of recriminations. The 1922 Committee have already said that there will be a leadership re-do and some of the Tories will bugger off to UKIP. Labour will be able to blame them and the Lib-Dems for yet another thing.
Ho hum.
Tubbs
[ 10. September 2014, 13:23: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Anglican't: quote:
Why do you say 'crocodile tears'? You might not like the guy (or any of them) but can you not accept that they might genuinely not want their country torn apart?
Crocodile tears are produced for effect. Can you not accept that politicians sometimes do and say things that are expedient and are not always acting from deep-held convictions?
I do accept that. But you seemed to be saying (if I've understood you correctly) that David Cameron's impassioned support for the Union is somehow fake. The Prime Minister has long been an ardent Unionist and so I don't see how anyone could claim that his words in support of the Union could be anything but genuine.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Mark Carney has made it clear that use of the pound in a currency union is incompatible with independence so I'm not sure where that leaves Salmond and Co.
Of course they can use the pound. But then they are in a weird kind of independence, where monetary policy is decided in another state, and no doubt other financial decisions.
Maybe this is workable as an interim measure though, just as Ireland had many interim measures for a while, including the actual Free State.
It's messy of course, but then birth often is.
Yes, but as you've pointed out, the whole Irish Free State concept was an interim measure: between 1922 and 1949 there was this entity in the southern 26 counties of what had been 'Ireland' in 'the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland' called 'Eire'. That lasted a generation, with significant tweaking in 1937, which enabled matters such as monetary independence and other 'messy unresolved issues' being discussed here plus foreign policy to be adequately thrashed out (someone referenced Norman Davies' Vanished Kingdoms earlier, and there's a whole chapter of that book devoted to this transitional entity). Salmond seems to want to skip all that transitional phasing and go from 0-60 on about three seconds which, as any fule kno, usually results in slamming into something at high speed...
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Salmond seems to want to skip all that transitional phasing and go from 0-60 on about three seconds which, as any fule kno, usually results in slamming into something at high speed...
Whereas most Scots hoped for DevoMax, but once Cameron had taken that off the table, we were left with all-or-nothing, either stop or move at high speed.
Salmond did want a Yes/ No vote, but wouldn't have pushed for it, knowing that it wasn't what the electorate wanted.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Alan Cresswell quote:
The money comes from Westminster, of course raised from taxing the people of Scotland.
And the people of Wales, Northern Ireland and England.
Of course, at present. And, at present tax paid by people in Scotland pay for obscenities like Trident. It's swings and roundabouts.
quote:
So, Scotland will have to live within its means - from the word go, because no sensible investors will be prepared to sink funds into an untried government so credit will be virtually unobtainable.
Scotlans has had a government, albeit with some key powers held by another government, for 15 years. That's hardly "untried".
quote:
And the first thing that will be to be budgeted for is the Scottish contribution to those functions it will still be relying on the rest of the UK for - cheap things like defence.
Well, part of that's going to depend upon what part of the current defence budget Scotland would pick up. If we decide to not fund obscene white elephants like Trident or engage in wars over oil under sand in the Middle East that wouldn't be so expensive. To actually defend Scotland against potential aggressors would cost virtually nothing, it's hardly likely the Norwegians are going to return to their Viking roots any time soon.
quote:
There's also an interesting point whether any majority for YES should be regarded as valid since Mr Salmond is only likely to achieve this with the votes of the 16 and 17 year olds he has enfranchised specially for the occasion:
Which shows how little you know of Scottish politics. 16-17 year olds haven't been enfranchised specially for the occasion. If the Scottish Government had the power to do so they'd already be on the electoral role and voting in local and national elections. But, Westminster has prevented the Scottish government enacting a policy aim of lowering the voting age to 16 - even for the Scottish Parliamentary elections. It's just that because it's a Referendum, not an election, that policy can be enacted in this case. Following independence, of course, the Scottish Government can lower the voting age to 16, and will do so at the earliest opportunity. Though that will be after the next general election when the Westminster government will once again disenfranchise members of the Scottish people.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Let's face it, to Londoners we are all vassals.
Did someone just say that? I'm sure it was just a daft throwaway remark but remember Londoners are people from every part of the UK and indeed the world, as well as those born and brought up there. This whole debate smacks of tribalism and false victimhood.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Anglican't: quote:
But you seemed to be saying (if I've understood you correctly) that David Cameron's impassioned support for the Union is somehow fake. The Prime Minister has long been an ardent Unionist and so I don't see how anyone could claim that his words in support of the Union could be anything but genuine.
I am not sure I'd go so far as to say that his support for the Union is fake. How would I know? All I am saying is that this display of emotion sounds 'off' to me.
Wood's earlier comment may be relevant again here: quote:
...a lot of Scots people (and Welsh people) have expressed the idea to me that they feel like the English behave like Scotland is a vassal...
To me (from Northern England) Cameron's comments come across like that. Perhaps I am being unfair; I was unimpressed by his reminiscences about holidays on Jura. It's a nice place for a holiday (outside midge season) but we don't all have rich uncles with huge estates there and using that as evidence for an enduring love for Scotland is unlikely to endear him to the average voter. Even if it's true.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
It doesn't actually matter if Londoners don't really think that we're their vassals. What matters is that they are near-universally perceived to behave as if they think we are.
I think actually it's more that (and this is true in my experience at least, which I appreciate is a shaky ground on which to build a theory) Londoners, particularly those in positions of privilege, which immigrant Londoners rarely are, don't actually think about the rest of the country at all.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
16-17 year olds haven't been enfranchised specially for the occasion. If the Scottish Government had the power to do so they'd already be on the electoral role and voting in local and national elections. But, Westminster has prevented the Scottish government enacting a policy aim of lowering the voting age to 16 - even for the Scottish Parliamentary elections. It's just that because it's a Referendum, not an election, that policy can be enacted in this case. Following independence, of course, the Scottish Government can lower the voting age to 16, and will do so at the earliest opportunity. Though that will be after the next general election when the Westminster government will once again disenfranchise members of the Scottish people.
A long-winded way of saying that they've been enfranchised for the occasion.
[ 10. September 2014, 13:46: Message edited by: Spawn ]
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Anglican't: quote:
But you seemed to be saying (if I've understood you correctly) that David Cameron's impassioned support for the Union is somehow fake. The Prime Minister has long been an ardent Unionist and so I don't see how anyone could claim that his words in support of the Union could be anything but genuine.
I am not sure I'd go so far as to say that his support for the Union is fake. How would I know? All I am saying is that this display of emotion sounds 'off' to me.
Wood's earlier comment may be relevant again here: quote:
...a lot of Scots people (and Welsh people) have expressed the idea to me that they feel like the English behave like Scotland is a vassal...
To me (from Northern England) Cameron's comments come across like that. Perhaps I am being unfair; I was unimpressed by his reminiscences about holidays on Jura. It's a nice place for a holiday (outside midge season) but we don't all have rich uncles with huge estates there and using that as evidence for an enduring love for Scotland is unlikely to endear him to the average voter. Even if it's true.
Frankly, is there anything that any English Conservative MP could say that wouldn't be dismissed by the Scottish people?
I suspect that if an English Conservative MP said "It's nice weather for the time of year isn't it?", the Scottish would argue that the MP was out of touch and harking back to a feudal aristocracy that wanted to bleed Scotland dry.
Anyway, you haven't got devolution, you have independence, yes or no. If that wasn't the choice you wanted then you shouldn't have voted for the SNP. Westminster gave them the referendum they demanded.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
It doesn't actually matter if Londoners don't really think that we're their vassals. What matters is that they are near-universally perceived to behave as if they think we are.
I think that's my point about false victimhood. I think people have always had a problem with elites and 'establishments' often for very good and sometimes bad reasons. It's simply daft to blame 'Londoners' or the 'English'.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
quote:
Westminster gave them the referendum they demanded.
Westminster gave a Yes/No referendum. Popular support was for a Yes / DevoMax / No referendum.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lucia
Looking for light
# 15201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Let's face it, to Londoners we are all vassals.
Did someone just say that? I'm sure it was just a daft throwaway remark but remember Londoners are people from every part of the UK and indeed the world, as well as those born and brought up there. This whole debate smacks of tribalism and false victimhood.
Isn't this just a shorthand way of saying the financial industries, big businesses and political elite who are based in London? I suspect it isn't referring to ordinary Londoners.
Posts: 1075 | From: Nigh golden stone and spires | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
...and, Mr Cresswell, you don't seem to have an opinion, never mind answer, to the rest of my paragraph which was quote:
... can the UK as a whole be bound by an election where the votes of people unable to vote in UK-wide elections were the deciding factor in the result?
A reasonable concern, I think.
(BTW my 20 year olds are horrified that 16 and 17 year olds are able to vote because they say people of that age are too immature and easily led...)
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lucia:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Let's face it, to Londoners we are all vassals.
Did someone just say that? I'm sure it was just a daft throwaway remark but remember Londoners are people from every part of the UK and indeed the world, as well as those born and brought up there. This whole debate smacks of tribalism and false victimhood.
Isn't this just a shorthand way of saying the financial industries, big businesses and political elite who are based in London? I suspect it isn't referring to ordinary Londoners.
This precisely. It's that feeling that there are influential people, politicians et al. who forget that the country doesn't stop at the M25. This sort of thing: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/aug/07/london-gets-24-times-as-much-infrastructure-north-east-england - which explains why it'd take me two hours to get 12 miles by public transport from here.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
[Edit] What Karl said.
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
It doesn't actually matter if Londoners don't really think that we're their vassals. What matters is that they are near-universally perceived to behave as if they think we are.
I think that's my point about false victimhood. I think people have always had a problem with elites and 'establishments' often for very good and sometimes bad reasons. It's simply daft to blame 'Londoners' or the 'English'.
No, you're missing the point.
Even if Londoners don't think we are their vassals, they tend to be so blind to their privilege - yes, I said it, privilege - that they behave, not even consciously, as if they are lording it over us.
Of the ten poorest regions in Northern Europe, the UK has nine; whereas the richest community in Europe is... London. We are an unequal nation. This is not about "victimhood" (which term is usually used by people to deny that actual victims of injustice and inequality are actually, y'know, victims). This is about a not wholly inaccurate perception of an inequity that is daily perpetrated across the United Kingdom.
People in a position of privilege don't ask to be in that position of privilege; they shouldn't feel bad about their privilege either. But to deny its existence and to do nothing about it is to perpetuate the kyriarchy.
[ 10. September 2014, 13:59: Message edited by: Wood ]
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
quote:
Westminster gave them the referendum they demanded.
Westminster gave a Yes/No referendum. Popular support was for a Yes / DevoMax / No referendum.
What has popular support got to do with anything? The SNP was voted in with popular support and they wanted the straight yes or no independence question. That was their manifesto pledge, which the people of Scotland gave them a mandate to pursue.
If this abdication of responsibility is how you will work in the event of independence then I suggest you all start banging the drum for a no vote! This is grown up politics but it feels like the 16 and 17 year olds are all bleating "it's soooo unfair!"
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
The 16 and 17 year olds I know are bright, articulate and generally well-informed. My two are 20 and 18, and they don't think their younger peers are incompetent.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
...and, Mr Cresswell, you don't seem to have an opinion, never mind answer, to the rest of my paragraph which was quote:
... can the UK as a whole be bound by an election where the votes of people unable to vote in UK-wide elections were the deciding factor in the result?
A reasonable concern, I think.
(BTW my 20 year olds are horrified that 16 and 17 year olds are able to vote because they say people of that age are too immature and easily led...)
And the answer is of course it bloody well can be because the minimum voting age for the referendum was a part of the legislation that was passed to enable it. What are you going to do anyway? Storm Holyrood with troops and impose direct rule from Westminster?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
16-17 year olds haven't been enfranchised specially for the occasion. If the Scottish Government had the power to do so they'd already be on the electoral role and voting in local and national elections. But, Westminster has prevented the Scottish government enacting a policy aim of lowering the voting age to 16 - even for the Scottish Parliamentary elections. It's just that because it's a Referendum, not an election, that policy can be enacted in this case. Following independence, of course, the Scottish Government can lower the voting age to 16, and will do so at the earliest opportunity. Though that will be after the next general election when the Westminster government will once again disenfranchise members of the Scottish people.
A long-winded way of saying that they've been enfranchised for the occasion.
Or, a long winded way of saying that occasion has provided an opportunity to (perhaps temporarily) enfranchise those disenfranchised by the Westminster government. A "Yes" vote will mean that 16-17 year olds will be able to vote, a "no" that they'll continue to be denied a chance to have say in the election of the government that will be deciding policy as they enter university, start their first job etc.
As for the "they're too immature". Well, a load of tosh that is. They're old enough to join the army, start a university course, under some circumstances get married. Why not vote? Besides, some of the antics of people older than 18 can hardly be called mature ...
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It's that feeling that there are influential people, politicians et al. who forget that the country doesn't stop at the M25. This sort of thing: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/aug/07/london-gets-24-times-as-much-infrastructure-north-east-england - which explains why it'd take me two hours to get 12 miles by public transport from here.
Anyone who has ever lived in London will identify with your experience of taking two hours or even more to get 12 miles.
London and the southeast are spectacularly successful and that success has its own costs for those who live there. We all share the wealth generated by London. But you don't make other parts of the UK successful by impoverishing or punishing London.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
...and, Mr Cresswell, you don't seem to have an opinion, never mind answer, to the rest of my paragraph which was quote:
... can the UK as a whole be bound by an election where the votes of people unable to vote in UK-wide elections were the deciding factor in the result?
A reasonable concern, I think.
And, as I've said several times before I think it's an injustice that there is no UK-wide second referendum by which the people of the entire UK can have their say on a major constitutional change. But, that decision was made by the government of representatives elected by the people of the UK.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It's that feeling that there are influential people, politicians et al. who forget that the country doesn't stop at the M25. This sort of thing: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/aug/07/london-gets-24-times-as-much-infrastructure-north-east-england - which explains why it'd take me two hours to get 12 miles by public transport from here.
Anyone who has ever lived in London will identify with your experience of taking two hours or even more to get 12 miles.
London and the southeast are spectacularly successful and that success has its own costs for those who live there. We all share the wealth generated by London. But you don't make other parts of the UK successful by impoverishing or punishing London.
Nor do you do it by failing to invest in them, which is rather the point. It's not "stop eating the pie" so much as "stop eating all the pie and let us have some you greedy bastards". If "we all share in the wealth generated by London" why, as Wood points out, is London the richest region of Northern Europe whilst nine of the poorest are in the rest of the UK? That's "sharing"?
[ 10. September 2014, 14:12: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
