Sign in to follow this  
rik2304

Yes Or Naw?

  

181 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

The article argues reverse history, i.e. An indy Scotland voting to join the union, and argues that an indy Scotland choosing to join would give up it's sovereignty to a foreign country. Whereas joining the Union would in reality mean sovereignty is shared with Scotland a constituent part of the union. Apologies if I was unclear.

Obviously some people are unhappy at sharing sovereignty, which is perfectly valid, and seems to be the central argument of a YES vote but to say we are a colony of the UK, or even more fatuously, a colony of England, is nonsense but that is effectively what the article is trying to argue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The article argues reverse history, i.e. An indy Scotland voting to join the union, and argues that an indy Scotland choosing to join would give up it's sovereignty to a foreign country. Whereas joining the Union would in reality mean sovereignty is shared with Scotland a constituent part of the union. Apologies if I was unclear.

Obviously some people are unhappy at sharing sovereignty, which is perfectly valid, and seems to be the central argument of a YES vote but to say we are a colony of the UK, or even more fatuously, a colony of England, is nonsense but that is effectively what the article is trying to argue.

 

Interesting to think of that question in the context of Wales and Northern Ireland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The article argues reverse history, i.e. An indy Scotland voting to join the union, and argues that an indy Scotland choosing to join would give up it's sovereignty to a foreign country. Whereas joining the Union would in reality mean sovereignty is shared with Scotland a constituent part of the union. Apologies if I was unclear.

Obviously some people are unhappy at sharing sovereignty, which is perfectly valid, and seems to be the central argument of a YES vote but to say we are a colony of the UK, or even more fatuously, a colony of England, is nonsense but that is effectively what the article is trying to argue.

 

For 100's of years we've been little more than a cash cow colony for England. How many other democratic countries accross the globe get lumbered with a government that they haven't voted for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many other democratic countries accross the globe get lumbered with a government that they haven't voted for?

It happens in every country, it's a central concept of democracy. I have never voted Labour but I had 13 years of them. I accept it as a part of democracy that you don't always get the govt you want. The current govt has a little over 35% of the Scottish electorate votes, which is comparable to the 2005 Labour govt who got 36% of the overall vote.

Edited by LondonSuperJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It happens in every country, it's a central concept of democracy. I have never voted Labour but I had 13 years of them. I accept it as a part of democracy that you don't always get the govt you want. The current govt has a little over 35% of the Scottish electorate votes, which is comparable to the 2005 Labour govt who got 36% of the overall vote.

 

And not even the Government we didn't vote for, we get governments that just make policies NOBODY voted for (unless someone can point me to a manifesto that promised to raise the state pension age to 68, invade Iraq or impose the Bedroom Tax)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have the coalition invaded Iraq again or are you trying to claim no one in Scotland voted for Labour in 2001 GE? Obviously, I'm being facetious and Iraq was a colossal mistake but the majority of Scottish MP's voted in favour of it at the time.

 

Incidentally, the Spare Room Subsidy removal isn't a tax, it's a cut. Not that I necessarily agree with it but let's at least be as accurate as possible on the things we do agree on so as not to drive false wedges in a debate.

Edited by LondonSuperJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It happens in every country, it's a central concept of democracy. I have never voted Labour but I had 13 years of them. I accept it as a part of democracy that you don't always get the govt you want. The current govt has a little over 35% of the Scottish electorate votes, which is comparable to the 2005 Labour govt who got 36% of the overall vote.

 

ConDem combined got roughly 36% of the vote, Labour 42%

We all know The Tories are running the show. If that wasn't the case, English students wouldn't be paying University fees. The Tories managed 16% of the Scottish vote. 16%!!!

 

I think that proves my point exactly. I'm sure you're aware that I wasn't discussing individual voters getting their own choice of government. The fact is, Scotland once again is being ruled by a government which we haven't voted for. This is the case more often than not and is as big an arguement for independence as any I can see.

 

Here is the breakdown of the last election - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/region/7.stm

Edited by Pat McGroin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, why aren't the Tories desperate for us to leave? There would never be another ruling party if Scotland left the UK.

 

297 of the 298 Tory seats were acheived outside of Scotland whereas we accounted for approx 25% of Lib Dem seats and over 20% of Labour's.

 

By all accounts, they should be delighted to see us leave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have the coalition invaded Iraq again or are you trying to claim no one in Scotland voted for Labour in 2001 GE? Obviously, I'm being facetious and Iraq was a colossal mistake but the majority of Scottish MP's voted in favour of it at the time.

 

While Scottish MPs may have towed the UK party line in London, do you think for one minute that an independent Scotland would have voted for unilateral invasion of Iraq?

The same goes for Bedroom Tax, but would Scotland have sanctioned the sort of military spending the UK is happy to pay? Another £3.5 billion for armoured vehicles today. Unbelievable.

Edited by Brogan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While Scottish MPs may have towed the UK party line in London, do you think for one minute that an independent Scotland would have voted for unilateral invasion of Iraq?

The same goes for Bedroom Tax, but would Scotland have sanctioned the sort of military spending the UK is happy to pay? Another £3.5 billion for armoured vehicles today. Unbelievable.

I don't think a reduced defence force is a positive argument for Indy, by any stretch, and obviously the UK is better able to shoulder such costs so I'm not likely to criticise the MoD for creating employment for 1300 people, as the article says.

As I said before, it's not a tax it's a cut, I don't need to agree with it to make that distinction and I think Scotland is likely to have to make cuts in the event of indy due to the £12bn deficit the country currently runs, so as unpopular as the removal of the Spare Room Subsidy has been, understandably, would iScotland make similar cuts or just raise taxes to cover the difference. Swinney today released £600m worth of savings in an iScotland, includinng Trident, which is a drop in the ocean compared to the expected deficit post YES vote. 

Interestingly, the Iraq invasion debate was extra-democratic, ie Blair didn't need to hold it to declare war, he could have done so without Parliamentary approval. I think I'm also right in saying it was a free vote, so "party lines" didn't come into it. However, it has set a precedence, which I deem a good thing, which Cameron has continued as seen with the Syria debate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think a reduced defence force is a positive argument for Indy, by any stretch, and obviously the UK is better able to shoulder such costs so I'm not likely to criticise the MoD for creating employment for 1300 people, as the article says.

 

 

You are aware that that's around £2.7 MILLION pounds PER JOB? And you won't criticise it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are obviously associated costs with the development of weaponry, etc so the costs aren't just per job, but in other areas too. I accept that there are costs to effective defence, which includes paying for weapons to be made, not just employing someone to make them. Maybe "no criticism" is a bit too generic from me but I'm far happier with a strong defence force of the UK and accept there are greater costs involved in that. 

I don't take a blind acceptance of anrything but I'm considerably more worried about the drastic reduction in defence forces proposed for iScotland where the associated costs would be borne by far fewer people not to mention other security issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WOW, have heard this before but it really sinks in when you hear it from someone who is so well thought of.

Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and George Bush should be getting their heads chopped off live on tv for doing this, not some innocent civilians.

 

Breaking away from westminster would make terrorism acts less of a worry in Scotland, if not completely wipe it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are obviously associated costs with the development of weaponry, etc so the costs aren't just per job, but in other areas too. I accept that there are costs to effective defence, which includes paying for weapons to be made, not just employing someone to make them. Maybe "no criticism" is a bit too generic from me but I'm far happier with a strong defence force of the UK and accept there are greater costs involved in that. 

I don't take a blind acceptance of anrything but I'm considerably more worried about the drastic reduction in defence forces proposed for iScotland where the associated costs would be borne by far fewer people not to mention other security issues.

 

I respect your views London, but really, £3.5billion on some armoured trucks? What exactly are they going to defend us against?

I despair sometimes.

 

Westminster spends millions on a truck, yet we have people queuing for food banks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely not. The Westminster Govt removed it as an option to make it a binary choice, thinking their's no way we'd vote for independence. There's no way they'd offer it as a consolation prize - would be hugely unpopular down south.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will either of the Big 2 unionist parties offer Devo max, if there is a narrow victory for No?

 

Good question.  I think Labour will certainly do so since they by now will be close to having a flukey over the closeness of the polls, they have most to lose from a Yes vote and ought to be well aware of the consequences of failing to honour their promises.  Lib Dems have next most to lose and if whats left of them form a coalition with Labour after the 2015 election they too will support Devo Max. The Tories are an unknown quantity but since UKIP are certain to take dozens of seats from them in 2015 I don't think we need worry about them being in Government for a while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good question.  I think Labour will certainly do so since they by now will be close to having a flukey over the closeness of the polls, they have most to lose from a Yes vote and ought to be well aware of the consequences of failing to honour their promises.  Lib Dems have next most to lose and if whats left of them form a coalition with Labour after the 2015 election they too will support Devo Max. The Tories are an unknown quantity but since UKIP are certain to take dozens of seats from them in 2015 I don't think we need worry about them being in Government for a while.

 

Devo Max under Labour is almost impossible given the control that London has over the party's policies. Scottish Labour's published proposals to extend more powers to the Scottish Parliament are almost comically limited - to the bizarre extent that they promise to allow Scotland to raise tax rates modestly, but there's no capacity to lower them back again. Even the Tories are offering more. Of course, things may change given what appears to be the sentiment of the Scottish people, but you'd think if they had it in mind they might think about mentioning it now to shore up their support. 

 

What I find a more interesting question is if - given the choice again - David Cameron would have allowed a Devo Max option in the ballot paper, rather than blocking it. He's now playing for higher stakes than he thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How would it? Does a terrorist say to himself "there's the Scottish border, no point on going in going any further"!

 

Countries that engage in illegal invasions of other countries tend to be unpopular with extremists.  So while there's no guarantee that a terrorist act couldn't happen in Scotland, the chances would certainly be smaller - unless you subscribe to the opinion that terrorist acts are entirely random.

Edited by Brogan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should also add South Inch that the other possibility is that as a result of this election - even if its a No vote - Scottish Labour may cut the apron strings with London. The link has done harm and Labour has come out really badly from this referendum, having to defend Tory cuts in Westminister. I think it could damage them as a party north of the border.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of threads in this conversation :)  I try to ignore the party politics parts as I don't think they're entirely relevant.

 

If I examine my motivations, at the root of everything, I am Scottish, not British.  Scotland is a country, and a country should govern itself.  Every argument I construct will stem from that so I guess I'm one of the people that would vote for independence at any cost.  Thankfully, Scotland doesn't need to become independent at any cost.  In broad terms, it's a stable country with a strong economy, and a well educated, skilled, population, without any obvious natural enemies.  Plenty of countries have become independent from far worse situations than Scotland is currently in, and thrived.  Arguments against independence are mainly technocratic, and dwell in the land of speculation about all the bad things that could happen, as far as I can see.

 

I don't see that the union serves Scotland, I don't see that Westminster serves all of the population of the UK.  Westminster is a centralising force, that is woefully corrupt, and governs as if we were in a different period of history.  It is not fit for purpose and doesn't have the will to reform.

 

London Super J touched on shared sovereignty, sovereignty isn't shared enough for my liking.  I would say for a union of unequal partners to work, there need to be mechanisms in government for the smaller partners voices to be made louder.  In point of fact, what we will see happening is Scotland's voice in Westminster to be reduced.  There's already talk about reducing the number of Scottish MPs to a per capita share, to prohibit Scots (and Welsh and Northern Irish) MPs from voting on so-called English-only issues.  One way I could see the union working going forward would be to abolish the Lords and replace it with a chamber with comparable powers, but with equal representation from the "home countries" to balance the weakness of voice in the Commons, anybody think there's a snowballs-chance-in-hell of constitutional reform on that scale happening in the UK?  Devo max won't happen, if there was any will for it, it would have been on the ballot.  Westminster won't give anything away without duress.

 

Will an independent Scotland be perfect?  Of course not, we'll all bitch and moan just as much we do today about politicians.  Will an independent Scotland be better than today?  We can only speculate on that.  In balance, I'd say there are more credible arguments made by pro-independence leaning people that an independent Scotland will do better than Scotland as part of the union.  I don't need to set them all out, you can find them yourselves.  But then I'm biased :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this