The end of the UK?
We'll take a cup o' kindness
Reply
CraigGrannell wrote:
Captain Caveman wrote:
plus the fact that only c.28% of *real, normal* Scots, those actually living and working in Scotland and not plugged into Twitter 24/7 raging at the Moon, even want independence anyway

That said, I'm guessing by 2014, this will be a much closer contest, in part driven by people voting against the government rather than for independence. But, yeah, Salmond keeps twisting and squirming regarding many issues presented to him, and too often says something akin to "well, we can sort that out after the referendum". People want and need to know about every aspect of what will happen to Scotland 'free' of the UK, from the EU, currency and taxation through even to things like the BBC. (And on the EU, many Scots I know seem pretty angry that although the SNP wants to provide the choice of breaking free from the UK, EU membership is a cert and not being offered for a vote.)

Pundits seem to suggest what Salmond really wanted was 'devo max' and the government has outmanoeuvred him into a high-risk 'all or nothing' game. That said, commentary arguing the SNP will be doomed after a no vote is curious. I can't imagine the SNP vote would collapse—indeed, wouldn't the SNP's reason for existence be from 2014 to secure a better deal for Scotland, rather than outright independence (i.e. what many wanted all along)?


Basically I agree with you entirely Craig, on all counts. Salmond's bluff has been well and truly called on this.

I don't think a 'No' vote would mean the end of the SNP either - albeit they would certainly be severely weakened IMO - but it would mean the whole independence question being laid to rest for at least a generation. (I do suspect, however, that Salmond's position would become untenable, though).
Curiosity wrote:
Question:

Would devolution not just make future (GB - Scotland) General Elections basically a fait accompli for the Tories?

For instance, discounting all current Scottish MPs, they would have a clear majority right now.


No - Labour would have still have had working majorities without the Scottish MPs in 97, 2001, and 05.
Curiosity wrote:
Question:

Would devolution not just make future (GB - Scotland) General Elections basically a fait accompli for the Tories?

For instance, discounting all current Scottish MPs, they would have a clear majority right now.


Not quite a fait accompli - Bliar could've got a clear parliamentary majority even discounting the Scots' vote - but it *is* fair to say that, under most normal circumstances, the Scottish MPs are vital for any realistic chance of a Labour government, even under Labour's existing rigged electoral boundary system. (If the Tories get their way on overhauling this, which they may well do, ironically with the help of SNP Westminster votes, then the situation becomes even more parlous for Labour).

I think it's fair to say that the English are, very broadly, little-c Conservatives, at least in the South and Shire counties. For me though, as a Conservative, I'd still much rather have the Scots standing alongside us than not, even with their (to my mind) utterly outmoded, discredited and moribund politics.

EDIT - sorry Peter, you beat me to it. :)
I'm bored of all the independence/better together pish. Put on any of the BBC's radio stations & it's all you hear. It's like the fucking Olympics part 2.

... & I've yet to hear a convincing argument from either side, mostly because neither of them are actually saying anything other than "FREEDOM! will be better/We're better together." Just because you say it over & over again doesn't make it true you shower of self-serving rubber-faced overpaid arseholes.
Anyone see Question Time last night? It was Glasgow's turn, so the various Great and Good of Scottish Politics were on hand, and of course, the Independence Referendum was high up on the audience agenda.

Nicola Sturgeon was representing the SNP - my word, I was embarrassed for her at times. The whole disingenuous issue of so-called "Independence" was laid bare, namely Scotland being tied to the Pound and thus BoE interest rates (and QE), done entirely for the sole benefit of rUK and not Scotland, not to mention an explosion of the "Scottish Surplus" myth, the SNP's totally dishonest and disingenuous refusal to publish legal advice it has received (at taxpayers' cost) re. an independent Scotland's status within the EU, and the lack of any sort of detail from SNP in general, as regards how an independent Scotland would be configured/governed, on even the most basic scale. I mean, they've had 70 years to think about that one.

The best moment for me, though, was when Ms Sturgeon spoke against "sowing the seeds of division", which was met with universal hilarity, incredulity and contempt from pretty much everyone else in that room - quite staggering hypocrisy. If there's one thing that the SNP stand for, it's surely "sowing the seeds of division", by very definition.

The audience were incredibly hostile towards independence, by and large, which did rather surprise me. But then, I guess the canny Scots can spot a Pig in a Poke from a mile off.
Captain Caveman wrote:
The audience were incredibly hostile towards independence, by and large, which did rather surprise me.

From what I've seen, the impression I get is the big cities are more anti and the rest of Scotland is more pro. The main issue appears to be the SNP not offering a particularly coherent vision of the future of Scotland nor an alternative to Tory/Labour idiocy. That independence is still polling well under 50% despite the Tories being Tories (given the lack of love for that party in Scotland) is telling.

The currency issue is my personal BWUH? at the moment. The SNP wavering on things, saying it'd probably keep Sterling and that, for some reason, the EU wouldn't 'force' it to take the Euro, and that whatever England/Wales/NI became would obviously be the lender of last resort and prop up Scotland if it needed to. Right.

I still think this is going to be close in 2014, in part due to votes against the coalition government rather than pro-independence. But the SNP's not framing this debate in a sensible manner nor giving people the information they need. Becoming an independent country needs more than vague promises about how great it'll be to get away from the evil English—it needs concrete proposals and rock-solid plans about every aspect of society. Really, the SNP running with "well, we've had legal advice on x, y and z, and everything's peachy, but, no, we're not going to show you" is despicable.
Hang on, it couldn't be in the EU, could it? not right from the off.
MaliA wrote:
Hang on, it couldn't be in the EU, could it? not right from the off.


Most likely it would have to apply on its own terms. And every new member has to adopt the Euro 'at some point' (see how Hungary's dragging its feet).

Of course, then the level of votes in the European Council and the European Parliament will have to be renegotiated, and no doubt whatever settlement is reached will not be to the benefit of either Scotland or the rest of us.
SNP say yes, Barrosso said no, then Barrosso said maybe, probably yes.
Hmm, currently countries that are of a similar population to Scotland have 7 votes.

So, vote 'yes' and make Scotland as important as Finland!
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
SNP say yes, Barrosso said no, then Barrosso said maybe, probably yes.


I suppose it would be up to the existing member countries to vote on whether it should join automatically or not, but even then treaty change would mostly likely be necessary. But I can't see the Spanish endorsing an easy way in for secessionist regions.

I'd look up if there was anything about fast-track membership in the treaties but as usual they're more or less incomprehensible. Hey, Eurofans! Why not make your founding documents readable, so normal people can actually understand them?
Iceland's on fast-track. It's still taking years. Unless the EU will make a specific exception for Scotland (which, as noted here, Spain probably wouldn't welcome), it could be a while before it's back in the EU. Also, it's a strange assumption the SNP's making that Scots want rid of the 'English' (because they happily ignore the Welsh and Northern Irish) and yet want to be welded to the EU.
Kern wrote:
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
SNP say yes, Barrosso said no, then Barrosso said maybe, probably yes.


I suppose it would be up to the existing member countries to vote on whether it should join automatically or not, but even then treaty change would mostly likely be necessary. But I can't see the Spanish endorsing an easy way in for secessionist regions.

I'd look up if there was anything about fast-track membership in the treaties but as usual they're more or less incomprehensible. Hey, Eurofans! Why not make your founding documents readable, so normal people can actually understand them?

I can barely understand most of them, and I'm a lawyer. Perhaps it's the translators.
When do the English get the referendum on whether we want independence from Scotland?
Trooper wrote:
When do the English get the referendum on whether we want independence from Scotland?


That's a pretty serious point. Any change in the constitution will affect England, Wales, and Northern Ireland as much as Scotland.

I actually think that were Scotland to vote for independence, the final settlement between the two countries requires a separate referendum (probably a Scotland vote and a rest-of-UK vote) to ensure that nobody can complain about the terms after the divorce.
The English won't get a vote, largely because the main parties all want the UK to remain the UK, yet polling south of the border consistently points heavily towards a 'fuck off, then' result.
Kern wrote:
Trooper wrote:
When do the English get the referendum on whether we want independence from Scotland?


That's a pretty serious point. Any change in the constitution will affect England, Wales, and Northern Ireland as much as Scotland.

What's the legal precedence on political entities seceding from larger entities? Is it normal for the rest of the entity to get a vote or not? I'm not sure how I feel about it.
It's generally a painful experience for all concerned. I think the only time separation has been achieved peacefully, and without outside influence or the impact of war, etc, was the 'Velvet Divorce' between the Czechs and the Slovaks.

Of course, as we make up our constitution as we go along, we should muddle through.
Only those in Quebec voted in the two referendums on independence, according to Wikipedia.
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Kern wrote:
Trooper wrote:
When do the English get the referendum on whether we want independence from Scotland?


That's a pretty serious point. Any change in the constitution will affect England, Wales, and Northern Ireland as much as Scotland.

What's the legal precedence on political entities seceding from larger entities? Is it normal for the rest of the entity to get a vote or not? I'm not sure how I feel about it.



I was under the impression that rather than a secession, it would instead be a dissolution of the Treaty of Union.
Potato, potahto.
Craster wrote:
I was under the impression that rather than a secession, it would instead be a dissolution of the Treaty of Union.


As neither body that signed the treaty or passed the Acts of Union exists - they were dissolved upon their passing - it would have to take the form of a 'Government of Scotland Act' or 'Scottish Free State Act' passed by the UK Parliament at Westminster.

Holyrood, after all, is a subordinate body , and could have its powers removed by Act of Parliament at any point.

[Nerd Fact: it was only in the 1980s that Westminster passed Acts handing over any remaining powers to the Canadians, Kiwis, and Ozzies, so we've plenty of precedents to draw on.]
CraigGrannell wrote:
Captain Caveman wrote:
The audience were incredibly hostile towards independence, by and large, which did rather surprise me.
The main issue appears to be the SNP not offering a particularly coherent vision of the future of Scotland .... That independence is still polling well under 50% despite the Tories being Tories (given the lack of love for that party in Scotland) is telling.

The currency issue is my personal BWUH? at the moment. The SNP wavering on things, saying it'd probably keep Sterling and that, for some reason, the EU wouldn't 'force' it to take the Euro, and that whatever England/Wales/NI became would obviously be the lender of last resort and prop up Scotland if it needed to. Right.

... But the SNP's not framing this debate in a sensible manner nor giving people the information they need. Becoming an independent country needs more than vague promises about how great it'll be to get away from the evil English—it needs concrete proposals and rock-solid plans about every aspect of society. Really, the SNP running with "well, we've had legal advice on x, y and z, and everything's peachy, but, no, we're not going to show you" is despicable.


:this:

Quote:
I still think this is going to be close in 2014, in part due to votes against the coalition government rather than pro-independence.


You may be right, though I suspect that since the SNP are being, and will likely remain so half-arsed, disingenuous and generally useless (see above and my original post) that these factors - combined with the likelihood that surely no sane person would want any association whatsoever with the hard core "Cybernats" and their (IMO) vile, hate-filled agenda/xenophobia(?) - that these factors will hopefully serve to sink this issue? I mean, we're already seeing even the core vote - nowhere near enough of itself - collapse are we not, despite everything, as you've already quite rightly noted.

It seems to me that the bottom line here is that, according to any remotely diligent analysis, the true scale and nature of the "independence" that's actually apparently on offer here would be a joke. You'd really have to hate the English an awful lot to be in favour of it; real cut your nose to spite your face type stuff? No wonder the SNP are being so bloody coy about it all, but in the end, it just won't wash. (I actually think that even they themselves are only now realising, probably for for the first time I daresay, just precisely what it is that they'd be able to actually deliver independence-wise, in real politik terms).
Quote:
And every new member has to adopt the Euro 'at some point'


Wow, how could anyone resist that delightful prospect, eh?

Kern wrote:
Hmm, currently countries that are of a similar population to Scotland have 7 votes.

So, vote 'yes' and make Scotland as important as Finland!


Well, yeah, that as well...

Quote:
Iceland's on fast-track. It's still taking years. Unless the EU will make a specific exception for Scotland (which, as noted here, Spain probably wouldn't welcome), it could be a while before it's back in the EU.


Yeah, I'd be fairly sure that's pretty much what those lawyers told the SNP as well - among other things, no doubt? No wonder they're refusing to tell their own people about this pesky stuff.
Captain Caveman wrote:
though I suspect that since the SNP are being, and will likely remain so half-arsed, disingenuous and generally useless (see above and my original post) that these factors - combined with the likelihood that surely no sane person would want any association whatsoever with the hard core "Cybernats" and their (IMO) vile, hate-filled agenda/xenophobia(?) - that these factors will hopefully serve to sink this issue? I mean, we're already seeing even the core vote - nowhere near enough of itself - collapse are we not, despite everything, as you've already quite rightly noted.


Have you seen their opposition? Scottish Labour hate the SNP so much they are siding with the Tories on the issue. Their leader recently announced that they would be implementing welfare cuts (or tuition fee increases, ending free prescriptions or something like that) which might has well have giftwrapped a few thousand more votes to Alex Salmond. If their finances are anything like their compatriots down South, Scottish Labour are stony broke, too. The idea of Labour and the Conservatives teaming up and using their mighty media savvy to campaign for the Union? Might as well give him the keys right now.

I have no horse in the race, but I am interested in seeing an independent Scotland from the intellectual exercise point of view. Plus it might finally slay the myth that the UK is one nation, which if anyone has spent time travelling around the British Isles knows that not to be the case. And I quite like Alex Salmond - not because he is clearly hiding quite a bit on the rare occasions he gets to be on national TV - but because he has a fantastic habit of coming down to London and laying waste to Miliband, Cameron, Marr, Paxman et al. In terms of coming across on TV, he has a gravitas and an approach that leaves his opponents floundering like the vacuums they are.

I quite like the guy. Not sure I could vote for him, though.
Plissken wrote:
Scottish Labour hate the SNP so much they are siding with the Tories on the issue.


I can't see anything wrong with members of different parties teaming up to fight for matters of common interest. Heck, it's something I'd encourage.

Quote:
Their leader recently announced that they would be implementing welfare cuts (or tuition fee increases, ending free prescriptions or something like that) which might has well have giftwrapped a few thousand more votes to Alex Salmond. If their finances are anything like their compatriots down South, Scottish Labour are stony broke, too.


This is going to be the big issue a few years down the line, regardless of the result. The costs of care are continually rising as the population ages, and it's probably better that people start discussing the options now, rather than suggesting that things can carry on as before. If the referendum is defeated, the financial provisions of the Scotland Act 2012 will come into force in April 2016. This change will force Holyrood to raise a lot more of its budget itself, and bring these questions to the forefront of the debate, regardless of the party in power.
Kern wrote:
I can't see anything wrong with members of different parties teaming up to fight for matters of common interest. Heck, it's something I'd encourage.


True, but consider the SNP standby that Scotland has never voted by a Tory Government and is ruled by one every other election cycle, their main opposition reminding the electorate of it really seems quite dumb.

Quote:
This is going to be the big issue a few years down the line, regardless of the result. The costs of care are continually rising as the population ages, and it's probably better that people start discussing the options now, rather than suggesting that things can carry on as before. If the referendum is defeated, the financial provisions of the Scotland Act 2012 will come into force in April 2016. This change will force Holyrood to raise a lot more of its budget itself, and bring these questions to the forefront of the debate, regardless of the party in power.


To an extent, I agree. But again, Scotland has no tuition fees and no prescription charges even during these financial times. Committing to the Westminster line on a Scottish issue again hands the initiative to the SNP.
Kern wrote:
This is going to be the big issue a few years down the line, regardless of the result. The costs of care are continually rising as the population ages, and it's probably better that people start discussing the options now, rather than suggesting that things can carry on as before .

Indeed. Any party with a policy of "increase taxes on those who can afford it to continue to maintain the welfare state" would get my vote. Sadly, no such party exists.
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Any party with a policy of "increase taxes on those who can afford it to continue to maintain the welfare state" would get my vote. Sadly, no such party exists.

Hear hear!
CraigGrannell wrote:
Really, the SNP running with "well, we've had legal advice on x, y and z, and everything's peachy, but, no, we're not going to show you" is despicable.


... Except that now, apparently, they never did get legal advice at all - despite telling everyone they did and going to great legal lengths (at great public expense) to prevent the publication of this non-existent advice, resisting the Scottish Information Commission, not to mention his own Deputy's repeated refusal to publish this advice during BBC Question Time only last week....? :impales face into palm:

I mean seriously, you just couldn't make this shit up, right? I always thought that Salmond was a slippery customer, but, even to be "slippery" demands skill. Unfortunately for him, though, it looks as though that's something he manifestly does not possess? What an utter belmtard.

For me though, if he's seriously claiming not to have bothered to seek legal advice even now - that is actually much worse than "merely" telling embarrassing, pants-on-fire porkie pies, in many ways? Just how half-arsed can you get? Just when was he proposing to actually find out about an independent Scotland's status within the EU and all that this entails, including the mandatory adoption of the Euro? A day before the Referendum itself? Or perhaps not at all!

Has it not occurred to him that the debate - and the Scottish people in particular - could well do with knowing these most basic, fundamental and important details such as this and it is his job to tell them, as the chief proponent of Independence, not to mention FM of Scotland? Such contempt for his own electorate!

No, if the wavering Scots Voter was in any doubt before, I should think this unbelievable situation should well have made up his/her mind quite nicely.

Frankly, I haven't laughed so hard over a mere political matter for many years - so thanks Alex. So much egg, so little face. You've veritably made my afternoon. :belm:

It's not over yet either, not by a long chalk. No, this is going to be the gaffe that just keeps on giving. QT should hopefully be good tonight, for starters. /settles into armchair, popcorn-in-hand
Captain Caveman wrote:
Frankly, I haven't laughed so hard over a mere political matter for many years - so thanks Alex. So much egg, so little face. You've veritably made my afternoon. :belm:


Oh god, yes. It was so satisfying to see them caught out.

It's a tricky dilemma for those in favour of independence. Ideally, they could just say that they'd get independence, then hold a constitutional convention to sort out the major issues, then let the first government make the early choices. But that would make them sound like they didn't have an idea about why they want independence and what it could do for the Scots that can't be done at the moment (or with more devolution).

Yet the more people push them to set out their answers to the big questions - and regardless of one's views on the EU, the euro, or Schengen, it's a big 'un - the more empty the rationale becomes.
So according to the SNP, asking a lawyer anything in an informal way counts as legal advice these days? That means the silks will send you an invoice for answering where you take milk and sugar in your tea.
Quote:
Political broadcaster Andrew Neil has told BBC Radio Scotland's Good Morning Scotland programme that First Minister Alex Salmond told him his government had had legal advice on an independent Scotland's status in Europe.

Mr Neil said when he questioned Mr Salmond it "never crossed my mind that whether or not he had legal advice was a matter of contention".

He stated: "The thrust of my interview accepted that he had legal advice because he had told me so."

The BBC journalist was commenting in the wake of the SNP government saying it did not have legal advice, but was now prepared to commission that advice.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-s ... s-20079708

Let's face it, would anyone in their right mind buy a used Ford Escort from Mr Salmond, let alone trust him to head up an independent nation? :D
Caught Andrew Neil on last night's edition of This Week.

He did briefly mention this issue, saying he didn't realise that Alex Salmond's legal advice was written in invisible ink... :DD
Barely a fortnight after the last steaming, big, fat porkie pie (see above), Mr Salmond scores yet another hugely embarrassing own goal with his inimitable brand of 'debating' tactics, ergo the "just tell 'em a big, fat whopper to get 'em off my back" approach:

Quote:
The First Minister said colleges received more cash this year than last, despite official figures showing a steep fall.

His assertion, during First Minister's Questions at Holyrood today, effectively silenced efforts by Johann Lamont, the Scottish Labour leader, to press him on the crisis in further education.

But minutes after their exchange, it emerged he had used a misleading figure to present this year’s cash allocation as an increase.

Mr Salmond’s embarrassment was heightened by his boast, in reply to Ms Lamont, that he had provided “as an exact an answer as anyone has ever given to parliament”.

As he spoke, he was flanked by the Education Secretary, Michael Russell, and the Finance Secretary, John Swinney, who nodded in agreement.

Later, the First Minister was forced to return to parliament to make a humiliating apology to MSPs at the end of the day’s proceedings.


http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/ne ... ba32fca2c2

Personally speaking, as someone who wants the United Kingdom to stay together, I think it's great. Long may Mr Salmond remain in place; I have full confidence that stuff like this will continue, and the credibility of the 'Yes' camp eroded to nothing, come another 2 years of porkies and absurd media gaffes like 'EU-gate'. People don't change, after all.

If there's one thing I know about the Scots, they cannae stand bullshit.
No *true* Scotsman can stand bullshit.
DavPaz wrote:
No *true* Scotsman can stand bullshit.


Indeed. As opposed, let's just say for the purposes of argument, a hypothetical who lives in the genteel, very pleasant, expensive southwest of England, for decades, in part at the expense of English taxpayers and Council Tax payers. Whilst slagging them off. ;)
Captain Caveman wrote:
DavPaz wrote:
No *true* Scotsman can stand bullshit.


Indeed. As opposed, let's just say for the purposes of argument, a hypothetical who lives in the genteel, very pleasant, expensive southwest of England, for decades, in part at the expense of English taxpayers and Council Tax payers. Whilst slagging them off. ;)


I think he's refering to this :)
Another day, another embarrassing "pants on fire" incident, this time one with a distinct whiff of the Orwellian about it:

Quote:
The First Minister told MSPs last month around 18,000 people were employed in the renewables industry but even the trade body that represents wind farm companies put the total at around 11,000.

Instead of publicly admitting the error, he wrote to Holyrood’s administrators asking that they change his answer by altering the official report, a written minute of parliament’s proceedings.

However, he did not simultaneously follow Scottish Parliament guidance that he publicise the correction by telling the MSP whose question prompted his inaccurate answer and the opposition parties.

MSPs only discovered that the jobs total was incorrect and Mr Salmond’s subsequent attempt to alter Holyrood’s records after the error was highlighted by an anti-wind farm campaigner.

The First Minister last night followed the guidance on publicising the change, but only after the alteration had been discovered and condemned.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... er-up.html

Feck me, this is getting embarrassing. Like shooting fish in barrel o'shite.
Great. As if the renewables industry needed opposition to it having any more ammo. Well done, Salmond. Gnh.
Is he rubbish at being an honest politician or rubbish at being a sneaky underhand politician?
Squirt wrote:
Is he rubbish at being an honest politician or rubbish at being a sneaky underhand politician?


Both, in my opinion!
Having a Big Friday Night In and am currently reading the transcript of a backbench debate on the Union that took place in the Commons on Thursday. The honourable member for Perth and North Perthshire, Pete Wishart, makes an interesting statement for someone in the SNP:

Quote:
We will continue to be British after the independence referendum and when we secure our independence.


I don't think I've ever come across an SNP member talking about Britishness before. It was cringeworthy enough when Gordon Brown (remember him?) went on and on about it.
If Great Britain ceases to exist, it'll be interesting to know how Wishart and co. will still be British.
I suppose the SNP aren't campaigning for the renaming of this fair island.
Kern wrote:
Having a Big Friday Night In and am currently reading the transcript of a backbench debate on the Union that took place in the Commons on Thursday. The honourable member for Perth and North Perthshire, Pete Wishart, makes an interesting statement for someone in the SNP:

Quote:
We will continue to be British after the independence referendum and when we secure our independence.


I don't think I've ever come across an SNP member talking about Britishness before. It was cringeworthy enough when Gordon Brown (remember him?) went on and on about it.


It's simply incredible, isn't it? I mean, it's not enough that the SNP would try to keep the Pound (but none of the fiscal controls, these would be exclusively to the care of the Bank of England - the clue's in the name - for the exclusive benefit of the rUK, and quite possibly to the detriment of Scotland), remain in NATO, keep the Queen as the head of their state(let) - they'd still call themselves British to boot.

At this rate, I wouldn't be too surprised to see an SNP motion to install Beefeaters at Holyrood or have "God Save the Queen" as the Scots' anthem. The people of Scotland must surely be asking themselves "what is the point" - and that's before the spectre of EU re-application and the mandatory uptake of the dreaded Euro comes into play, along with a whole bunch of other, entirely unresolved stuff.

I suppose they could always get that infamous bottle of Tippex out again and claim no-one in the SNP said anything about being British? :DD
... Meanwhile, our Bath correspondent is blogging about "civil war" with an image of a WW1 tank rolling through Scottish streets. Melodrama? Surely not. :roll:

Still, someone must like this stuff. Apparently, he got something like a half million readers last month alone...? 8)
As far as I can, the SNP does propose keeping the Queen as the Head of State after independence. It seems that independence will leave Scotland as dependent on Westminster as they are now, but with far less say.
Squirt wrote:
It seems that independence will leave Scotland as dependent on Westminster as they are now, but with far less say.


This, in a nutshell.

"Cut your nose to spite your face".
Squirt wrote:
As far as I can, the SNP does propose keeping the Queen as the Head of State after independence. It seems that independence will leave Scotland as dependent on Westminster as they are now, but with far less say.

It's like a Russian doll, isn't it? Scotland dependent on Westminster, but with far less say, and, if certain Conservatives get their way, the UK still dependent on the EU, but with far less say. (Those stories about the UK being on an 'outer tier' with Norway and Iceland might sound fine, until you realise those countries plough fucking tons of cash into the EU and have precisely naff-all say in anything, unlike the UK, which is inside and can at least attempt to amend policy.)

The best bet, as ever, for the Scots and the UK as a whole is the status quo with a small amount—where possible—of renegotiation on key points that need sorting.
Page 5 of 41 [ 2008 posts ]