| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
cuthill76
Finding Ma' Way
Joined: 21 Oct 2009
Posts: 3
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:17 pm Post subject: The unionist position |
 |
|
To the unionists.
Can you please clarify your position on why being part of the Union is a good thing? Can you please do this by providing tangible reasons and please avoid simply negative attacks on the nationalist position.
I am interesting in hearing unionist arguements that address items such as:
1. Levels of social deprevation in urban areas
2. Continuing rural depopulation
3. Why Scotland compares so poorly to other similiar European countries
4. Reasons why an oil fund is a bad idea or not required
It seems to me that although some people may not like the nationalist position at least it offers a positive outlook for the country and unfortunately that is far more than can be said of any of the unionist parties.
From my point of view it seems to be vote Lab/Con/Lib get more of the same. What have they done in the last 50 years? Yeh sure everybody is better off but that's called progress in the 1st world and why is that we still trail behind countries such as Norway?
Finally why is it that the bulk of arguments in favour of the union tend to be scare stories? Commonly of the you are too wee / too stupid variety, which are incredible insulting to say the least.
Perhaps someone from the unionist side can add something positive to encourage debate.
Thanks,
Iain
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Alasdair
Our Scotland = 2nd Job!
Joined: 01 May 2008
Posts: 1021
Location: Clydesdale
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stevie
Independentist
Joined: 22 Nov 2008
Posts: 1179
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 3:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If you are to hear the unionists' arguments on the positive aspects of the union, I think we should address the current state of their thinking :
I've no doubt Aventinian will wax lyrical and we'll have one of his treatise on the evils of nationalism and the benefits of the status quo (Brit talk for 'I'm a Brit Nat') but ultimately let's look at the three Brit parties :
LABOUR
the Labour party did a great thing by pushing a national health service into being not long after WWII.
Currently, however, they seem to be trying to embrace the wily ways of Thatcherism and are desperate to privatize it but don't know how to get away with it.
So, really, since the NHS and some development of council housing and social care (the norm throughout most European countries) the Labour party have become the Monty Python dead budgie of politics.
The voters know it; the trade union movement knows it and they know it.
This budgie is dead.
No it' isn't.
Yes it is.
(picks up budgie and hits it against the pet shop sales counter)
Dead, dead, dead!
The 1970s argument (of which Neil Kinnock was fond of shouting) was that a larger British union would have more power than a smaller English or Scottish union to demand rights, conditions and pay. This is of course historic and was destroyed during Thatcher's era and Blair's too come to that. GB is strangling the trade unions with his wide range of blue ties as we speak.
TORIES
The Tories, well, they are the CBI's plaything and their 'Days of Empire' dreaming Brits. The least said about their machinations the better. Suffice to say, Thatcher was the wart on their face but it is still their face. Curiously, they're a fairly powerless lot in some ways because they represent a particular proportion of the population (mostly the English population at the moment) and they don't really have a message that is for the large majority of the population. They will oppose the break up of the union till Queen Victoria is resurrected from the dead.
LIBDEMS
Th LibDems... don't really know what to make of them. They strike me as closet Tories that don't quite have the heart to join the Thatcherite legions and they simply can't stand those horrible common Labour chaps.
So getting an argument in favour of the union has to based on these preconceptions.
_________________
Every man dies, not every man really lives.
Alba gu bràth!
Last edited by Stevie on Thu Oct 22, 2009 3:35 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
landg
This is Ma' Life!
Joined: 05 Aug 2009
Posts: 617
Location: awaiting approval by a mod/admin
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 5:29 pm Post subject: Re: The unionist position |
|
|
| cuthill76 wrote: | To the unionists.
Can you please clarify your position on why being part of the Union is a good thing? Can you please do this by providing tangible reasons and please avoid simply negative attacks on the nationalist position.
I am interesting in hearing unionist arguements that address items such as:
1. Levels of social deprevation in urban areas
2. Continuing rural depopulation
3. Why Scotland compares so poorly to other similiar European countries
4. Reasons why an oil fund is a bad idea or not required
It seems to me that although some people may not like the nationalist position at least it offers a positive outlook for the country and unfortunately that is far more than can be said of any of the unionist parties.
From my point of view it seems to be vote Lab/Con/Lib get more of the same. What have they done in the last 50 years? Yeh sure everybody is better off but that's called progress in the 1st world and why is that we still trail behind countries such as Norway?
Finally why is it that the bulk of arguments in favour of the union tend to be scare stories? Commonly of the you are too wee / too stupid variety, which are incredible insulting to say the least.
Perhaps someone from the unionist side can add something positive to encourage debate.
Thanks,
Iain |
tbh it's not worth the hassle or the time.
but i've seen or heard nothing from nationalists to suggest anything would be any different never mind better.
and stop with the wee/stupid crap. it's a nationalist mind trick and manipulation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reluctant Hero
Jim Baxter is God...........really!!!!
Joined: 17 Sep 2005
Posts: 3178
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 8:29 pm Post subject: Re: The unionist position |
|
|
| landg wrote: | | tbh it's not worth the hassle or the time. |
e.g. There are no good reasons for the Union 
_________________
Visit the Our Scotland Blog at http://our-scotland.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stevie
Independentist
Joined: 22 Nov 2008
Posts: 1179
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:35 pm Post subject: Re: The unionist position |
|
|
| landg wrote: | he hassle or the time.
but i've seen or heard nothing from nationalists to suggest anything would be any different never mind better.
and stop with the wee/stupid crap. it's a nationalist mind trick and manipulation. |
I see we're in a pleasant mood this evening.
No, it's not a nationalists' mind trick; the last Holyrood elections allowed the Labour party to insult the Scots with this very line of attack (which proved irritating to the Scots... they never learn). So you've decided to start saying it's the nationalists who are inventing stuff...
No need to dear landg, no need to.
_________________
Every man dies, not every man really lives.
Alba gu bràth! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fidget
Standing in a Council Ward
Joined: 21 Jan 2007
Posts: 556
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:42 pm Post subject: Re: The unionist position |
|
|
| cuthill76 wrote: |
I am interesting in hearing unionist arguements that address items such as:
1. Levels of social deprevation in urban areas
2. Continuing rural depopulation
3. Why Scotland compares so poorly to other similiar European countries
4. Reasons why an oil fund is a bad idea or not required |
1. This will be a thing of the past in an Independent Scotland.
2. This will be a thing of the past in an Independent Scotland.
3. This will be a thing of the past in an Independent Scotland.
4. This will be a thing of the past in an Independent Scotland.
Not much of an argument addressing any of the points, I agree. But it is the answers you are thinking. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stevie
Independentist
Joined: 22 Nov 2008
Posts: 1179
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The usual positive waves emanating from the onionists.
_________________
Every man dies, not every man really lives.
Alba gu bràth! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Red Justice
This is Ma' Life!
Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Posts: 758
Location: Kirkcaldy, Fife
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 10:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am pissed off. Can I tell you I support independence for Scotland and I am a socialist.
_________________
“For socialists, independence is not about the colour or type of flag flying on our public buildings. It is about creating a better society. It is about putting people before profit"
Tommy Sheridan
http://scottishsocfree.blogspot.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kevin
No Longer a Wean
Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Posts: 59
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 11:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Red Justice wrote: | | I am pissed off. Can I tell you I support independence for Scotland and I am a socialist. |
I support Scottish independence, despite not living in Scotland, and I am a capitalist. 
_________________
"Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak, and that it is doing God's service when it is violating all his laws." - John Adams |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alasdair
Our Scotland = 2nd Job!
Joined: 01 May 2008
Posts: 1021
Location: Clydesdale
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
landg
This is Ma' Life!
Joined: 05 Aug 2009
Posts: 617
Location: awaiting approval by a mod/admin
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 7:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| i'am also a capitalist. socialism died many years ago, never to return thankfully. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
William_Cleland
I need ma own bl**dy forum!
Joined: 22 Apr 2007
Posts: 1180
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 7:59 am Post subject: Re: The unionist position |
|
|
| cuthill76 wrote: | | To the unionists. |
In reality maybe only about 10 to 20% of Scotland's population can sensibly be viewed as unionist (i.e believe that the UK is the nation and Scotland is only a region and oppose separate national government in Scotland on that basis as they would prefer a conventional unitary British nation state), while only another 20 to 25% can sensibly be viewed as nationalist (i.e. completely reject the UK and prefer an independent Scottish nation state). Most people in Scotland can comfortably accomodate a high level of ambiguity as to what represents the nation (my avatar is a classic manifestation of that from the 74 World Cup finals in West Germany) and are pragmatic (i.e. open to persuasion either way) on the question of independence. I'd place myself firmly in the pragmatist category personally and don't altogether appreciate it when I get pigeon-holed as a "(u/U)nionist" on here by people who like to see everything as being neatly polarised in nationalist vs unionist terms and stereotype people on that basis.
I don't believe that independence would make much difference where urban deprivation and rural depopulation are concerned. Might help a bit but I don't believe there is a magic wand available based on the location of the national capital that can suddenly solve problems that arise primarily from changes in the global economy. I also see no reason why Scotland couldn't have an oil fund in the context of the UK when Alberta is able to do it as a province of Canada.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberta_Heritage_Fund
If the Barnett Formula ever gets scrapped and Holyrood is expected to fund itself from taxation raised in Scotland on the basis of fiscal autonomy rather than through a block grant from overall UK taxation an oil fund could emerge down the road.
_________________
No more boom and bust - Gordon Brown |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
landg
This is Ma' Life!
Joined: 05 Aug 2009
Posts: 617
Location: awaiting approval by a mod/admin
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 9:55 am Post subject: Re: The unionist position |
|
|
| William_Cleland wrote: | | cuthill76 wrote: | | To the unionists. |
In reality maybe only about 10 to 20% of Scotland's population can sensibly be viewed as unionist (i.e believe that the UK is the nation and Scotland is only a region and oppose separate national government in Scotland on that basis as they would prefer a conventional unitary British nation state), while only another 20 to 25% can sensibly be viewed as nationalist (i.e. completely reject the UK and prefer an independent Scottish nation state). Most people in Scotland can comfortably accomodate a high level of ambiguity as to what represents the nation (my avatar is a classic manifestation of that from the 74 World Cup finals in West Germany) and are pragmatic (i.e. open to persuasion either way) on the question of independence. I'd place myself firmly in the pragmatist category personally and don't altogether appreciate it when I get pigeon-holed as a "(u/U)nionist" on here by people who like to see everything as being neatly polarised in nationalist vs unionist terms and stereotype people on that basis.
I don't believe that independence would make much difference where urban deprivation and rural depopulation are concerned. Might help a bit but I don't believe there is a magic wand available based on the location of the national capital that can suddenly solve problems that arise primarily from changes in the global economy. I also see no reason why Scotland couldn't have an oil fund in the context of the UK when Alberta is able to do it as a province of Canada.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberta_Heritage_Fund
If the Barnett Formula ever gets scrapped and Holyrood is expected to fund itself from taxation raised in Scotland on the basis of fiscal autonomy rather than through a block grant from overall UK taxation an oil fund could emerge down the road. |
60-70% vote for unioists parties = 20% are only really unionists.
30-40% vote for independence oarties = 25% are only really nationalists.
that is a quite stunning piece of spin. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stevie
Independentist
Joined: 22 Nov 2008
Posts: 1179
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 3:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| landg wrote: | | i'am also a capitalist. socialism died many years ago, never to return thankfully. |
Capitalism has a limited lifespan, it just cost the taxpayer £170 billion... it'll die and be replaced with a form of socialism (albeit weak).
_________________
Every man dies, not every man really lives.
Alba gu bràth! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kevin
No Longer a Wean
Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Posts: 59
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 5:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Stevie wrote: | | landg wrote: | | i'am also a capitalist. socialism died many years ago, never to return thankfully. |
Capitalism has a limited lifespan, it just cost the taxpayer £170 billion... it'll die and be replaced with a form of socialism (albeit weak). |
What capitalism cost the taxpayer £170 billion? I wasn't aware that the UK had a capitalist economy any more than the US does.
_________________
"Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak, and that it is doing God's service when it is violating all his laws." - John Adams |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shagpile
This is Ma' Life!
Joined: 03 Jan 2006
Posts: 794
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 5:52 pm Post subject: Re: The unionist position |
|
|
| William_Cleland wrote: | | If the Barnett Formula ever gets scrapped and Holyrood is expected to fund itself from taxation raised in Scotland on the basis of fiscal autonomy rather than through a block grant from overall UK taxation an oil fund could emerge down the road. |
Now there's a point.
The Barnett formula..... a kind of Socialist thingy.
The UK a reforming Euro-Capitalist State, swallowing up big helpings of American Capitalism (ala Maggie T., continued and accelerated by Tony B.).
The only socialism we've seen come out of the USA in recent years is the bail-out of ever-so-wealthy banks and insurance companies.
Maybe because Scotland is bailing out the rest of the UK at the moment makes the Barnett formula a good thingy; in a scocialist sense, but me personally........ I'd be well shot of it.
I'm all for full fiscal autonomy though...... the independent type. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dave Coull
Independentista
Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Posts: 2809
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 6:21 pm Post subject: Re: The unionist position |
|
|
| William_Cleland wrote: | | see no reason why Scotland couldn't have an oil fund in the context of the UK when Alberta is able to do it as a province of Canada. |
History.
Canada doesn't have an awful lot of it, Alberta has even less. This shortage of history makes it possible to have such an arrangement without anybody getting too agitated about the arrangement at either provincial or federal level. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
William_Cleland
I need ma own bl**dy forum!
Joined: 22 Apr 2007
Posts: 1180
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 6:24 am Post subject: Re: The unionist position |
|
|
| Shagpile wrote: | | I'm all for full fiscal autonomy though...... the independent type. |
Sure but that isn't the only potential outcome on fiscal autonomy as I am sure you are aware. The devolution package of 1997 was designed primarily for the benefit of the Labour Party. It can't sensibly be viewed as a stable constitutional settlement until the Tories have been in power and have grappled with the issues related to the Barnett formula and the West Lothian Question. How that unfolds remains to be seen. Given the drastic cuts to public spending that are going to be required due to the UK's current debt crisis, the Barnett formula will be a sure recipe for confrontation between Holyrood and Westminster in the years ahead, which might make fiscal autonomy for Scotland more attractive to the Conservatives than it otherwise might have been prior to the credit crunch.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/commen...d-tears-facing-David-Cameron.html
There is a point which David Cameron likes to make in his speeches at the moment: that the Government's plan for reducing the deficit over the next four years will merely bring the national overdraft down to the level it reached in 1976, when Denis Healey had to beg a loan from the International Monetary Fund. "You see?" he is trying to say, "we aren't even in the foothills of the austerity Alps we have to climb: we need to go further, faster."
That Labour experience remains the relevant one for every politician who will be around after polling day to play a part, large or small, in the collective effort that lies ahead. In the Treasury and in Tory HQ, what happened a generation ago is being pored over for lessons that might help get us out of the black hole we are in. Unlike the Canadian fiscal rescue of the 1990s – itself a rich source of possible solutions – it has the advantage of being a very British crisis....
_________________
No more boom and bust - Gordon Brown |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shagpile
This is Ma' Life!
Joined: 03 Jan 2006
Posts: 794
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 8:11 am Post subject: Re: The unionist position |
|
|
| William_Cleland wrote: | | Shagpile wrote: | | I'm all for full fiscal autonomy though...... the independent type. |
Sure but that isn't the only potential outcome on fiscal autonomy as I am sure you are aware. The devolution package of 1997 was designed primarily for the benefit of the Labour Party. It can't sensibly be viewed as a stable constitutional settlement until the Tories have been in power and have grappled with the issues related to the Barnett formula and the West Lothian Question. How that unfolds remains to be seen. Given the drastic cuts to public spending that are going to be required due to the UK's current debt crisis, the Barnett formula will be a sure recipe for confrontation between Holyrood and Westminster in the years ahead, which might make fiscal autonomy for Scotland more attractive to the Conservatives than it otherwise might have been prior to the credit crunch. |
Yes, I agree to a point. Don't forget the Lib Dems though. It was also designed for them too.... devolution would result in them being in coalition with Labour in the Parliament. As every one expected, it was those parties which formed the government; although it was not called a government until McLiesh called it that and felt Labour's full wrath for that assertion.
I'm pretty sure it was their intention to 'roll out' their coallessed governance throughout the Regional Assemblies of England, had the Regional Parliaments/Assemblies been acceptable to the English electorate.
Of the 'Big Three', the Torys have been the most pragmatic. Fingers burned with the Poll Tax fiasco..... they are alone as Unionists in wishing to see Devolution work and are "U-Turnedly" (if that's a word) signed up to the concept.
Now, Labour are "Not opposed to the referendum in principle", but say it's the wrong time. Last week it was reported on CNN that the UK will see shoots of recovery and have positive growth in 2010. That ought to curb their objections to a referendum. Scotland will still be in surplus anyway..... What will they base continued opposition to the referendum on?
Back to the Torys again for a moment, it's worth bearing in mind that it is their party supporters which are the most dynamic in support for independence, which may well be the reason for the desire from the Tory leadership in Scotland not to rock the "devolution boat".
I have a feeling that the political make up in an independent Scotland would be Torys; right of centre, SNP; left of cente. Natural coalition partners for the Torys would be a smaller Labour party. Natural coalition for the SNP would be The Lib Dems, The Greens and the SSP etc.
So, I don't believe the Torys will ever be in power in Scotland this side of independence.
Labour and the Conservatives, what ever the result in Westminster WILL persue cuts in spending. Where and when these cuts will be imposed and how they affect recovery is yet to be seen. An independent Scotland in surplus need not endure these cuts.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
