FREEDOM!!!! [2]

"Shadow Foreign Secretary Douglas Alexander (Labour) is to urge all pro-Union parties to agree to a joint approach to Scotland's constitutional future.
He will say the parties should offer a "shared commitment" to draft a "new vision" for Scotland in the event of a No vote in the referendum."- BBC

I was afraid it might start going this way. If things keep going as they are the YES campaign will inevitably win, the No campaign have nothing to say in the tv debates beyond 'there are uncertainties' and 'what if we are crap at running a country?' or simply "the sky will fall on your heads the very next day if you say yes", which is not going to wash over the course of the next year- they desperately need something to say that can be made to sound positive otherwise the YES campaign is going to hand them their arses on a plate.

Or in the words of the shadow foeign secretary Douglas Alexander- "the constitutional debate has become "arid".

They have nothing more to say, and whilst the SNP can build up a picture of a future full of potential and opportunity they offer no future but what we have, and of all the options facing Scotland the status quo is the only one everyone agrees we dont want.
So what to do if you are Unionist?

"In a lecture to be delivered later, the senior Labour MP will make the case for all the parties opposing independence to agree to help form a national convention which could look at the powers of the Scottish Parliament. He believes an agreed approach by the parties committed to the Union would be a "tangible answer" to the question of what happens if Scotland votes No to independence."

In other words after failing to put devomax on the ballot paper, the most popular option, they are offering the promise of it if we vote no.

So we have gone from Camerons promise of jam tomorrow, to Alexanders promise now of the jam factory tomorrow- but its still all just jam tomorrow- and we have been here before in the 1970's when we were categorically promised a no vote would mean jam tomorrow, most commentators believe it was that promise that swayed the vote enough for no to win- but there was no jam as promised, not even a drop, instead it turned out to be 18 years of Tory rule instead.

Of course there are risks in this scheme for the Unionists besides not being believed, all sides would need to work together even though they hate each other.
If I was English Id feel entitled after the vote, if Scotland votes no, to expect MP's to get on with running the UK, not embark on another round of talks about Scotland's future.
And a year after the indy vote its a General Election, not the best time to expect cross party talks to flourish.

Still it seems the Unionists might be getting a hint of what way the wind is starting to blow.

Independence day rally in Edinburgh- I was hoping to go to this as part of my local YES campaign group but sadly coudn't, but I will be going to the next one (there are two more scheduled- although nice as it is to go on the march and all that the real work is talking to people and going door to door)



"Police estimated that more than 8,000 people took part in the march."- BBC

I always love these numbers- the first march that happened the YES campaign said was 10,000 strong, and the police said 5,000.
So at a rough guide thats 3000 more than previously, so moving in the right direction.

When you say independence day do you mean September 18? It's exciting that the referendum is less than a year away now. To be honest, 8000 (or 10,000) doesn't sound like that many people to me, but I don't know how many people tend to show up to rallies in Scotland.

The organisers are claiming 20,000.

For a Scottish rally in Edinburgh its a decent number.

To give some comparison the protest march against the bedroom tax was 5,000 strong.

The biggest rally in my lifetime was against the poll tax and that was 50,000 but that was in Glasgow which is much more densely populated and easier to get too for anyone living in the Central Belt (where most of the population is).
Edinburgh is the capital but its not got a huge population.

edit add- just had a look on wiki, Scotlands population is roughly the same as that of Colorado or Wisconsin, so you could compare it to those states in terms of size of rally. And Scot are not really known for huge rallies, takes away from drinking time.  

Yeah, I figured that the population difference probably accounted for most of the size factor. It's great that the Yes campaign is able to get so many people out for the marches.

This is interesting, well to me at least!
The SNP have a White Paper due out that they say will answer all the questions that can be answered outside of negotiations, and they have begun headlining bits and pieces at key moments.
Today they announced this-

"A Scottish government paper will say the Scottish Parliament will determine the state pension age if there is a Yes vote in next September's referendum.
Ms Sturgeon argued the pension age should suit "Scottish circumstances".
The age at which people can start to receive a pension is planned to rise to 66 for both men and women from 2018 and to 67 from 2026.
This week a Scottish government paper called Pensions in an Independent Scotland will set out the arrangements for state, private and public sector pensions in the event of independence.
Ms Sturgeon said ministers at Holyrood were "concerned about Westminster's accelerated timetable for increasing the state pension age", claiming the increase to 67 had "significant implications for individuals".
She said: "Westminster changes fail to take into account the life expectancy differences between different socio-economic groups and between Scotland and the UK average. It is important to ensure that Scots approaching retirement age are not unfairly disadvantaged."
Ms Sturgeon said a commission would be set up in the first year of an independent Scotland to consider "the appropriate pace of further change to the retirement age beyond 66, taking account of Scottish circumstances".- BBC

Will be interesting to see the figures for this in their White Paper.

In the meantime the opposition parties aren't saying anything to seriously damage the idea-

A spokeswoman for the Department for Work and Pensions said: "Spending on pensions, on benefits and on public services is all more affordable as part of the UK.
"Everyone benefits from the same UK-wide welfare and pensions system, which treats people equally regardless of where they live.
"Pensions spending per head is already higher in Scotland than in the rest of the UK, and in future Scotland will have a higher proportion of elderly people.
"But by pooling our resources, we won't need to rely on volatile and declining North Sea revenues to pay the pensions of Scotland's elderly."

I note the second point put forward as a positive- the treating everyone the same regardless of where they live- is in fact the very thing the SNP say is wrong.
And of course a quick scare at the end to remind us that our oil is really a burden not a boom, being volatile, and it being our only export. Shame we don't have hydro electric, a huge export market in sea food, beef, tartan or whisky. And what a pity we don't have any of the worlds top universities, or lead  in Europe on renewable energy research or even have a thriving tourist trade.  

Labour had this to say-

"Leaving the United Kingdom would be costly and risky for pensions.
"Barely a day now goes by without the nationalists making promises without any plan to pay for them, but this latest suggestion on state pensions would cost Scotland £6bn."

If my reading of the SNP proposal is correct Labour seems to have missed the point.
Right now everyone in the UK gets the same amount at the same age.
In an independent Scotland where life expectancy on average is 2 years less people, on average, claim two years less pension (being dead and therefore exempt)
So without spending any more money you can either give those two years as money by slightly increasing the pension. Or maintain the pension age rather than raising it by two years as is the Westminster proposal. You could even feasibly lower it by a year and still maintain the books.

So I am unsure how Labour came to the cost of 6billion.

i am guessing that this is what this thread is about. I hear rumours that the scots have one year to convince people to vote yes for independence from England

You just found that out now? But I've been going on....oh forget it  Fjordians!  

In extreme pot calling the kettle black news-

"Scottish Labour leader Johann Lamont has used her speech at the party's annual conference to attack the "cynicism" of the Scottish government."

   She is the most crabbit, miserble, negative politciian ever. I dont think I have ever seen her even crack half a smile.

Heres the pic from the BBC news story, the BBC lean on the Unionist side in their reporting, so as news stations do in these situations they try to get a pic that makes the person look positive, and this was still the best they could do-



Ms Lamont said the SNP administration saw the austerity policies of the UK government as a "political opportunity" rather than an affront to families.

But its not just the crabbit coupon, its what she says-

"She told delegates in Brighton they (SNP) would rather exploit people's misery than take measures to correct it. Refusing to help people struggling because of UK Coalition welfare cuts.
"Content to ensure that all those who could be protected are not helped because that would show devolution working," she said.

Um, she seems to have failed to notice that Welfare spending is not devolved, Welfare is a Westminster power. The only way to alter Welfare spending would be to get control of it through Independence!
Unbelievable.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:You just found that out now? But I've been going on....oh forget it  Fjordians!  

yeah, it was on the news just now. i thought u were just being crabbit and dreamy  i support thee anyhow! all countries should be independent  gosh.. just think about what would happen if we were still under danish rule *shrugs*

Excellent page on the BBC Scotland politics site, neatly and clearly laying out the lie of the land right now in regards to what Powers Scotland already has, and what powers Westminster still holds over Scotland.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-20314150

I think I believe in a United States of Earth. Yes, with countries self governing in most things, but with All Earthan Laws for certain things; with each country owning their own version of Democracy. That means no Fascist, Socialist, Communist, Eldoranist/Forumshirist or Religionist States. Initially, some Democracies would have to be imposed from outside, but in a gentle nice way. Scotland would be 'overseen' by the Government in Geneva, but still allowed to wear kilts and hunt the tasty haggis (though not to extinction! ), though the bagpipe issue will need to be discussed maturely.

I actually agree with that Utopian vision Orwell!  

We haven't tried World Government yet. I mean, nothing else has worked...

Cant even get some countries (US looking at you here) to sign up to the ICC, let alone think about handing over any other powers.

The ICC is a joke anyway, though.

And the Geneva Convention?

Geneva Convention is a good idea, but international law in general is only as strong as the powerful nations of the day allow it to be.

There's a reason the ICC has only ever heard cases from Africa.

Maybe if the big countries signed up, and the ICC was backed up with the means necessary to uphold international law, drawing resources from all member states, it might not be so toothless.

And the UN veto needs to go too. Decisions should be taken by all member states on a majority basis.

Once we conquer Russia and China, the rest will topple like 9 pins... but gently...

Yeah, I'm certainly in favor of Security Council reform in some fashion.

International law in general can be kinda wonky though.  Despite the name it's really quite dissimilar to any other sort of law.  A couple months ago you had the leaders of the US, Britain, and France (three of the five permanent Security Council members) wanting to bring the leaders of Syria to justice for violating an international treaty that Syria had never even signed.  Leaving aside the morality of the issue for the moment (pretty much everyone agrees chemical weapons are bad), that's no way to run a system of laws.

The entire international framework was set up to benefit the interests of the winners of World War II, but hopefully with time it will grow into something more than that.  I think it's already begun to, and this trend will likely continue as US hegemony declines.

Sadly I think the day might be quite far off-

'Secretary of State John Kerry plans to sign a controversial U.N. treaty on arms regulation on Wednesday, a senior State Department official told Fox News -- despite warnings from lawmakers that the Senate will not ratify the agreement.
A State official said the treaty would "reduce the risk that international transfers of conventional arms will be used to carry out the world's worst crimes," while protecting gun rights.
"The treaty builds on decades of cooperative efforts to stem the international, illegal, and illicit trade in conventional weapons that benefits terrorists and rogue agents," the official said.
Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., one of the most vocal opponents of the treaty, sent a letter to Kerry declaring it "dead in the water," since a majority of senators has gone on record against the agreement.
"The administration is wasting precious time trying to sign away our laws to the global community and unelected U.N. bureaucrats," he wrote.
The treaty would require countries that ratify it to establish national regulations to control the transfer of conventional arms and components and to regulate arms brokers, but it will not explicitly control the domestic use of weapons in any country.
Still, gun-rights supporters on Capitol Hill warn the treaty could be used as the basis for additional gun regulations inside the U.S. and have threatened not to ratify.
The Control Arms Coalition, which includes hundreds of non-governmental organizations in more than 100 countries that promoted an Arms Trade Treaty, has said it expects many of the world's top arms exporters -- including Britain, Germany and France -- to sign alongside emerging exporters such as Brazil and Mexico. It said the United States is expected to sign later this year.
The coalition notes that more than 500,000 people are killed by armed violence every year and predicted that "history will be made" when many U.N. members sign the treaty, which it says is designed "to protect millions living in daily fear of armed violence and at risk of rape, assault, displacement and death."
In addition, the treaty requires countries to take measures to prevent the diversion of conventional weapons to the illicit market. This is among the provisions that gun-rights supporters in Congress are concerned about. ' - Fox News

Yes, terrible idea to try to deal with an international global market in illegal weapons at a global scale, and a terrible idea to try to stop legal weaponry falling into the hands of criminal groups- I can quite see what they are objecting to (their shares in Arms Manufacturers plummeting   )

There's a strong current of skepticism about the UN here in America, which probably goes back to our isolationist days in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries.  It's somewhat ironic considering the country's role in creating the UN, but there you have it.  It reminds me a little bit of Euroscepticism in countries like the UK.

More than that though, the United States is by far the biggest arms exporter in the world.  It's no secret that the NRA and much of the guns-rights lobby answers to the gun industry, not gun owners, so I'm not surprised to see strong pushback on this.  It's the sort of thing you expect to see from a country with valuable interests in a certain market, though of course most markets are a lot less dangerous than the arms trade.

I hadnt considered it in light of euroscepticism Eldo, and you are right, there are certainly strong parallels in the attitudes to both.

The problem for the US arms trade is people keep using the weapons you make to kill your own people (as well as millions of other people globally).
That it makes a small percentage of people a huge percentage of money shouldnt really come into it when it comes to legislation globally to reduce the trade in illegal sales. Sadly it does though.

Most people living in Scotland describe their national identity as being "Scottish only", according to the latest census figures.
Data released from the 2011 census showed 62% described themselves as "Scottish only", while 18% said they were "Scottish and British".- BBC

Granted thats a very different question to do you want to split up the Union with the rest of the UK, but still interesting. My favourite bit of the census data, thanks to how the BBC worded it was this-

'The results also showed Scotland was becoming more ethnically diverse.
In 2011, 4% of Scotland's population was from ethnic minority groups, up from 2% in 2001.'

We've doubled our diversity!  

'The figures indicated that most Scots from ethnic minorities were Asian, making up 3% of the Scottish population.
People from ethnic minorities made up 12% of the population in Glasgow, 8% of the population in Edinburgh and Aberdeen, and 6% of the population in Dundee.
The ethnic group "white Polish" was recorded by 1.2% of the population.'

No Fjordians?  

'A total of 54% of the population stated their religion as Christian. That was a fall of 11% from 2001.
There was an increase of 9% in those saying they had no religion - a total of 37%.
Within the Christian denominations, 32% said they belonged to the Church of Scotland - a decline of 10%.'

I wonder what percentage of those who claim to be Christian are actually practicing Christian- because there not a snowballs chance in hell 54% of the population attend church every Sunday.

'Muslims were recorded as 1.4% of the population, with Buddhists, Hindus and Sikhs together making up 0.7%.'

That should make it tricky to have a jihad!

'The proportion of adults in Scotland who are married was 45%. This was 5% lower than in 2001.
There was a 5% increase in the number of adults who have never married to 35%.
There were 7,000 people, 0.2% of adults, who said they were in a registered same-sex civil partnership.'

Marriage fals and civil partnerships increase! Its a conservative nightmare!