Eh! Mr Cameron said whit!

wisnaeme · Eh! Mr Cameron said whit!

.
I have just heard and seen the tory leader, Mr Cameron on the telly say," Scotland could go it alone but I would prefer if it remained within the union. Confused

Aventinian

I don't like Cameron that much when it comes to political policy, but he is fast becoming the premier advocate for British Union. He has been saying a lot of things I agree with, and I think the people of Scotland broadly agree with.

wisnaeme · Re: Eh! Mr Cameron said whit!

The_Unionist

He was making the point that, as we asll know, the economic argument has lost credibility and that an independent Scotland would be able to work...However, he is clearly stating his viewpoint as being for the continued union, for many other reasons than economic ones.

Avatar

"He was making the point that, as we asll know, the economic argument has lost credibility and that an independent Scotland would be able to work"

What happened to the (to quote you from another thread) "economically the figures don't stack up....What is the argument?" Unionist that we all know and love? Very Happy

Avatar

Well I wouldnt be suprised if Mr Cameron was secretly hoping for an SNP victory in May - it would certinly make his life easier.

Aventinian · Re: Eh! Mr Cameron said whit!

George · Re: Eh! Mr Cameron said whit!

Aventinian

My objections on all three are already to be found on this site, restated quite a few times. All the regulars here know my stance and I don't really have the time or inclination to repeat it every time a newbie comes along.

George

Highlander

Of course Scotland could go it alone. However, that sentence does not imply that Scotland would be successful going alone. That is the crux. If and I repeat if the electorate of Scotland voted for an independence party that then ended up with a referendum and the referendum got a yes to going it "alone". Then I would watch, laugh and join as the bright and talented young people of Scotland left in large numbers for a brighter future.

wisnaeme

patriot1320

wisnaeme

Avatar

Aventinian

Avatar

"Oh, sorry, I forgot that scary looking woman from River City, didn't I?"#

You thought she was scary looking? you should check out the video of her at the independence first march if you havent allready http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0isMWmwfO34

iIt was like suddenly finding yourself in a David Lynch film.

Highlander

Just watched that video. I cannot understand a word she is saying. I can't really tell, what language was it?

Avatar

Aventinian

Classic! I love the part where she starts randomly going mental. You can actually hear the audience pissing themselves.

Morph

Yeah someone should have taken her out for the sake of Scottish independance Laughing

The_Unionist

Economically, it is possible. However, it would mean some big spending cuts;). So, it could be done, but as part of a UK Scotland gets a better deal.

Corby Boy

Usual Unionist diatribe.

The_Unionist

Well, that's not an argument. All that I am stating is that, although Scottish contributions to the UK tax pot are larger as a region, what it takes out per person in social security etc is on average £2000 more than in other UK regions. Scotland does get a better deal. So, independence, economically viable, yes, BUT it would require a new Scottish state to have some VERY careful thoughts about how they would spend the lower amounts of money that it would have.

IF Convenor

I just want to say that I thought Joyce Falconer was the star of the Independence First rally. She was a welcome antidote to the endless parade of career politicians who went before her.

Highlander, you ignorant prick, who needs external enemies when there are fools like you who are prepared to make stupid mocking points about the way most people in Scotland speak. For your information (though I doubt it'll sink in) she is from Aberdeen and she was speaking Aberdonian Doric. I understood every word and I'm sure even you understood most of it despite your protestations.

Rinty · y

Highlander

I still don't have a clue what she was saying. It was a foreign language.

IF Convenor

So Doric is a foreign language in Scotland? How do you define Lallans or Gaelic? How do you define Estuary English? If you have no trouble understanding Eastenders are we to assume that you do not consider the dialect of the south east of England a foreign language?

Niall

An Gaidhealtachan a charaid.
Thu sgriob:

garye

Aventinian

garye

The_Unionist

Rinty wrote:

Quote:
what it takes out per person in social security etc is on average £2000 more than in other UK regions.

More than SOME UK regions not all. What you are looking at is a figure widely used but often not understood that refers to the difference between per head public subsidy in Scotland as opposed to the UK average not all other Uk regions. It is also not just social security etc as you put it, it is a figure used by unionists for all publci subsidy as a total. Therefore subsidised ferry services and vital link to Scotlands islands are divied up as a subsidy between all scots etc.

In taking this figure you are taking the UK as a whole and Scotland as a whole.

People in Perthshire are subsidised far less than people in Merseyside. Edinburgh less than Tyneside.

It is not a figure that can just be thrown around outside of its proper context.

It is also a figure that fails to take in many aspects of where money is made and where it is spent.

You shouldnt use it unless you understand what it is and what its implications are. Much of it IS in social security and benefit payments, therefore if we have more ill people then measures to combat health problems would reduce that. Do we have worse health simply because we are scots are are their political and social reasons for that?

If you, as you claim, believe in a UK, then you should see such payments as money to be distributed on need and not counted as one region being a drain.

---

You have missed the point entirely. I do not see Scotland as a drain, but as an important economic part of the UK, just as Greater London or the North East of England are imporant. The point that I was making was that on its own, Scotland would not benefit from these higher payments (which it does deserve in the UK), as they would not balance out! Your comments seem simply to undermine your own pro-independence position. Scotland is not a drain, it contrubtes more, and gets back even more out of being UK.

garye

The_Unionist

The unionist said Scotland contributes over its fair share to the UK exchequer, but gets more than over its fair share back out of it.

macnumpty

The_Unionist

See this thread. Scotland's contributions, although higher than other parts of the UK are balanced out by the higher payouts to the average Scot. I have no problem with this, as any region of the UK should get whatever help it so needs, but an independent Scotland would not be able to keep up this higher level of public spending with the current level of taxation (although with Mr Brown's poor management you never know)

SLG

The_Unionist

Whatever the aconomic arguments are, and there are many conflicting reports, I still support the union...If I were so impassioned about the economic argument, I would try to get the spending evened out again...And I would support you..I believe in equal distribution of public services throughout the United Kingdom. And I don't see why the United Kingdom's oil has to be a major factor...The figures of money into Scotland don't count resources found elsewhere in the UK...It will soon be too expensive to get it out anyway..until far into the future...when a barrel of crude really does get expensive. Sad

...although that should have a positive environmental impact..hmm....So would your independent Scotland have climate change on the agenda?

garye

SLG

Aventinian

SLG

wisnaeme

FALSYDE

Aventian I think when you gave us a list of three reasons your response was stretching credulity a bit, Really stretching it.

Can I pop another couple up, pride in one's nation the oldest nation state in Europe and perhaps another would be that every relationship runs its course, I think a lot of people might agree with me that this relationship with England is now a busted flush.

If, as we often have it rammed down our throat, England subsidies Scotland by this or that thousand per head of population, what does that say about the English? Daft or what. Since when did ANY sovereign government claim and actually pay out billions in subsidy for centuries while not seeking a return? None I can think of.

In that event, why would England want to maintain the status quo, were it not for her self interest. Personally, I don't think it has anything to do with our scenery as they seem to plan on trashing that with wind farms so what could it be? Deep in thought like many others in our mother country we see an insidious form of rape, natural resources such as oil and gas today, and a market and military manpower yesterday.

Personally I see the fact that our culture has been and is being subjourned and eroded. Due to the over weaning ambition of our Scottish Labour politicians who see the need themsleves to maintain the Union in order to sustain themselves on the greater stage, Scottish history is no longer taqught in our schools, that is imperialism at it's worst. The most recent examples being Blair and perhaps god forbid Brown, if not Brown maybe Reid or Darling or Alexander [on second thoughts scrub that last one, he is a sleekit wee prat not even the Englsih would put up with him].

What I think you are doing, with all due respect, is pissing in the wind hoping the light at the end of the tunnel is not the independence train. There comes a time in any 'movement' that it eventually gains sufficent momentum as to be unstoppable, I think and hope that this will be the case but I see how you might feel otherwise. I would, like everyone else [nearly], like to think that the 300th anniversary would be the day but realistically it might well not be until 2011 but if it is, with luck I should manage to hang on 'till then.

Given your clear adherence to the Union I can imagine you would be a bit frantic but it will not be the dire result you imagine. I have visited, lived and worked in several countries including Finland, Sweden, Norway and Danmark and with similar populations, three of whom have not the same resources as we do, they are doing ALRIGHT and I get exasperated when folk suggest our people are somehow not fit to run our own country when we seem to have them running the UK. Something odd about that argument wouldn't you say.

A list of Scottish UK PM's comes to mind Lord Bute, Ramsay MacDonald, Harold MacMillan, Alex Douglas Hume, Blair, and wanna bees like Brown. Surely I must have missed some. We can do it Aventian - just watch us.

Nearly forgot what about the Scots who ran Australia, Canada, Hong Kong and New Zealand.

Highlander

Aventinian

Aventinian

Highlander

I studied history at high school not even 10 years ago and there was definitely Scottish in there. I did the wars of independence crap. So I have no idea why people say "Scottish" history is not taught in schools. I was also taught British history, which by definition is also Scottish history.

Avatar

"Now if you are referring to Scotland in that statement then it is wrong. Scotland is not a nation-state."

He was refering to Scotland pre-union I believe - so no hes not wrong

As for "Why? Scotland is not mono-ethnic and this country or nation has never been mono-ethnic. So it is impossible to be a nation-state."

well thats just completely random jibber jabber which makes no sense whatsoever.

"Next point, how do you are argue that Scotland is the oldest nation-state in Europe or in fact the oldest anything in Europe? Explain"

interesting point - I have heard this being claimed before - I imagined that it had something to do with the declaration of Arbroath being some sort of historical reference to a national self awareness (first of its kind?) - although I dont know tbh but i'd be interested to hear more about this also..

"As for every relationship running its course, we are still a part of the global 'society' of nations and we should be outward looking, not taking steps backwards. An Internationalist will argue for further power-sharing, not the myth of national sovereignty. That's what I think has run its course. "

but surely once we all become integrated into the EU there will be absolutely no point in the union anymore - westminster will become an extra layer of buerocracy - most issues will be dealt with at Holyrood - and the issues that westminister currently deal with will be dealt with by Brussels. In fact its the unionists that should be more outward looking and not holding on to the past, not the nationalist.

"Come off it. I was taught Scottish history at school and my siblings' children are being taught it right now. The Wars of Independence are a staple of school history alone with WWII and bloody ancient Egypt. "

well I was at secondry school up until 2000 - and we studied the russian revolution, ww1 , ww2, the industrial revolution(which included a bit of Scottish history), the cold war and that was it.

SLG

SLG

The_Unionist

I agree with the history bit...All over the UK, local and regional history is not being taught. The current England and Wales GCSE sylabus comprises of Nazi Germany, the Weimar republic, the treaty of Versailles, Roosevelt's New Deal and a small amount on the liberal reforms...it's a disgrace

patriot1320

I would also agree, I was never taught Scottish history at school but was taught about World War 1 and 2... When I left school at the age of 16 I became interested in Scottish politics then thought, damn!! What did happen in Scotland? So I read up about Scottish history and that’s what made me a nationalist.

British teaching in Scottish schools surely must have a set curriculum. So it must be the decision of the head teacher within Scottish schools to teach Scottish history.

I believe the unionist minds of labour and Tory set the curriculum to a purely unfair and British one. As this would only help there cause further down the line.

I believe anyone who learns about Scottish history will more than likely support independence. But I hated history when I was at school so I never soaked up bullshit about WWI or WWII. But I do believe schools in Scotland should teach history from the very beginning to the present day.

What do unionist know about the union eh !!!

The_Unionist

"I believe anyone who learns about Scottish history will more than likely support independence. "

If you believe that then you don't have faith in people to let go of grudges

Aventinian

Or indeed to live in the present.

Personally by learning the early history of Scotland, I made myself far more likely to hate anyone who claims to be 'a Scot'.

patriot1320

I also think that unionists know nothing about the union.

Tell me what it is you support about it?

Kendomacaroonbar

FALSYDE

In Highlander's post he rebutes my claim that Scotland caould be consdiered a nation state, let along the oldest one in Europe. Perhaps he might like to read the recently published book by Prof Bryan Sykes on the genetic make up of the British Isles in which the much vaunted claim by the Shetlanders e.g. that they are Vickings is tosh, only 40% have the male and female Norse lineage, the rest are still full on Picts. As to the rest of Scotland the male and female Celtic genome stands at never less than 80-90%. How homogenous do we have to be. The worst is still to come, the so called English have also got very little non Celtic genes in their makeup. The non Celtic lement of the English genome is as one would expect concentrated in little around the east coast. It is as if the Normans had never existed, in any event their genome was mostly Norse with quite a bit of Celtic from e.g. Brittanny. That should not surprise, ergo france was is known as Gaul = Celtic, as in Galicia, Portu'gal'

Gentically Scotland is a rock solid Celtic country, why else would be be fighting each other on this posting site?

Virtually everybody in the British Isles are descended from 7 women ........ good evening brothers and sisters!!!!!!!!

Aventian is of the view that I am being overly cynical, YES I am and it has something to do with the sickening hypocracy and self serving outlook of most, but not all, of our politicians going back a lone way. It is in our nature as a beast to be self serving to some degree however I don't find it any more acceptable foreby. My wife tells me I should just enjoy looming retirement, continue developing the garden and avoid the grief, she is of course quite right but being English, probably one of the few geneticly obvious Sassunach, whilst I love her dearly she cannot get into or under the skin of us Celts and why should she. The bottom line is this is my country, the current cohort of Holyrood politicians are bastards, most of them are our bastards and I have and demand higher expectations for my fellow countrymen and my country. I, like most of you on this posting, expect and demand better, we might well differ as to how that should be done and I am 100% certain that post independence we will all revert to type and fight like ferrets in a sack.

Perhaps I am overly aggressive and not nearly objective enough but I loath the status quo politically. It is simply not good enough Aventian, sorry to be blunt, but the 'subsidy issue' cannot be ducked so lightly as you have, it is rammed down our throats as a given for decades and decades, and even in todays' papers our Uncle Tom TB says we will riun everything, da da da da, etc. Bol.................ks.

On the subject of history teaching, I spent 7 years on the PTA for my kids secondary school and up till I left ten years ago there was no reall teaching of Scottish history, British of course but successive Unionist governments post war did not do not want those Scots getting uppity after all we Scots keep the Sabbath and everything else we can lay our hands on, so said an erudite politician of long ago, betetr by far to get them into the military they make damned good fighters. I never got to see one in particular, he came back in 1917 as a gibbering wreck and was locked away in an asylum so he wouldn't scare the lieges 'till he had the decency to die out of sight. Every time I raised the subject it was met with oh not again Iain its far to divisive, or it was so long ago - aye thats what history deals with .....so long ago, anything more recent is called current affairs.

Here endeth tonight's rant, with apologies.

George

Avatar

"and even in todays' papers our Uncle Tom TB says we will riun everything, da da da da, etc. Bol.................ks. "

Aye I read that - I couldn't believe the utter cheek of the man - to say an independent Scotland would be an Economic disaster. No Mr Blair - Iraq is a disaster. The guy needs a damn good hiding.

Aventinian

IF Convenor

Mctosh45

Avntinian,
Your a mass of contradictions, nay a walking, talking OXYMORON!!!

Aventinian

garye

Aventinian

Are you suggesting I am an Orangeman? Ha.

My mother was a fairly agnostic woman, yet hated the Orange Order with all her might. My father wasn't much of a fan of it either and certainly would never have considered associating with it. Indeed, it was associated with impoverished ex-Irish bigots when I was growing up, 'the lowest of the low' as my mother used to describe it. That's how I've grown to think of the institution, and still hold most of those views.

As for goats? I have absolutely no idea what that's all about.

No, my pub is a standard village pub with plenty of decent beer on tap and a pleasant environment for sitting and having a quiet pint. It also does excellent food.

George

Aventinian

It's still not self-determination, in my mind. A total bloody misnomer if you ask me. Would you apply the same 'self-' prefix to an idea for Britain to withdraw from the EU and UN, I wonder?

As for the second point: yes, a lot of nation-states are nationalist to some degree or another. This is something we should work to lessen, not increase. We certainly shouldn't establish states on that basis. The British nation, for example, mostly grew up around its political establishments rather than vice-versa. That is normal and healthy.

I would define myself as a UK Citizen ( in a political sense, ie for all matters relating to the state. I define myself as such because I have UK citizenship. My nationality and identity has nothing to do with the state. I have the feeling I might have missed something in your question - in which case, feel free to elaborate.

George

garye

patriot1320

Ave,

When’s the last time you looked at yourself and questioned why it is you are for the union? No really. Be honest about it... Question what you believe....

You are very closed when asked to elaborate on why you support the union. What is it you really like about it and what benefit does this bring to you?

There are plenty of people (unionists) who, when faced with a compelling argument seam to ignore it and rubbish any idea any nationalist has. This I think is where a nationalist is different as we will analyze when was said then respond.....

I accept change. Change has to happen for the human race to evolve.
For Scotland to evolve we need to embrace change.

Right now, the views you express are on par with Blair, One of the people responsible for 911. Maybe not directly, But he played a part. Is this something, as a unionist you support?

The_Unionist

You are twisting this out of all proportion. What has 9/11 to do with anything? Honestly, why don't you question your views for once, instead of living in a fantasy world created by the SNP.