FREEDOM!!!! [2]

Ah, that might explain it then.

Still doesnt explain why the BBC gave it their headline slot and buried the news of the report from the actual people we would have to borrow money from saying we'd be a Triple AAA economy.  

Another reason Westminister doesn't want Scottish independence- they would have to pay for stuff like this-

"Construction work is under way on a converter station at Hunterston in Ayrshire that will be one end of an 260-mile (418km) undersea electricity transmission line.
The £1bn offshore power line, a joint venture between Scottish Power and National Grid, will link Ayrshire to Connah's Quay in North Wales.
The link could increase the capacity of electricity flowing between Scotland and England by 2,000 megawatts (MW).

This would be enough capacity to meet the electricity demands of more than four million homes per year, Scottish Power claimed.
The interconnector, which is known as the Western Link HVDC project, would open up the potential for Scottish wind power to be exported to the heavily populated areas of England that need new green sources of electricity.
It should be fully operational by 2016."- BBC

And if we are independent by then we can be selling them all that Scottish power instead!   

what? we pay for half of it and then you charge us for using 'our' cables? yeah thats going to work, nice try.

You only pay for half the cables- not all the Scottish electricity generated by wind farms being sent along them. You know from wind farms, those things the Westminster government derides and mocks and which the Tories campaign against saying they are inefficient, expensive and mar the beauty of England's green and pleasant land, but they are apparently happy enough to syphon out of our country for the benefit of England's electricity grid.

At least other countries have to be invaded first and fight wars before all their resources are taken by someone else, we must be the only country stupid enough just to give it all away   

The Radical Independence Campaign has launched a new targeted campaign to convince those suffering most from the British state of the case for a yes vote in the independence referendum: Britain is for the rich: Scotland can be Ours’.The campaign was heavily covered in the Sunday Herald, including this piece from RIC activist Jonathon Shafi explaining the new targeted campaign strategy.



The left nationalists new campaign for Scottish independence. No positive or rational alternative on offer. No hint of socialist politics. They are targeting deprived areas for their canvasing in favour of the SNP project of an independent capitalist scotland. Religious cults often also target poor areas with their pie in the sky message. I think the idea is that some people are so desperate that they are easy targets for the snake oil merchants. Shameful stuff

Pettytyrant101 wrote:You only pay for half the cables- not all the Scottish electricity generated by wind farms being sent along them. You know from wind farms, those things the Westminster government derides and mocks and which the Tories campaign against saying they are inefficient, expensive and mar the beauty of England's green and pleasant land, but they are apparently happy enough to syphon out of our country for the benefit of England's electricity grid.

At least other countries have to be invaded first and fight wars before all their resources are taken by someone else, we must be the only country stupid enough just to give it all away   

so why does Salmond boast of green energy while trying to sell 'Scottish oil' to anyone willing to buy it. seems like hypocracy to me.

Because we have an abundance of both- thanks entirely to the SNP pursuing the green agenda making Scotland one of the leading countries in engineering and producing green energy (you may have noticed we have a history of engineering stuff).

I had to look up the Radical Independence Campaign, Id never heard of them (nor had my mate who is here with me).

I am not sure how such a group qualifies as having 'No hint of socialist politics.' given the group appears to be made up of members of the green party, the Scottish Socialist Workers Party, anti-nuclear groups, the more militant end of the trade unionist movement and anti-monarchists - hard to imagine a more socialist set of parties.

Given the groups which make it up its hardly a surprise they target poor and deprived areas those are the core voters for the Socialist Party normally.

The Socialist Party currently have no MSP's in the Scottish Parliament, despite it having a PR system- so that tells you how influential they are.

Follow up to the nuclear leak incident. Seems it not just the SNP think its out of order-

'Labour has called for an inquiry into the disclosure of a radioactive fault found at a nuclear submarine reactor test site in the Scottish Highlands.
Labour now want a parliamentary inquiry into what went on.
In a letter to James Arbuthnot, chairman of the defence select committee, Labour's Shadow Scottish Secretary Margaret Curran and Shadow Defence Secretary Vernon Coaker said, "Significant questions were raised in the House regarding the two year delay in informing MPs, and the public, about this incident.
"It is critical that the public, particularly those who live close, have complete confidence in the safety regime that is in place."
They want clarity on:

Why Sepa were informed but not the Scottish Parliament

Why there was a nine month delay in informing Sepa
   
The operation of protocols between the MoD and the Scottish government."- BBC

So not just a SNP independence ploy, but as I said form the start a serious issue about who gets informed of what, when and why.
Especially when about 1/5th of the entire Scottish population lives within proximity of the place.

wow.   

That was largely my reaction too Figg!   

Although I did like the lines-


"I want a country that squanders its oil.
I want MP's as rich as the Royals.
I want your weapons
I want student fees
I want a country run by Tory MPs
I'm voting No"

Does no harm to highlight the consequences of voting no.

fixed that for you

"I want a country that sells its oil
I want SNP's as rich as the Royals.
I dont want your nuclear subs but
I want to join the NATO club
I want a country run by smug SNP's
I'm voting Yes"

Except a vote for independence is NOT a vote for the SNP- they dont get to automatically become the government you know.
And we do sell oil, and then give all the money from it straight to the Treasury who keep it.   
Scottish MSP's also dont get paid as much as their London counterparts and they dont fiddle their expenses (in fact Westminster eventually adopted some of the Scottish legislation after the MP's expenses scandal).
And joining NATO saves money as we retain radar coverage of our oil fields.
Ill give you the smug one as Salmond is smug, no one disagrees with that. Not even his friends.

Gordon Brown has re-entered the political fray to speak up for the Union, sort of.

He said-

"We need to build the future of the relationship between Scotland, England and the rest of the United Kingdom.
I believe there are six constitutional changes we have got to make for a better relationship between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, to turn what I would call a unitary and centralised state of the past into a partnership of equals and one where there is power-sharing across the United Kingdom."

One has to ask why he didnt seem to think this was necessary whilst he was PM and could have actually have done something about it.

At the same time the Lib Dems have been saying-

"The former Liberal Democrat leader said there was growing consensus that the Scottish Parliament's financial powers should be expanded to make it responsible for raising the taxes to pay for most of the money it spends, and that the institution should be entrenched permanently.
Speaking in Edinburgh, the North East Fife MP said: "Today's report makes a series of rational, reasonable and indeed radical recommendations by which this reform could take place. Equipping Scotland with more powers, what I regard as an early step for a federal UK, can be done.
2015 is the time when it should be done. To give a stable future for Scotland and the UK it must be done."

And even the Scottish Tories are getting in on it-

"The Scottish Conservatives have also been examining the issue of increasing the powers of the Scottish Parliament."

Though they dont say what powers, how or when.   

But the good news is that the SNP, by putting forward a positive looking case for the future of Scotland has seemingly forced all the Unionist parties towards a devomax style settlement they would never otherwise have offered.
So even if the independence referendum is lost we will end up in a considerably better situation than we have now.

And if they all promise this and then fail to deliver (as they did on the promises made to Scotland in the 70's)- well it will get interesting indeed!

ironically Scottish Independence will make England a less democratic place to live.

Someday I will understand what the heck is going on between Scotland and the rest of the UK...

ironically Scottish Independence will make England a less democratic place to live.- Mrs Figg

Why? (not that I disagree entirely I am just curious as to why you think so)

Someday I will understand what the heck is going on between Scotland and the rest of the UK...- Bungo

Thats easy Bungo- just imagine two countries, where all the money in one country goes to the other and they give you back a hand out to spend. And then imagine that that country can outvote your country in every election- so you only ever get ruled by the government the other country picks, making your vote obsolete.
And when imagine your country is one of the wealthiest in the world (if independent we'd be 6th on the list) but you are actually more like 16th because you dont get to keep any of the countries wealth.
Then imagine the other country has a massive imbalancing city, with a population equal to all the other cities in both countries added together which draws all the wealth, jobs and infrastructure to it.

If after all that youd still be happy being the country who has to give everything away to the other country then it will remain a mystery to you.

well it means that the Torys will have a strangle hold on power, because Scottish Labour MPs we would have got from Scotland will no longer be there to ensure a fairly well balanced two party system. Therefore condemning the English to a Tory future.

Hmmm, that does not sound enticing.

I suppose I could look all this up on Wiki and not pester anyone with my simpleminded American questions.

condemning the English to a Tory future.- Mrs Figg


Or forcing England to shift politically, which they might if they get another 18 years of Tory rule.
I imagine the north of England will still be leaning to Labour- it will be up to them to argue their position and convince more of England not to vote Tory.

We cant base the decision on our countries future on what may or may not happen in England politically afterwards.


Bungo your questions are more than welcome.

in other words 'you're on your own England tough titty'. Just hope theres never another Darien Scheme cos you'd be screwed.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Gordon Brown has re-entered the political fray to speak up for the Union, sort of.

He said-

"We need to build the future of the relationship between Scotland, England and the rest of the United Kingdom.
I believe there are six constitutional changes we have got to make for a better relationship between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, to turn what I would call a unitary and centralised state of the past into a partnership of equals and one where there is power-sharing across the United Kingdom."

One has to ask why he didnt seem to think this was necessary whilst he was PM and could have actually have done something about it.

At the same time the Lib Dems have been saying-

"The former Liberal Democrat leader said there was growing consensus that the Scottish Parliament's financial powers should be expanded to make it responsible for raising the taxes to pay for most of the money it spends, and that the institution should be entrenched permanently.
Speaking in Edinburgh, the North East Fife MP said: "Today's report makes a series of rational, reasonable and indeed radical recommendations by which this reform could take place. Equipping Scotland with more powers, what I regard as an early step for a federal UK, can be done.
2015 is the time when it should be done. To give a stable future for Scotland and the UK it must be done."

I'm frankly surprised to see the language of devolution appearing to extend beyond Scotland.
Does this really mean that there is some support for decentralization that might extend to Wales and Cornwall, for example?   

This could get really interesting!  

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Someday I will understand what the heck is going on between Scotland and the rest of the UK...- Bungo

Thats easy Bungo- just imagine two countries, where all the money in one country goes to the other and they give you back a hand out to spend. And then imagine that that country can outvote your country in every election- so you only ever get ruled by the government the other country picks, making your vote obsolete.
And when imagine your country is one of the wealthiest in the world (if independent we'd be 6th on the list) but you are actually more like 16th because you dont get to keep any of the countries wealth.
Then imagine the other country has a massive imbalancing city, with a population equal to all the other cities in both countries added together which draws all the wealth, jobs and infrastructure to it.

If after all that youd still be happy being the country who has to give everything away to the other country then it will remain a mystery to you.

you have been listening to a party political broadcast for the SNP.

seriously Bungo, make your own mind up after you see the other side of the debate. All the UK including England gets its money from central government and given a budget to spend. ALL of us. Scotland has democratically elected MPs just like England and if they dont like things they have as much power as any other MP, maybe more as they have control over education, health and the police. An English person has the same legal rights as a Scottish person and we all elect our own MPs, if those MPs are not doing their jobs thats another matter. As for the imbalance in population that is impossible to alter as most of the Highlands of Scotland are not inhabited. Scotland also gets a higher subsidy per head than an English person. As for the wealth, oil wont last forever and in the meantime Scotland is STILL one of the richest countries in Europe so this sense of victimhood is a bit hard to swallow.

I did some reading on wiki, and I understand that the referendum is being held in September, but I'm wondering why the UK would allow Scotland to vote on its own independence? And if it passed would they just let them go and be sovereign? What would this mean for the UK?

Also, do a majority of Scottish citizens want independence? Do they take polls on these sort of things? Would anyone (besides the queen) care if Scotland became independent?



(omg I feel so dumb posting in this thread.   )

Also, why only one "t" in Scotland, but two "t's" in Scottish?