FREEDOM!!!! [2]

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

because if it were spelled SCOTISH it would have to be pronounce "Scote-ish", and that would just be silly!  

bungobaggins wrote: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?

The British government allowed it because we are a democracy and the call for a referendum was listened to. So much for evil Westminster Petty likes to talk about. Also Scotland wants to be independent but keep the Queen, keep the Pound, and keep all the nice fluffy things that make money or are good for tourism. They also want to throw out those nasty Trident nuclear bases but yet weirdly stay part of NATO. A nuclear club.

First to answer Figgs points- Scotland does get more per head than England- because we put more in per head of population, and its still less than we would have per person if we were independent.
All revenue from any source raised in Scotland goes to the Treasury with the exception of the wealth of our coast line (the largest in Europe) which instead goes to the Crown.
The Scottish Government gets given a handout every year in return from Westminster to spend on devolved matters.

We do have democratically elected MPs but it makes little difference- Scotland votes left of centre, England votes right- we get right because they outnumber us.
The current UK government came third and fourth in the election in Scotland yet still end up in charge of us.

We do have devolved powers over certain areas, but none of the really important ones, like tax powers, benefits and crucially foreign policy- so despite poll after poll showing Scots dont want a nuclear fleet here, or for us to have nukes at all we have them based within 25miles of our densest population centre. And we have no say over which wars our sons and daughters are sent to fight in- thats up to Westminster. Despite Scots makn gup a sizeable percentage of UK forces.
Scotland for example would never have gone to war in Iraq- but we did because Westminster decided it.

Oill wont last forever- current predictions give it 50-70 years. However the international body which rates economies (the people who give the triple AAA ratings out) said that even without oil Scotland would qualify for a Triple AA rating thanks to our large export markets in whisky and marine produce (that revenue currently also goes south to the Treasury), tourist industry, as well as our generation of power and abundance of water.

As to NATO 3/4 of its member states are not nuclear countries- Norway is a prime similar sized example. There, and our importance to NATO is not the nukes, its strategic positioning for refuelling of NATO vessels and craft and use of our radar posts.

It is not a sense of victim-hood we have, its one of injustice and unfairness.



Bungo the polls vary a bit but the last put an 11 point difference between yes and no favouring No. However its worth bearing in mind the same polling companies said the SNP were 20 points behind before the last Scottish election which they won with an unprecedented landslide.
I think it will be close myself either way.

The Queen would remain the monarch, just as she is for the independent Commonwealth countries such as Australia.

"Does this really mean that there is some support for decentralization that might extend to Wales and Cornwall, for example?"- David

Cornwall I doubt, the north of England maybe, in time. Wales already has some devolved powers and a Welsh Parliament.
But these promises of future powers would not be happening at all if the polls hadn't been closing over recent times, this is the Unionist response to that. If there was no referendum these offers would not even be getting mentioned let alone promised.


Oh and to clarify something Figg said- the referendum came about against the wishes of Westminster- when Scotland got its Parliament it had a PR system designed, by Westminster own admission, "to ensure no one party could ever get a majority" by doing so this meant there would never be a referendum because all the parties could collectively vote it down so it never got passed. But then the SNP managed to get a majority and they of course immediately drafted the legislation for a referendum. Westminster had n legal choice but to go along with it. But this was never meant to happen from Westminster point of view.

firstly if your sons and daughters are in the army logic says they get sent to wars, its their job, or are soldiers for making flower arrangements? English Welsh and Irish soldiers also dont have a choice where they get stationed. this is a false argument.

''We do have democratically elected MPs but it makes little difference- Scotland votes left of centre, England votes right- we get right because they outnumber us''.

anyone in England who votes Labour is in the exact same boat as you. Also England does NOT Always vote Right. thats another false statement.

If Scotland were independent we would choose our own battles and have that decision to make here for Scottish citizens.
Having that decision making is an important part of being an independent country.
As it is its quite possible for a Westminster government with no democratic mandate in Scotland to make that decision for us. (the Tories for example who are currently the government have 1 MP in the entirety of Scotland- as the joke goes there are more pandas than Tories in Scotland)

England has voted right more often than left in my life time- in fact they only time they did vote Labour was for Blair, who had to move the party to the right of the Tories to get elected in England.
You can trace the Scottish collapse of the Labour party and rise of the SNP from that point in history.
We got 18 years of Tory rule under Thatcher and Major that we never once voted for.

But they would have had a say in whether or not their troops were deployed in the first place, right?

US invades Iraq, an independent Scotland wouldn't automatically deploy their troops as well just because the UK were doing it?

Simulpost with Petty.

And I feel a heated Figgs/Petty "discussion" coming on.

US invades Iraq, an independent Scotland wouldn't automatically deploy their troops as well just because the UK were doing it?- Bungo

Highly unlikely. Scotland both politically and in terms of demonstrations from the people were utterly against it. Its very unlikely Scotland would have gone along with it had we been independent as we would have required UN sanction to do so or our legal system would not have allowed it, it would have been an illegal war (which it was).

In fairness the people of England were no more in favour of it than we were, Blair ignored everyone on that call.

  dont worry Bungo its all handbags   

 Healthy to and fro!

   

  

Pettytyrant101 wrote:

In fairness the people of England were no more in favour of it than we were, Blair ignored everyone on that call.

I wonder how long before a new, independent Scottish government will find a way to ignore its people.....

Probably not long- but its harder to do Id say in a smaller country where the people can come round, set fire to your parliament and still be home in time for tea.
More seriously politicians ignore people they dont need. If they need your vote they are more likely not to ignore you.
Its easy for Tories to ignore Scotland as there is only 1 lonely Tory MP here and they dont need our votes to win anything.

Well... same principle will apply, just with less people. I am sure it will be easy for the SNP to ignore the people of the Outer Hebrides when they don't need their vote later on (random example not based on any factual information). You might be one of the ignored!!

Its possible but there has been more homogeny in what Scotland votes for than in England. Left of centre, whether thats Lib Dem or labour.
The SNP may cease to exist if Independence is won.

bungobaggins wrote: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?

The British government tried refusing to let a part of the country become independent through democratic processes before. It didn't work out so well.

{{{Yes, I know this is a massive simplification.}}}

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

I'm no fan of the Tories, but if a majority of English voters choose them ... how does it make it undemocratic?

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Its possible but there has been more homogeny in what Scotland votes for than in England. Left of centre, whether thats Lib Dem or labour.
The SNP may cease to exist if Independence is won.

I wouldn't be surprised if a faction of the SNP (the "Tartan Tories") split off to create a new, Scottish-oriented conservative party to fill the void in the center-right after independence. And if Scottish Labour is able to do their own thing and/or is forced to embrace independence by the fact that it happened, I suspect they'd regain some of their popularity.

Eldorion wrote:

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

I'm no fan of the Tories, but if a majority of English voters choose them ... how does it make it undemocratic?

The majority of English voters dont choose them. we dont have proportional representation, it goes on how many MP seats they get. In theory there may actually be more people who vote Labour but Torys still win.

Does that actually happen often? I'd assume that the districts are all roughly the same in population, so winning a majority of votes in a majority of districts should (usually) equate to an overall majority as well.

not sure its that easy

Eldorion wrote:

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Its possible but there has been more homogeny in what Scotland votes for than in England. Left of centre, whether thats Lib Dem or labour.
The SNP may cease to exist if Independence is won.

I wouldn't be surprised if a faction of the SNP (the "Tartan Tories") split off to create a new, Scottish-oriented conservative party to fill the void in the center-right after independence.  And if Scottish Labour is able to do their own thing and/or is forced to embrace independence by the fact that it happened, I suspect they'd regain some of their popularity.

they dont need to faction of, the SNP are full on capitalists pretending to have socialist cred.

Since the SNP have been in power they have championed and more importantly delivered free education, a nationalised NHS, free prescription charges, free travel for the elderly and a freeze on council tax.
They have nothing to prove regards cred, they have delivered.
Yes they also favour business friendly policies, but as that increases inward investment, jobs and therefore overall taxation thats not a problem for so long as they keep delivering the sort of socialist policies Scotland favours. Which they have done for many years now.
The 'tartan tories' label was put on them by a desperate Sottish Labour party trying to win back voters. But it stands no scrutiny at all and only they use the term or think it has any substance- the voters certainly didnt.
If they had thought there was truth in it the SNP would not have won a majority, just take a look at the way the Lib Dem vote collapsed in Scotland after they got into coalition with Tories.
It was this toxicty of the Tory brand Labour were hoping to pin the SNP with. It failed, spectacularly.