 |
Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org
Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Dave Coull
Independentista
Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Posts: 2809
|
 Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 10:43 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Aventinian refers to Quebec as being far more culturally distinct from the rest of Canada than Scotland is from the rest of Britain. But it depends what you mean by "culture". If you mean language, then yes, the fact that so many people in Quebec speak French is obviously different. But Scotland has the enormous advantage over Quebec of having a HISTORY of independence. Quebec was a colony of France, and then, after the Seven Years War, it became a British colony. The British government then did a deal with the Catholic Church: the church would have special privileges in Quebec, and in return French Catholics would be urged to be loyal to the British crown. When the American Revolution came along, of course the rebels wanted "America" to include all of British North America, but the French in Quebec stayed loyal. They didn't trust those protestant fanatics in New England one little bit. After the American War of Independence, English-speaking loyalist refugees went to Canada, and the country (apart from Quebec) became English-speaking. The Quebeckers may not have liked this, but they weren't about to rebel. When the French Revolution came along, this got more support in Scotland than it got in Quebec. Scotland, on the other hand, has a long history as a distinct country. The Act of Union of 1707 recognised Scottish separateness, and preserved a distinct Scottish church, a distinct Scottish legal system, etc etc. The process of Scotland becoming independent again would be much smoother than any move to Quebec independence. The Canadian province of Quebec includes the lands of no fewer than seventeen "Native-Canadian" nations (that is, "red-indian", and, in one case, Eskimo/Inuit) and ALL of them have made clear that they do not want to be part of an independent Quebec. Since the territory claimed by these Native-Canadian nations amounts to about sixty percent of the land area of Quebec, that is obviously a major headache for the Quebec separatists. Quebec more distinct from the rest of Canada? Only in terms of the French language. If you include history, law, religion, education, etc etc under the heading of "culture", then it is Scotland that is more distinct.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
UnionistScot
Finding Ma' Way
Joined: 02 Aug 2007
Posts: 2
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2007 7:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm busy at work so don't have time to write as much as I'd like.
While I am a fiercely proud Scot, I am a 'Unionist' Scot and have been so for all my life. I fully expect a tirade of abuse for doing so but I'd like to challenge the figures in the first post.
1. All the public accounts records you need from Westminster and Edinburgh are avilable under the freedom of information act. There is no need to dig around a notoriously unreliable/incomplete internet to do your research. I won't even start on the fact that the records you used are 8 years old!
2. The SNP obviously have full access to the very latest records....yet they have not released anything like what you quote here. Why do you think that is?
3. Eire's 'Celtic Tiger' period was bought about by a combination of major investment by the EU alongside a massive increase in the employment pool when there was a social shift in the 80s and women started going to work instead of playing the traditional housewife.
Neither factors can apply to Scotland as EU funds are now being concentrated on Central and Eastern Europe and Scottish women already work.
Someone else raised the point that England & Co have not let Scotland go because they need us more than we need them. Having spent a long time working in England (I now work overseas), I can tell you in all honesty that the Union is more important to the English than money and that this is far more likely the motivation for keeping us part of the UK.
You agree that Westminster pumps £12bn a year into the Executive, which is a sum that would go a long way towards much needed renovations of schools, hospitals and public transport in the rest of the country.....yet there is no major movement to let Scotland go. Why do you think that is?
And let's not forget that the oil runs out within a decade or so!
I say again, I truly love Scotland but we will do far better staying in the UK than trying to go it alone. The UK is a rich and powerful country...and we are running it now. This is our chance to get the most out of it, not leave it and become just another small and insignificant European backwater. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Economist
Our Scotland = 2nd Job!
Joined: 22 Apr 2006
Posts: 939
Location: Edinburgh
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2007 9:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| UnionistScot wrote: | | While I am a fiercely proud Scot, I am a 'Unionist' Scot and have been so for all my life. I fully expect a tirade of abuse for doing so but I'd like to challenge the figures in the first post. |
Provided you don't resort to abuse yourself, then you can expect to find reasoned debate here. We've had plenty of Unionist trolls on these forums here in the past.
| UnionistScot wrote: | | 1. All the public accounts records you need from Westminster and Edinburgh are avilable under the freedom of information act. There is no need to dig around a notoriously unreliable/incomplete internet to do your research. I won't even start on the fact that the records you used are 9 years old! |
I think you'll find this study (the one that is linked to in the first post) was done about 9 years ago, hence the fact 9 year old data was used - it was the most up to date at the time. However it used, offical government data. That is data, provided by the government.
The much more recent study, in the sticky below one below it was also compiled using official government data - most of it already in the public domain. Indeed, so were the various SNP studies, they used the same data provided by government agencies. You'll find most actually do, and that no-one really can do much else.
| UnionistScot wrote: | | 2. The SNP obviously have full access to the very latest records....yet they have not released anything like what you quote here. Why do you think that is? |
The SNP already have plenty of up to date material out on this very subject - using official government data - quite why they'd need more is far beyond anybody's ken. The Government will publish its annual statement on Scotland's finances, as it always does, in December. You've only another couple of months to wait.
| UnionistScot wrote: | 3. Eire's 'Celtic Tiger' period was bought about by a combination of major investment by the EU alongside a massive increase in the employment pool when there was a social shift in the 80s and women started going to work instead of playing the traditional housewife.
Neither factors can apply to Scotland as EU funds are now being concentrated on Central and Eastern Europe and Scottish women already work. |
I'm afraid that is just a bit too simplistic. Ireland, like Norway and Sweden and Finland and Denmark have their own unique reasons for their own levels of economic growth. Much of Ireland's growth in the 90's was due to the lowering of corporate tax rates which stimulated industry. This same policy has had similar effects in Switzerland, Slovenia and Finland. It is a tried and tested model so to speak. Ireland does not have the vast natural wealth Scotland has, and can use to further its potential, neither does it have the infrastructure of Scotland, and it didn't have the highly educated workforce that Scotland had, and continues to have. But crucially, Ireland was independent and able to tailor its economic policies to its own needs.
| UnionistScot wrote: | | Someone else raised the point that England & Co have not let Scotland go because they need us more than we need them. Having spent a long time working in England (I now work overseas), I can tell you in all honesty that the Union is more important to the English than money and that this is far more likely the motivation for keeping us part of the UK. |
You may not have noticed, but there is an extremely strong backlash against Scotland, from south of the border, over the perceived public spending advantage that Scotland has - and that is uniting a lot of people along a lot of fronts against Scotland's spending situation. That is leading to a very strong questioning of Scotland's contribution to the UK.
Whilst I dispute the assertions of Scotland £11bn black hole (as most of them make no economic sense whatsoever) it does make me wonder why Unionists in Scotland would wish to prove otherwise. An £11bn deficit in Scotland's finances is evidence of catastrophic mismanagement of our economy. I checked it out once, and when it came to deficits Scotland was in the leagues of the likes on Somalia and Zimbabwe, rather than Slovenia or Greece. If true, it would be a terrible state of affairs to be in, and a nail in the coffin for the Union.
Secondly, despite any form of rhetoric on both sides of the argument, it is not really up to England whether Scotland is part of the union or not, that is up to the people that live here in Scotland to decide our own method of governance and our own constitutional arrangements.
| UnionistScot wrote: | | You agree that Westminster pumps £12bn a year into the Executive, which is a sum that would go a long way towards much needed renovations of schools, hospitals and public transport in the rest of the country.....yet there is no major movement to let Scotland go. Why do you think that is? |
Westminster actually pumps into Scotland annually less than is raised in taxation revenue in Scotland (that is the total budget of the Scottish Executive) We do actually raise revenues in this country, despite arguments to the contrary.
| UnionistScot wrote: | | And let's not forget that the oil runs out within a decade or so! |
I'm sorry, but that is complete nonsense, for which absolutely no economic or energy study will provide any evidence for.
| UnionistScot wrote: | | I say again, I truly love Scotland but we will do far better staying in the UK than trying to go it alone. Scots are running the UK now, so now is our chance to get the most out of it! |
That is entirely fair that you believe in the Union, but what I feel sorry most of all for you about, is that it is attitudes like your own that are undermining the discord in the Union, far more than mine who want to see the nations of the "former" UK working together as independent states, respecting our individuality as different countries, but recognising the inherent (and demonstrable) failures of an outdated political union.
Because Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling are in power at this time, doesn't mean Scotland has been empowered to look after its own interests. Indeed if you want to believe Scotland has an £11bn deficit - that occurred under Gordon Brown. Hardly doing much for Scotland is it? Hardly a benefit from the union.
_________________
Taurus excreta cerebrum vincit - Bullshit baffles brains |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ultra
This is Ma' Life!
Joined: 29 Sep 2009
Posts: 652
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 9:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Every voter in the union should be given a vote to see if they want to remain part of the union.
Simple yes/no.
None of this Salmond flannel on various different questions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dave Coull
Independentista
Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Posts: 2809
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 11:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ultra wrote: | | Every voter in the union should be given a vote to see if they want to remain part of the union. |
You're far too late with that one.
Margaret Thatcher, when she was Prime Minister, stated that "if the people of Scotland want independence, then that is up to the people of Scotland".
John Major, when he was Prime Minister, stated that "if the people of Scotland want independence, then that is up to the people of Scotland".
Now, both Thatcher and Major then went on to say something like "but of course I want Scotland to stay part of the UK and will do my best to ensure that will always be the case".
But the important point is, both of these prime ministers stated that independence or remaining part of the union was UP TO THE PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND.
Neither Thatcher nor Major said anything about "every voter in the UK" having a say in the matter.
There have been two prime ministers since Major, and neither of them have tried to go back on the Thatcher doctrine that it is "up to the people of Scotland". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ultra
This is Ma' Life!
Joined: 29 Sep 2009
Posts: 652
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 8:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dave Coull wrote: | | Ultra wrote: | | Every voter in the union should be given a vote to see if they want to remain part of the union. |
You're far too late with that one.
Margaret Thatcher, when she was Prime Minister, stated that "if the people of Scotland want independence, then that is up to the people of Scotland".
John Major, when he was Prime Minister, stated that "if the people of Scotland want independence, then that is up to the people of Scotland".
Now, both Thatcher and Major then went on to say something like "but of course I want Scotland to stay part of the UK and will do my best to ensure that will always be the case".
But the important point is, both of these prime ministers stated that independence or remaining part of the union was UP TO THE PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND.
Neither Thatcher nor Major said anything about "every voter in the UK" having a say in the matter.
There have been two prime ministers since Major, and neither of them have tried to go back on the Thatcher doctrine that it is "up to the people of Scotland". |
You seem to have missed my point.
Why only give Scotland a vote on independence?
Why not give every single voter in the UK a chance to vote on whether they wanted their country to be part of the union or not?
So you could have the English deciding they wanted to go it alone. Would you refuse them independence if they voted to leave and it was 'the will of the people'?
That way Scotland would have to become independent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alasdair
Our Scotland = 2nd Job!
Joined: 01 May 2008
Posts: 1021
Location: Clydesdale
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 9:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ultra wrote: | | That way Scotland would have to become independent. |
No they wouldn't, you seem to be forgetting about Wales and NI. Ireland in all this. It's entirely feasible that if England chose to leave the union that the remaining three could form their own union.
Can't say I'd be in favour of it, but it's still a possibility.
_________________
My blog - http://manaboutthehouse.wordpress.com
My arts and crafts site http://madestuff.co.uk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ultra
This is Ma' Life!
Joined: 29 Sep 2009
Posts: 652
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 10:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Alasdair wrote: | | Ultra wrote: | | That way Scotland would have to become independent. |
No they wouldn't, you seem to be forgetting about Wales and NI. Ireland in all this. It's entirely feasible that if England chose to leave the union that the remaining three could form their own union.
Can't say I'd be in favour of it, but it's still a possibility. |
More chance of that happening than the SNP getting an independence bill through parliament anything soon.
If the tories get into power at the next UK election. it's not like they care much about Scotland or have many voters here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dave Coull
Independentista
Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Posts: 2809
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 11:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ultra wrote: | | Every voter in the union should be given a vote to see if they want to remain part of the union. |
| I wrote: | | You're far too late with that one. Margaret Thatcher, when she was Prime Minister, stated that "if the people of Scotland want independence, then that is up to the people of Scotland". John Major, when he was Prime Minister, stated that "if the people of Scotland want independence, then that is up to the people of Scotland"..........Neither Thatcher nor Major said anything about "every voter in the UK" having a say in the matter. |
| Ultra wrote: | | You seem to have missed my point. |
No, I haven't missed your point. | Ultra wrote: | | Why only give Scotland a vote on independence? |
We are not being "given" anything. If the Scottish Parliament passes the Scottish Government's bill for a referendum on independence, then we will be exercising our right of self-determination, as recognised by the United Nations, and within the three conditions for that right to apply as specified by the UN, and as endorsed even by such enthusiastic Unionists as Maggie Thatcher and John Major. | Ultra wrote: | | Why not give every single voter in the UK a chance to vote on whether they wanted their country to be part of the union or not? |
Here in Scotland, some of us have been campaigning, on a non-party-political basis, for an independence referendum, for quite a number of years, and we have made some progress. There has been no non-party-political campaign for an independence referendum in Northern Ireland. There was a violent campaign for NI to be united with the Republic of Ireland, but no campaign whatsoever for a referendum on independence for Northern Ireland. In England, although there has been a very recent resurgence of English nationalism, largely in response to events in Scotland, there is no non-party-political campaign for a referendum on independence for England. As for Wales, unfortunately, its relationship towards Scotland is that of the slowest-boat-in-the-convoy. During the Second World War, merchant shipping crossing the Atlantic was organised into convoys, and these convoys were forced to go at the speed of the slowest boat in the convoy. Being forced to go at a slower speed increased the danger of being sunk.
You are saying that Scotland should not be "given" a referendum unless "every voter in the UK has a say". That is a rejection of the fundamental principle of self-determination. If some folk in England want a vote on "English independence", then let THEM organise a campaign to seek this, instead of just trying to piggy-back on the work that we in Scotland have been doing. If some folk in Wales want a vote on Welsh independence, then let THEM organise a campaign to seek this. If some folk in Northern Ireland want a referendum on Northern Ireland becoming independent, then let THEM organise a campaign to seek this. Since they are all, at the very least, several years behind us in Scotland, their campaigns will presumably take some time - like, quite a few years, probably. Meanwhile, we in Scotland are not waiting. We have a right to self-determination. That right does not depend on referendums in England, Wales, or Northern Ireland. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ultra
This is Ma' Life!
Joined: 29 Sep 2009
Posts: 652
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 11:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dave Coull wrote: | | Ultra wrote: | | Every voter in the union should be given a vote to see if they want to remain part of the union. |
| I wrote: | | You're far too late with that one. Margaret Thatcher, when she was Prime Minister, stated that "if the people of Scotland want independence, then that is up to the people of Scotland". John Major, when he was Prime Minister, stated that "if the people of Scotland want independence, then that is up to the people of Scotland"..........Neither Thatcher nor Major said anything about "every voter in the UK" having a say in the matter. |
| Ultra wrote: | | You seem to have missed my point. |
No, I haven't missed your point. | Ultra wrote: | | Why only give Scotland a vote on independence? |
We are not being "given" anything. If the Scottish Parliament passes the Scottish Government's bill for a referendum on independence, then we will be exercising our right of self-determination, as recognised by the United Nations, and within the three conditions for that right to apply as specified by the UN, and as endorsed even by such enthusiastic Unionists as Maggie Thatcher and John Major. | Ultra wrote: | | Why not give every single voter in the UK a chance to vote on whether they wanted their country to be part of the union or not? |
Here in Scotland, some of us have been campaigning, on a non-party-political basis, for an independence referendum, for quite a number of years, and we have made some progress. There has been no non-party-political campaign for an independence referendum in Northern Ireland. There was a violent campaign for NI to be united with the Republic of Ireland, but no campaign whatsoever for a referendum on independence for Northern Ireland. In England, although there has been a very recent resurgence of English nationalism, largely in response to events in Scotland, there is no non-party-political campaign for a referendum on independence for England. As for Wales, unfortunately, its relationship towards Scotland is that of the slowest-boat-in-the-convoy. During the Second World War, merchant shipping crossing the Atlantic was organised into convoys, and these convoys were forced to go at the speed of the slowest boat in the convoy. Being forced to go at a slower speed increased the danger of being sunk.
You are saying that Scotland should not be "given" a referendum unless "every voter in the UK has a say". That is a rejection of the fundamental principle of self-determination. If some folk in England want a vote on "English independence", then let THEM organise a campaign to seek this, instead of just trying to piggy-back on the work that we in Scotland have been doing. If some folk in Wales want a vote on Welsh independence, then let THEM organise a campaign to seek this. If some folk in Northern Ireland want a referendum on Northern Ireland becoming independent, then let THEM organise a campaign to seek this. Since they are all, at the very least, several years behind us in Scotland, their campaigns will presumably take some time - like, quite a few years, probably. Meanwhile, we in Scotland are not waiting. We have a right to self-determination. That right does not depend on referendums in England, Wales, or Northern Ireland. |
I am not saying Scotland should be given an independence vote unless everyone has a say. Where have I said that?
I haven't said the rest of the UK should have a vote on Scotland becoming independent either.
I have said all voters in the UK should be given the right to vote to see if their particular country wanted to become independent. Completely different from what you are suggesting.
This seems to be a common tactic of SNP fundamentalists to see things which aren't there.
IF
the Scottish Parliament passes a bill, highly unlikely as the other parties are voting against it, how many years of negotiations do you think it will take to split up the Union? Or do you feel Scotland will eventually become independent when they have no more oil or resourses to offer?
Who will the SNP blame then if things don't go to plan when they have no union/Westminister fall back? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dave Coull
Independentista
Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Posts: 2809
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ultra wrote: | | I have said all voters in the UK should be given the right to vote to see if their particular country wanted to become independent. |
Rights are not "given". Rights are taken, or, perhaps a better way to put it would be, rights are WON . Rights are won by campaigning for them. That is what the Chartists did, that is what early trade unionists did, that is what the Suffragettes did. Every right that we have had to be won - not "given". Some of us here in Scotland have been campaigning for the right to a referendum on independence for a considerable time. If people in Wales (for example) want a referendum, then let THEM campaign for that. | Ultra wrote: | | SNP fundamentalists |
You are WAY off target. I'm not a member of the SNP, and never have been. I'm not a member of any political party. Last time I voted, it was for the Green party, but I certainly wouldn't describe myself as a "supporter" of that party, and there is never any certainty from one election to the next about which way I will vote, or even whether I will vote. If you have a look at some of my recent posts, you will see a couple of them mention me ARGUING with SNP fundamentalists who considered holding a referendum to be "too gradualist". You will also see, under the heading "Glasgow North East By Election", me saying that the SNP candidate in that election does not deserve to be supported, and I wouldn't vote SNP if I lived there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ultra
This is Ma' Life!
Joined: 29 Sep 2009
Posts: 652
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dave Coull wrote: | | Ultra wrote: | | I have said all voters in the UK should be given the right to vote to see if their particular country wanted to become independent. |
Rights are not "given". Rights are taken, or, perhaps a better way to put it would be, rights are WON . Rights are won by campaigning for them. That is what the Chartists did, that is what early trade unionists did, that is what the Suffragettes did. Every right that we have had to be won - not "given". Some of us here in Scotland have been campaigning for the right to a referendum on independence for a considerable time. If people in Wales (for example) want a referendum, then let THEM campaign for that. | Ultra wrote: | | SNP fundamentalists |
You are WAY off target. I'm not a member of the SNP, and never have been. I'm not a member of any political party. Last time I voted, it was for the Green party, but I certainly wouldn't describe myself as a "supporter" of that party, and there is never any certainty from one election to the next about which way I will vote, or even whether I will vote. If you have a look at some of my recent posts, you will see a couple of them mention me ARGUING with SNP fundamentalists who considered holding a referendum to be "too gradualist". You will also see, under the heading "Glasgow North East By Election", me saying that the SNP candidate in that election does not deserve to be supported, and I wouldn't vote SNP if I lived there. |
Bit melodramatic is it not.....
Would you like me to re-phrase it for you.....
Voters should be given the opportunity to vote in a referendum.
Does that make you feel any better?
If it's your right, why are you having to campaign? Why not just go to your local MSP and demand your vote? 
I base my judgement on the political parties on what they promise and what they actually deliver. As the SNP are the main political party driving independence, I can't say I am very impressed or they have proven they have got what it takes to run an indepedent Scotland.
I am not against people getting a referedum vote. I would listen to both sides of the debate and make my choice like most people.
However, from a position of strength of getting a vote through parliament and actually winning an independence vote, now is not the time to do this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alasdair
Our Scotland = 2nd Job!
Joined: 01 May 2008
Posts: 1021
Location: Clydesdale
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 1:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ultra wrote: | | I base my judgement on the political parties on what they promise and what they actually deliver. As the SNP are the main political party driving independence, I can't say I am very impressed or they have proven they have got what it takes to run an indepedent Scotland. |
That's why we operate democracies, so that ineffectual governments can be replaced. I feel like I'm repeating myself, but I doubt the SNP will be in power post-indpendence (if they even exist at all as a majority party).
One would hope that during negotiations that political opponents could band together to:
a) negotiate the best deal for Scotland;
b) form some form of broad coalition until the first GE of an indpendent Scotland could be organised.
_________________
My blog - http://manaboutthehouse.wordpress.com
My arts and crafts site http://madestuff.co.uk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dave Coull
Independentista
Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Posts: 2809
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 1:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ultra wrote: | | Voters should be given the opportunity to vote in a referendum |
Which voters?
From the highly ambiguous things you've been saying, you might even mean "all voters". So, if the province of Manitoba had a referendum on its relationship with Canada, would voters in Texas have a say in this?
When Tony Blair's government organised a referendum on setting up a Scottish Parliament, the people who got to vote on that were the people on the electoral register in Scotland. The same thing will apply when we have a referendum on independence for Scotland.
| Ultra wrote: | | the SNP are the main political party driving independence |
It is a mistake to see the movement for independence as just the SNP. | Ultra wrote: | | I can't say I am very impressed or they have proven they have got what it takes to run an independent Scotland |
Who said anything about them running an independent Scotland? Even the SNP themselves don't make that presumption. It will be up to the people of Scotland who runs an independent Scotland. | Ultra wrote: | | getting a vote through parliament and actually winning an independence vote, now is not the time to do this. |
Alex Salmond has said that legislation for a referendum will be presented to the Scottish Parliament. It very much remains to be seen what happens then. If the Bill should be passed, it very much remains to be seen how the referendum campaign itself goes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ultra
This is Ma' Life!
Joined: 29 Sep 2009
Posts: 652
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dave Coull wrote: | | Ultra wrote: | | Voters should be given the opportunity to vote in a referendum |
Which voters?
From the highly ambiguous things you've been saying, you might even mean "all voters". So, if the province of Manitoba had a referendum on its relationship with Canada, would voters in Texas have a say in this?
When Tony Blair's government organised a referendum on setting up a Scottish Parliament, the people who got to vote on that were the people on the electoral register in Scotland. The same thing will apply when we have a referendum on independence for Scotland.
| Ultra wrote: | | the SNP are the main political party driving independence |
It is a mistake to see the movement for independence as just the SNP. | Ultra wrote: | | I can't say I am very impressed or they have proven they have got what it takes to run an independent Scotland |
Who said anything about them running an independent Scotland? Even the SNP themselves don't make that presumption. It will be up to the people of Scotland who runs an independent Scotland. | Ultra wrote: | | getting a vote through parliament and actually winning an independence vote, now is not the time to do this. |
Alex Salmond has said that legislation for a referendum will be presented to the Scottish Parliament. It very much remains to be seen what happens then. If the Bill should be passed, it very much remains to be seen how the referendum campaign itself goes. |
I already explained what voters above. But you didn't like the turn of phrase I used. Do you want to continue to go round in circles? There is nothing ambiguous about what I have wrote. Just someone like you who has went off on a tangent or claimed I have said stuff that I haven't. Why don't you write some more abject nonsense as clearly you have nothing more to offer.
I don't see any of these fringe parties having the funding or even being in Government putting forward an independence bill. That is solely down to the SNP Government alone.
Also, the minority SNP Government support is around 30 odd %. So the majority of voters aren't really interested in voting for them or an independence referendum. If they were there poll rating would be far higher.
So when it comes to the vote, it will be defeated in Parliament and the SNP will be left pointing the finger at the unionist parties.
Don't make me laugh on the SNP not making the presumption that they would be elected in an independent Scotland. Salmond is a career politician who would like nothing better than to head up an independent Scotland. The problem being you don't really have many other high profile independent supporters who could fill his shoes do you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dave Coull
Independentista
Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Posts: 2809
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 3:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ultra wrote: | | Voters should be given the opportunity to vote in a referendum |
| Ultra wrote: | | I already explained what voters |
What you said was ambiguous. You have dismissed the only referendum which is actually planned, here in Scotland, yet you stated | Quote: | | all voters in the UK should be given the right to vote to see if their particular country wanted to become independent. |
So, does that mean a referendum in Scotland only "counts" if there are simultaneous referendums in other countries? It COULD mean that. Therefore, what you said was ambiguous. | Ultra wrote: | | someone like you who has went off on a tangent |
Who, me? If you look at the top of this page, you will find that the subject of this discussion is "The Big Lie". If you go back to the first page of this discussion, you will find that this is the title of a thesis, "The Big Lie - Scottish Revenue Taxes" , by a professional chartered accountant, Niall Aslen, refuting the falsehoods peddled by successive Westminster governments about Scotland's accounts. If anything, you are further off on a tangent than I am. | Ultra wrote: | | I don't see any of these fringe parties having the funding or even being in Government |
What "fringe parties"? I didn't mention any "fringe parties".A "poll" means either an exercise in which people or parties get elected , or a referendum on a single issue. The things you refer to as "polls" are nothing of the sort. They are fraudulent exercises conducted by professional charlatans who claim, by asking a tiny "sample" who they have chosen, to be able to predict the outcome of a real poll. | Ultra wrote: | | Salmond is a career politician who would like nothing better than to head up an independent Scotland |
Alex has been leading the SNP for a very long time. He did quit once before, and John Swinney took over for a couple of years, but that was such a disaster, Alex came back. But it stands to reason he must be considering his future. I think he would be extremely happy if he could be the first Prime Minister of an independent Scotland. However, I think that, as soon as he had secured that place in the history books, he would quit. Nicola Sturgeon would probably take over within a matter of weeks. As for who would be leading Scotland after the first general election after independence, I don't think we can predict that far ahead, or even which political party might win. However, I can make some predictions with confidence. It won't be Alex Salmond (for the reason already given), and it certainly won't be either Ian Gray or Scott Tavish. They will both have been replaced as leaders of their respective parties. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ultra
This is Ma' Life!
Joined: 29 Sep 2009
Posts: 652
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 4:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dave Coull wrote: | | Ultra wrote: | | Voters should be given the opportunity to vote in a referendum |
| Ultra wrote: | | I already explained what voters |
What you said was ambiguous. You have dismissed the only referendum which is actually planned, here in Scotland, yet you stated | Quote: | | all voters in the UK should be given the right to vote to see if their particular country wanted to become independent. |
So, does that mean a referendum in Scotland only "counts" if there are simultaneous referendums in other countries? It COULD mean that. Therefore, what you said was ambiguous. | Ultra wrote: | | someone like you who has went off on a tangent |
Who, me? If you look at the top of this page, you will find that the subject of this discussion is "The Big Lie". If you go back to the first page of this discussion, you will find that this is the title of a thesis, "The Big Lie - Scottish Revenue Taxes" , by a professional chartered accountant, Niall Aslen, refuting the falsehoods peddled by successive Westminster governments about Scotland's accounts. If anything, you are further off on a tangent than I am. | Ultra wrote: | | I don't see any of these fringe parties having the funding or even being in Government |
What "fringe parties"? I didn't mention any "fringe parties".A "poll" means either an exercise in which people or parties get elected , or a referendum on a single issue. The things you refer to as "polls" are nothing of the sort. They are fraudulent exercises conducted by professional charlatans who claim, by asking a tiny "sample" who they have chosen, to be able to predict the outcome of a real poll. | Ultra wrote: | | Salmond is a career politician who would like nothing better than to head up an independent Scotland |
Alex has been leading the SNP for a very long time. He did quit once before, and John Swinney took over for a couple of years, but that was such a disaster, Alex came back. But it stands to reason he must be considering his future. I think he would be extremely happy if he could be the first Prime Minister of an independent Scotland. However, I think that, as soon as he had secured that place in the history books, he would quit. Nicola Sturgeon would probably take over within a matter of weeks. As for who would be leading Scotland after the first general election after independence, I don't think we can predict that far ahead, or even which political party might win. However, I can make some predictions with confidence. It won't be Alex Salmond (for the reason already given), and it certainly won't be either Ian Gray or Scott Tavish. They will both have been replaced as leaders of their respective parties. |
You might as well go through and quote the rest of my posts?
Or maybe just some selective cutting, pasting, and quoting will do.
As for me. I have better things to do than go round in circles. Please feel free though.
I did laugh at the polls comment though. Do you not like them as they give an indication of how many people aren't really that interested in independence for Scotland?
Oh and as for the topic.
Out of 6m or 60m people. Who do you think will pay more tax?
Also, as Scotland seems to top the league tables for things like poor health, deprivation, and benefit claiments, where do you think alot of the money is spent in these areas compared to the rest of the UK? too many people on benefits in Scotland serviced by too many public service workers.
Oh and the accountant tells you that he doesn't have access to the majority of figures only headline values. To carry out a true analysis and compare like with like you really need to be able to drill down and examine the accounts properly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dave Coull
Independentista
Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Posts: 2809
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 5:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
People on this forum get to know a bit about each other. It is well known that "Aventinian" is a member of the Tory Party. "Rinty" is of course a member of Solidarity, "Scotland's Socialist Party". "Holebender" is a long-term member of the SNP. And as virtually everybody knows, I'm not a member or a supporter of ANY party. | Ultra wrote: | | If the people involved in wanting independence are as fragmented as you say, then this will de-stabilize and cause fraction |
So, you're a believer in a one party state, under a strong Leader, and everybody having to follow the party line?
I'm not.
I think diversity is strength.
| Ultra wrote: | | you brought up leaving the EU if Scotland becomes independent |
Correction.
I mentioned the possibility of a referendum on this at some future date.
AFTER independence.
| Ultra wrote: | | could it be it doesn't quite agree with the party line on such things? |
Unlike you, I don't follow anybody's party line. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dave Coull
Independentista
Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Posts: 2809
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 5:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ultra wrote: | | You might as well go through and quote the rest of my posts? |
No, that would be silly. If I quote an entire post of yours, then you quote my entire reply including your entire first post, and then I quote your entire second post including my reply to your first post which includes your entire first post, by the time we reach post number nine or ten (which is about where we are now I think) each post might consist of several pages, and, before much longer, you would reach the stage where each post would be a book, most of which was repeating things already said.
I choose only to quote the bits I intend to comment on.
| Ultra wrote: | | Or maybe just some selective cutting, pasting, and quoting will do. |
Works for me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ultra
This is Ma' Life!
Joined: 29 Sep 2009
Posts: 652
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 8:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dave Coull wrote: | So, you're a believer in a one party state, under a strong Leader, and everybody having to follow the party line?
I'm not.
I think diversity is strength. |
Not really no. I just don't think a minority Government who promise alot and can't deliver and then blame everyone else is much good for the country.
| Dave Coull wrote: |
Correction.
I mentioned the possibility of a referendum on this at some future date.
AFTER independence. |
So whats the difference? You still mentioned it.
| Dave Coull wrote: |
Unlike you, I don't follow anybody's party line. |
You don't know me from Adam. So how could you possibly comment on whether I fall a party line or not. Good for you. You are an individual, just like every other individual.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
