|
Post by jonathan on May 17, 2013 13:12:29 GMT
Scottish Parliament elections the SNP gained more votes than Labour. This means little. Because it is a Scotland only election. If SNP support is so strong, why did at the last General Election did Labour gain double the SNP vote and the SNP barely gained more votes than the Tories. Is it that you Scottish do not trust the SNP to represent you in the Scottish Parliament? If you did, it would have been far easier to gain the referendum for independence with SNP MPs voting for it? There is a distinct difference between Holyrood and Westminster. Given that Labour does vastly overspend on the economy, I do not trust them with it. If I was Scottish, I would probably vote SNP too, as a way of showing frustration with the economic record of the other parties. Also with the SNP in Hollyrood, you know they are going to serve only Scottish interests, there would be no backhand or secret dealings with the English equivalent party as their would be with Labour, Tories or Lib Dem parties. However, I fail to see how you can weigh up support based on council elections or Scottish Parliament elections because I don't know about you, but I vote entirely different in a council election than I do in a general election. Why? Because I vote in a council election based on my LOCAL concerns, whichever party addresses those best, gets my vote. In a general election, I vote for the direction I want the country to go in. Therefore, based on that, I would say your evidence points more towards SNP Support to deal with local issues, but mistrust when it comes to Westminster and dealing with the direction of the country. But then this is the point of a debate ![:P](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/tongue.png) It is based on the different voting systems for the two different elections. One allows all votes to be counted, whilst the other does not. One system favours tactical voting, one does not.
|
|
jon
Rookie
Posts: 279
|
Post by jon on May 17, 2013 13:22:34 GMT
Forgot about that!
A huge point.
|
|
spudeeelad
Junior
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png)
Posts: 949
EIHL Team: Manchester Storm
NHL Team: Tampa Bay Lightning
|
Post by spudeeelad on May 17, 2013 14:21:56 GMT
Firstly, if you weren't such a tool judging without reading properly, you would notice that Farage's comments state 'I don't believe this was co-ordinated by the SNP', hinting more at some form of Scottish equivalent of the EDL. Whilst you would consider, example, all members of the EDL to be a BNP voter, that does not necessarily mean that all BNP voters are mindless EDL idiots. The same logic applies to Scotland, the SNP and perhaps some form of SDL should one exist. You put words in my mouth with your comments. I did not say all SNP members/voters are lunatics, if I did, please point out where? However, what I did say, is that given the events unfolded in Edinburgh, that it would not be your average joe from Edinburgh orchestrating the events that unfolded, which I will address below in the next bit. Secondly, please point out where I said I was a Scottish Political expert? However, clearly based on the wording of your reply, I know more than you. The evidence is clearly there. Take a look at the below; news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/region/7.stmOh look, not a single SNP seat in either Glasgow or Edinburgh and in fact, not a single SNP seat south of the firth or forth - hence, your average joe from Edinburgh, would be a Labour or, at a push, Liberal Democrat voter as the results clearly show. Lastly, I started this thread to have mature debate on other people's thoughts on the events that unfolded, not to have it descend into childish nonsense like your post above. If you are who I think you are, I would think carefully before making some of the ill-educated, ill-thought out, badly worded and certainly misguided comments you did given the position you hold. Dude, go and provide a similar link to the last Scottish Govt elections. You might get a wee surprise. I don't think I need to. As I said in previous posts, I believe people will vote differently based on different type of elections. Just because you voted SNP in a Scottish election, does not mean you are automatically pro-independence are care solely about that and nothing more. You have to remember that in British politics and most world politics, you vote for a specific set of agenda or manifesto. There are always things you don't like in there as well as things you like. In other words, you could vote SNP in a local or Scottish election, with the one thing in their manifesto that you dislike is independence, but the rest you agree with, just as much as you could vote for them because that is the main thing you're interested in. However, I believe if the everyday SNP voter voted for SNP purely on the promise of independence that those same people would also back the SNP in it's attempts to get into Westminster. They might agree with SNP on a local or even Scottish level, but that does not necessarily mean they agree with what SNP would do, or try to do, if elected to Westminster. Like I said, surely if you're so unbelievably dedicated to the SNP and all SNP voters were devoted, the vote count for them wouldn't have so much discrepancy between different types of elections? Labour, for example, might say they would get HS2 diverted away from my neighbourhood or council area, so they would get my vote in that Local election. However, that does not mean I agree with what their plans on a National level or that I would vote for them in a General election EDIT:- However, if you wish to provide a link to such figures here, I would by all means invest time on reviewing them and getting back to you on what I think of them
|
|
spudeeelad
Junior
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png)
Posts: 949
EIHL Team: Manchester Storm
NHL Team: Tampa Bay Lightning
|
Post by spudeeelad on May 17, 2013 14:31:16 GMT
Forgot to address this bit. You're right, but then what about issues say, the budget for Scotland, which is currently set by Westminster. Surely, whether outvoted or not, you would want the SNP fighting your corner in you believe in their cause? Like your later post, a lot of people in 2010 election will have voted Labour to keep the tories out. Others are Labour through-and-through. They're clever enough to vote for different parties in different elections based on different priorities. I don't know many people who would state that Belgium is not an independent european state, so how would it be different for Scotland? Your point is the exact line Farage used - it's not very respectful towards the right of Scottish people to decide their own place in the world. It's merely stating that Scotland has to be dictacted to by someone, because we're not clever enough to be on our own. Note: For clarity, I'll restate I'm not for independence in it's current form, however I believe we have the right to decide. It's not for anyone with no connection with Scotland to tell us how to live. Not at all. It's not about not being smart enough. You would, however, be pretty irrelevant in the modern world as an entirely independent country. No nuclear weapons, No EU, No UK, no G7, G8 etc = no influence on anything outside of Scotland. Look at this way, the UK is merely a Poundzone of the Britannic Islands. It works in pretty much the exact same way as the Eurozone of the main continent. In the UK, Scotland can currently determine some things for itself, like what it spends it's share of the money on etc. The only thing it can't decide is foreign policy, major laws and major economic policy (bit of a grey area here as I'm not sure exactly what Scotland can and cannot decide for itself in terms of economic policy). All the minor stuff you can decide yourselves. In the EU, it's the same as the above, except you'd still have your own foreign policy. You'd still be bound by courts in Brussels (instead of Westminster), you'd still be bound by EU laws (instead of UK laws), you'd still be bound to the Eurozone's economic policy (in terms of inflation etc) - looks like you have no choice over this anyway because it looks like you're staying with the £ or joining the Euro, neither of which you have control over.
|
|
jon
Rookie
Posts: 279
|
Post by jon on May 17, 2013 16:51:20 GMT
Dude, go and provide a similar link to the last Scottish Govt elections. You might get a wee surprise. I don't think I need to. As I said in previous posts, I believe people will vote differently based on different type of elections. Just because you voted SNP in a Scottish election, does not mean you are automatically pro-independence are care solely about that and nothing more. You have to remember that in British politics and most world politics, you vote for a specific set of agenda or manifesto. There are always things you don't like in there as well as things you like. In other words, you could vote SNP in a local or Scottish election, with the one thing in their manifesto that you dislike is independence, but the rest you agree with, just as much as you could vote for them because that is the main thing you're interested in. However, I believe if the everyday SNP voter voted for SNP purely on the promise of independence that those same people would also back the SNP in it's attempts to get into Westminster. They might agree with SNP on a local or even Scottish level, but that does not necessarily mean they agree with what SNP would do, or try to do, if elected to Westminster. Like I said, surely if you're so unbelievably dedicated to the SNP and all SNP voters were devoted, the vote count for them wouldn't have so much discrepancy between different types of elections? SNP ran on a platform of putting through an Independence Referendum and their local policies. Before getting a majority in the Scottish Parliament they had a minority government - there was a good level of satisfaction in their policies and so had a good campaign in the latest election. In the Westminster elections there are a total of 72 Scottish seats. The reason SNP would never get the same number of seats is people doing exactly what folk did in Manchester - vote Labour to keep the Tories out. People know that the SNP are unlikely to ever have a significant say in Westminster, so vote Labour to have an element of say.
|
|
jon
Rookie
Posts: 279
|
Post by jon on May 17, 2013 17:10:39 GMT
What seems to be ignored "down South" is that being an important power in the world really isn't a priority. I don't know why a country of 5 million would expect to be - and that's ok. To be honest, a lot of UK foreign policy isn't particularly something to be proud. Maybe I'm alone in that, but I feel that may be a greater feeling up here than the other side of the border.
Not really. The UK government has total level of control over taxation in this country. The Scottish government currently has very little (actually, none, but with will be able to raise/drop income tax by up to 3p in the £ in 2016). In the Eurozone each country has the right to set their own taxation rates, and run their economies as they see fit. What's beneficial for us isn't always beneficial for the rest of the UK, for example the UK Government dragging their feet on a Video Games subsidy. This was something that would have been implemented far quicker if Holyrood had that power. This is a huge change. An independent Scotland's government would very likely offer significant tax breaks in Corporation Tax, to try and attract businesses to replace lost public sector employment.
And then of course there's Defence, among others.
Scottish law is entirely separate to English law, and none of our laws are bound by any court in London.
There's nothing to say that being bound to any currency would be permanent. But an independent Scotland could decide that for themselves, they wouldn't be ruled.
|
|
spudeeelad
Junior
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png)
Posts: 949
EIHL Team: Manchester Storm
NHL Team: Tampa Bay Lightning
|
Post by spudeeelad on May 17, 2013 21:44:30 GMT
What seems to be ignored "down South" is that being an important power in the world really isn't a priority. I don't know why a country of 5 million would expect to be - and that's ok. To be honest, a lot of UK foreign policy isn't particularly something to be proud. Maybe I'm alone in that, but I feel that may be a greater feeling up here than the other side of the border. Not really. The UK government has total level of control over taxation in this country. The Scottish government currently has very little (actually, none, but with will be able to raise/drop income tax by up to 3p in the £ in 2016). In the Eurozone each country has the right to set their own taxation rates, and run their economies as they see fit. What's beneficial for us isn't always beneficial for the rest of the UK, for example the UK Government dragging their feet on a Video Games subsidy. This was something that would have been implemented far quicker if Holyrood had that power. This is a huge change. An independent Scotland's government would very likely offer significant tax breaks in Corporation Tax, to try and attract businesses to replace lost public sector employment. And then of course there's Defence, among others. Scottish law is entirely separate to English law, and none of our laws are bound by any court in London. There's nothing to say that being bound to any currency would be permanent. But an independent Scotland could decide that for themselves, they wouldn't be ruled. Very valid points indeed and I certainly agree about the world power bit. Frankly, I couldn't give a damn about being a world power - our time was over almost 100 years after the WW1. Trying to act like big players and see ourselves on a par with huge masses of population, land and resources like America, Russia and China annoys me. It is the City of London driving UK foreign policy, not the desire of the people. Although it is a 'border', it's an outdated one. If you were to draw majority beliefs and principles, I think you would find it's more only south of the M6 corridor do they lean more to the right, whereas up in the North of England, we tend to lean left like you Scots do. Partially right, but with the EU itself trying to restrict member state spending, so as to not result in another bailout scenario, it looks like those freedoms are going to be removed. The eurozone is moving towards greater integration with each other, particularly financial union, so you could say it's trying to be a United States of Europe. Each state can do whatever it likes but has no power over EU (federal in the US) taxes and certain policies like foreign policy. That's where I see the Eurozone being sooner rather than later. You're correct about taxation, but flawed about with the support theory. It's the Great British Pound, so whilst gaining control over taxation, Westminster/Bank Of England would still have ultimate control over the currency. If you don't like this, you would need to come with a solution very quickly. Anything actions by Holyrood that may impact the value of the GBP would be counteracted by Westminster, that i'm certain of. You have to see both sides. Yes, the UK government maybe have been dragging it's feet in the games industry tax subsidy, but why would one area of what is, currently, one country get more favourable treatment than another? I program games myself as a hobby and found it quite frustrating that if I wanted to pursue it seriously as a career, i'd pretty much have to up sticks to Dundee. Why should I have to do that? Why shouldn't the UK government subsidise where I live with a tax break for the games industry? As to defence, this is where I am guilty of blowing the English trumpet a bit, I believe Scotland would have an extremely small defence force, one that would realistically could overrun by a small militia/insurgency (let alone a full scale invasion by another country) to keep costs down and not to have to contribute to nuclear weapons. However, Salmond is a smart man, he knows that England would not tolerate any invasion of Scotland because of it's close proximity to our borders. As such, we would be forced to intervene with our armed forces and nuclear weapons regardless of the lack of contribution from Scotland
|
|
jon
Rookie
Posts: 279
|
Post by jon on May 17, 2013 23:36:55 GMT
I'm not a federalist, so I would not like to see this happen. The support for the EU is falling in the majority of countries (excluding Germany and a couple of others (in fact I'm sure I read somewhere that the support for the EU is lower in France than it is in the UK?!)) so I'm not sure it would happen. But you never know. An independent Scotland could, of course, decide to leave if such a scenario were to occur and it was the will of Scottish people.
You're right. But that's a decision that could be made if an independence vote was passed - other small countries do have this situation. Again, however, Scotland would have the freedom to decide what was best for itself in this scenario.
Of course, one area in the UK country should not get preferential treatment - Dundee with regards to video games, London with regards to well... everything else.
Video games is/will be a very significant part of an independent Scotland's economy - it creates a lot of employment in that crappy place north of the Tay. In the same way that Cider making is given tax discounts in the west counties, it's all about stimulating the economy in areas where stimulation is needed. A Scottish government (devolved or independent) should have the power to do that. Surely, with the point that Scotland would fail without all the UK public sector jobs we rely on, it's only right that we have the powers to encourage businesses to come in to replace these lost jobs? Unless the objective is to make Scotland dependent on others.
With the cuts to the army to below 85,000 personnel the UK army of is just a defence force. All military intervention or defence will be dependent on allies (the aircraft carrier shambles being proof), both true for the UK or an independent Scotland. As for nuclear weapons, well, if the Scottish people decide that they do not want them in on their land, then that's fair enough I guess. It shouldn't be imposed.
|
|
|
Post by nobabody on May 18, 2013 13:40:55 GMT
And I think any anti-English sentiment isn't what it seems. I don't believe the Scottish are anti-English (if they were, it's definitely racism). However, I believe most of the Scottish are anti-Tory and stereotyping (which we're all guilty of), would say more 'them English' rather than 'them Tories'. Where i'm from, there is actually quite the surprising view from some that if Scotland did gain independence, that they would seek to somehow join with Scotland to get away from the Tories once and for all. please please please, Scotish hating English cannot be racist as we are both of the same race !!! you are right that it is a generalisation and is almost certainly the traditional "tory" voter (or as i describe them, those who still hold "Emperialistic" notions) that is disliked here, and as you say, in the northern 2/3rds of England. It's also a relief to hear you say what i said the day we won devolution, in that if we ever did gain independance, those same counties would feel that a Scottish parliament would be better aligned to their needs and lifestyle and would seek to divorce themselves from Westminster in favour of Edinburgh. Something, I for one, would be in favour of.
|
|
|
Post by nobabody on May 18, 2013 14:25:03 GMT
as for having policies to stimulate economic growth in specific areas, surely that happens in most western governments and has been going on in the uk since...... forever? surely thats common sense? e.g. I don't hate Maggie T because she shut down our coal and steel industry, i hated her because there was very little or nothing done to replace those jobs.
mass unemployment won't win you much support, look at the political map just now, is it purely coincidence that the areas where the heavy industries were shut down and not replaced are now the same places that will not vote Tory?
i want independance, but i am concerned about 2 things:
firstly, a central bank to fund it, we only became part of UK because of the folly of the Darien colony, so we no longer have a central bank to control our currency, so how do we work this? more austerity to finance a central bank? use the Bank of England? join the Euro?
secondly, i am still a little concerned that once we gain independance from the UK, the in-fighting will escalate in Scotland. i believe we'd need to work hard together to prosper and i'm not convinced that some might prefer fight their own local or personal cause to the detriment of the national one. on the other hand i don't want the national cause to be realised as everything must be done to ensure Edinburgh thrives the same way London does.
any suggestions? ideas?
|
|
jon
Rookie
Posts: 279
|
Post by jon on May 18, 2013 15:35:20 GMT
as for having policies to stimulate economic growth in specific areas, surely that happens in most western governments and has been going on in the uk since...... forever? surely thats common sense? e.g. I don't hate Maggie T because she shut down our coal and steel industry, i hated her because there was very little or nothing done to replace those jobs. mass unemployment won't win you much support, look at the political map just now, is it purely coincidence that the areas where the heavy industries were shut down and not replaced are now the same places that will not vote Tory? And the other side is that the government won't assist areas where they won't get anything in return (ie votes). Labour very deliberately invested in large public sector in Scotland. If it was devolved, with the voting system, that would be less likely to happen. Any government are desperate for a vote in the regional list ballot. In the current makeup there are no areas that would definitely not vote for a particular party. (for example, Glasgow elected Scottish Tory Leader and MSP Ruth Davidson).
|
|
spudeeelad
Junior
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png)
Posts: 949
EIHL Team: Manchester Storm
NHL Team: Tampa Bay Lightning
|
Post by spudeeelad on May 18, 2013 21:33:59 GMT
And I think any anti-English sentiment isn't what it seems. I don't believe the Scottish are anti-English (if they were, it's definitely racism). However, I believe most of the Scottish are anti-Tory and stereotyping (which we're all guilty of), would say more 'them English' rather than 'them Tories'. Where i'm from, there is actually quite the surprising view from some that if Scotland did gain independence, that they would seek to somehow join with Scotland to get away from the Tories once and for all. please please please, Scotish hating English cannot be racist as we are both of the same race !!! you are right that it is a generalisation and is almost certainly the traditional "tory" voter (or as i describe them, those who still hold "Emperialistic" notions) that is disliked here, and as you say, in the northern 2/3rds of England. It's also a relief to hear you say what i said the day we won devolution, in that if we ever did gain independance, those same counties would feel that a Scottish parliament would be better aligned to their needs and lifestyle and would seek to divorce themselves from Westminster in favour of Edinburgh. Something, I for one, would be in favour of. Correct! But you have to remember, racism is not used in terms of it's actual definition in the UK at the moment. If I, not that I would, was to call someone a stupid Polish pr**k, I would be arrested for racism. Racism, is based solely on colour of skin by it's own definition and I would be the same colour as most Poles (if you've ever been to Poland, you'd know there is barely any such thing as minorities there, mostly due to 50 years of German/Russian perjury). Therefore, by the UK's own definition, it would be racism, even though really, it's just referring to where someone is from. Apart from the fact you spelled Imperialistic wrong ![:P](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/tongue.png) I 100% agree and personally, if Scotland was to gain independence, I would bloody well love to join you guys (especially if you didn't join the Eurozone). I have to admit, it is quite hurtful sometimes to hurt of anti-English attitudes from, admittedly, a limited number of Scottish people because personally (obviously I can only speak for myself), I find that I have far, far more common with most people in Scotland that I do with anyone south of the M6 corridor. The UK revolves purely around London and even more so around those few small sq miles that are Canary Wharf and frankly, it absolutely makes my blood boil! It's Canary Wharf's fault that we're in the s**t we're currently in now!!!
|
|
spudeeelad
Junior
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png)
Posts: 949
EIHL Team: Manchester Storm
NHL Team: Tampa Bay Lightning
|
Post by spudeeelad on May 18, 2013 21:38:03 GMT
as for having policies to stimulate economic growth in specific areas, surely that happens in most western governments and has been going on in the uk since...... forever? surely thats common sense? e.g. I don't hate Maggie T because she shut down our coal and steel industry, i hated her because there was very little or nothing done to replace those jobs. mass unemployment won't win you much support, look at the political map just now, is it purely coincidence that the areas where the heavy industries were shut down and not replaced are now the same places that will not vote Tory? And the other side is that the government won't assist areas where they won't get anything in return (ie votes). Labour very deliberately invested in large public sector in Scotland. If it was devolved, with the voting system, that would be less likely to happen. Any government are desperate for a vote in the regional list ballot. In the current makeup there are no areas that would definitely not vote for a particular party. (for example, Glasgow elected Scottish Tory Leader and MSP Ruth Davidson). You have to remember that all Labour Chancellor's were Scottish, they couldn't be seen to be crapping on Scotland or looking on it less favourably, it would have been suicide for their vote interests. I do, cannot stand Maggie T. I would not say i'm glad she died, because I don't believe anything good can from the death of any of us given that we're all someone's brother, mother, father, sister, gran, grandad, uncle, son, etc etc etc. But I wouldn't say i'm sad that she died.
|
|
spudeeelad
Junior
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png)
Posts: 949
EIHL Team: Manchester Storm
NHL Team: Tampa Bay Lightning
|
Post by spudeeelad on May 18, 2013 21:45:00 GMT
I'm not a federalist, so I would not like to see this happen. The support for the EU is falling in the majority of countries (excluding Germany and a couple of others (in fact I'm sure I read somewhere that the support for the EU is lower in France than it is in the UK?!)) so I'm not sure it would happen. But you never know. An independent Scotland could, of course, decide to leave if such a scenario were to occur and it was the will of Scottish people. You're right. But that's a decision that could be made if an independence vote was passed - other small countries do have this situation. Again, however, Scotland would have the freedom to decide what was best for itself in this scenario. Of course, one area in the UK country should not get preferential treatment - Dundee with regards to video games, London with regards to well... everything else. Video games is/will be a very significant part of an independent Scotland's economy - it creates a lot of employment in that crappy place north of the Tay. In the same way that Cider making is given tax discounts in the west counties, it's all about stimulating the economy in areas where stimulation is needed. A Scottish government (devolved or independent) should have the power to do that. Surely, with the point that Scotland would fail without all the UK public sector jobs we rely on, it's only right that we have the powers to encourage businesses to come in to replace these lost jobs? Unless the objective is to make Scotland dependent on others. With the cuts to the army to below 85,000 personnel the UK army of is just a defence force. All military intervention or defence will be dependent on allies (the aircraft carrier shambles being proof), both true for the UK or an independent Scotland. As for nuclear weapons, well, if the Scottish people decide that they do not want them in on their land, then that's fair enough I guess. It shouldn't be imposed. Depends where in France. Rural/Farming France is EXTREMELY supportive of the EU due to the EU's generous subsidies of the farming industry and France is the greatest benefactor of this policy. You're 100% correct, but I don't believe tax subsidies are the correct way because it's basically saying 'go here or nowhere'. I would much prefer a company being like 'we're going to build our HQ or main base in London' and instead the government goes 'well, tell you what, if you agree to be based in Dundee for at least X years, we'll build the HQ for you?'. Then, if another games company was to come in, it wouldn't HAVE to go to Dundee or be faced with unfair disadvantage through the tax system. Instead the government could go 'well, Dundee already has this industry and we could use the jobs elsewhere. How about we'll build your HQ in Lincolnshire under the same clauses that you stay there for X years'
|
|
spudeeelad
Junior
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png)
Posts: 949
EIHL Team: Manchester Storm
NHL Team: Tampa Bay Lightning
|
Post by spudeeelad on May 18, 2013 21:47:07 GMT
Again, I can only speak for myself, but personally I would MUCH rather be rid of them b******s down south than the Scottish!
EDIT:- Ironically, I now sound exactly like Scotsman saying them lot down south hahaha
|
|