View Full Version : Sir Chris tells it as it is.
Looks like Sir Chris is not a supporter of the Nats, well done him
http://www.channel4.com/news/sir-chris-hoy-i-thought-nothing-could-top-beijing
changilass
08-Aug-12, 19:11
This is what he actually said
When asked if he considered himself a Scottish Olympian or a British Olympian Sir Chris said: "I'm Scottish and I'm British, I think you can be both. They're not mutually exclusive but it's frustrating because as an athlete all you want to do is race and be the best you can and not get dragged into politics.
No where did he say he aint a supporter, stop trying to put words into his mouth Gol, he has enough of his own.
I dont care what he thinks he is ...... I think he is FANTASTIC!
This is what he actually said
No where did he say he aint a supporter, stop trying to put words into his mouth Gol, he has enough of his own.
Its what he did NOT say Changi, the reporter tried everything to make him say he supported the Nats, and he did not say a word.
He said he was “frustrated” in getting drawn into the political battle over the SNP’s plans to create a separate Scotland but concluded that he was “very proud” to be part of Team GB.
Duncansby
08-Aug-12, 22:10
Looks like Sir Chris is not a supporter of the Nats, well done him
http://www.channel4.com/news/sir-chris-hoy-i-thought-nothing-could-top-beijing
Not at all patronising?! Everyone is entitled to their own opinions for or against Scottish nationalism and this should be respected! The idea of giving anyone who supports the union a pat of the head and told they're a good boy / girl is ridiculous.
changilass
08-Aug-12, 23:16
Its what he did NOT say Changi, the reporter tried everything to make him say he supported the Nats, and he did not say a word.
He said he was “frustrated” in getting drawn into the political battle over the SNP’s plans to create a separate Scotland but concluded that he was “very proud” to be part of Team GB.
You can't go on what he didn't say lol
I am proud to be British, I get frustrated with folks turning every post on here into a political battle, doesn't mean I canna support the Nats if I choose.
I get frustrated with folks turning every post on here into a political battle, doesn't mean I canna support the Nats if I choose.
Tough Changi, its what cousins do LMAO
changilass
08-Aug-12, 23:33
Behave yoursen Gol, or I will tell everyone what a beeg softie you really are lol
Its what he did NOT say Changi, the reporter tried everything to make him say he supported the Nats, and he did not say a word.
He said he was “frustrated” in getting drawn into the political battle over the SNP’s plans to create a separate Scotland but concluded that he was “very proud” to be part of Team GB.
I'm sure he was. But I did note he wrapped an upside down Union flag around his shoulders.....didn't you? :lol:
The most telling comment he made, imo, was The cyclist, who is based in Manchester, said there were not the necessary training facilities north of the Border.
Given there has been three Olympics in London, with UK funded sporting benefits for England....and two Commonwealth Games under Union auspices in Scotland........ why are there as yet no decent training Facilities in Scotland to save our athletes having to go to England, Spain etc?
In 2008, Chris Hoy said We don’t have an international facility for cycling and we don’t have the coaching structures in place. In fact, we don’t have anything in place, so the whole idea is ridiculous. I’ve not lived in Scotland for nine years because there is nowhere for me to train.
Why has it had to wait until the prospect of a Commonwealth Games under a Scottish Government to even consider building decent sporting facilities for Scottish athletes like the Chris Hoy velodrome and to get round to having the Royal Commonwealth Pool refurbished and fit for use after 42 years of neglect? Is the Union not meant to be a partnership of two sovereign countries each entitled to proportionate benefits? So how come England has at least three, and probably more, indoor velodromes and Scotland has none? How come the likes of John Paul and Chris Hoy have to go to England to get adequate training facilities?
If you can be Scottish and British in the Union, so you can be with independence. Sharing a Prime Minister does not make people British.......do you think it does, golach?
If you can be Scottish and British in the Union, so you can be with independence. Sharing a Prime Minister does not make people British.......do you think it does, golach?
Having a Nationalist First Minister as a dictator will not make me feel British in any way, Rule Britannia!!!!
Having a Nationalist First Minister as a dictator will not make me feel British in any way, Rule Britannia!!!!
Way to go...just snip out the part of my post you can sneer about and don't have to justify.
Only way Alex Salmond will ever become a dictator is if the Scottish people elect him eternally.......and you, and the likes of you can stop that by not voting for him...can't you?
You are, I suppose, aware that after Independence none of us will be a nationalist anything, because we won't need to be....we will all be Scottish citizens in an independent Scotland and free to vote for whoever we want.
Maybe Unionists are just acknowledging the fact that Unionist minded Scottish Nulabour, LibDem and Tories have proven themselves to be completely incompetent and not fit to be in Scottish politics, with this eternal Alex Salmond dictator crap as a "scaremongering" effort. If that is the case, it is the most sensible opinion I have heard from a Unionist yet.
Way to go...just snip out the part of my post you can sneer about and don't have to justify.
Only way Alex Salmond will ever become a dictator is if the Scottish people elect him eternally.......and you, and the likes of you can stop that by not voting for him...can't you?
You are, I suppose, aware that after Independence none of us will be a nationalist anything, because we won't need to be....we will all be Scottish citizens in an independent Scotland and free to vote for whoever we want.
Maybe Unionists are just acknowledging the fact that Unionist minded Scottish Nulabour, LibDem and Tories have proven themselves to be completely incompetent and not fit to be in Scottish politics, with this eternal Alex Salmond dictator crap as a "scaremongering" effort. If that is the case, it is the most sensible opinion I have heard from a Unionist yet.
You type as if Independance is a given.
You type as if Independance is a given.
Not any more than Unionists type as if Independence is an impossibility. :roll:
It's not about who makes the most noise in the summer of 2012. It's about who has made their case by autumn 2014..and to date the Unionists are producing nothing persuasive.
Maybe the Yes for Independence supporters aren't either, but they at least are offering positive visions, whether they are believed or not....and we saw the effect of negative campaigning on the Nulabour Party vote in Scotland at the last Scottish election, didn't we?
Beats me why the UK Parliament, if they really want to keep the Union, and not have to do this again when my age group starts dying off, don't just set out their vision for a Devo-max option..because we all know that with that option on the Union table and guaranteed after a No vote, or on the ballot paper in some way, that is what the majority of Scots would choose.
Very many on both sides of the divide are there not because they don't want change, but because they do, and it is not on offer with a straight yes/no vote. Perhaps even those on the No side who want meaningful change and see that they won't get it from the Union will decide Independence is the least worst option for our economy.
Still all to play for....and still some UK wide cuts to be introduced to help persuade.
Not any more than Unionists type as if Independence is an impossibility. :roll:
Can you say anything that is pro-unionist?
Can you say anything that is pro-unionist?
If the Unionists can come up with anything which is not simply trashing the SNP, nationalism, Scotland, Alex Salmond and emphasising the lack of abilities/ the poverty/dependence/ parochialism/dependence/bigotry of the Scottish population;
If the Unionists can come up with anything which is not trashing the possible economy of an Independent Scotland, when they, themselves, like the UK Government, currently know less than nothing about the prospects for the probable future economy of the Union;
If the Unionists can come up with any persuasive argument as to why Scotland would be better within the Union than outside of it, I could be persuaded to go for Devo-Max in this vote, if that was a real option (which it is not)..though I would reserve the right to continue the fight for Independence when the MOD declines to do anything about the increase in radiation in various areas in Scotland ,when the UK Government continues to join with the USA in "adventures" to promote and make profit for USA businesses and in the process kill Scottish soldiers, airmen etc for nothing which would ever have affected the UK if they hadn't joined in the USA "adventures".
But so far, there has been nothing pertaining to any of the above....and believe me I read everything I can find online.
I am more than happy to look at anything you care to link to which refers to Unionists being persuasive and positive.
I await your links with interest.
OK, I'll ask you again.
Can you say anything that is pro-unionist?
OK, I'll ask you again.
Can you say anything that is pro-unionist?
The union does punch above its weight on the worlds stage - the UN security council seat; the G8 and the other things, the "special relationship" with the US is perhaps the best argument that there is for maintaining the union. Scotland being part of a union which has this influence is possibly a positive argument for staying in the union.
The union does punch above its weight on the worlds stage - the UN security council seat; the G8 and the other things, the "special relationship" with the US is perhaps the best argument that there is for maintaining the union. Scotland being part of a union which has this influence is possibly a positive argument for staying in the union.
Thank you squidge. Indeed those things are good reasons for staying in the Union. I was hoping that Oddquine would say something like that or something else but unfortunately she was only willing to keep to her unbalanced and unreasoned debate.
OK its my turn.
I think it will be a good reason to break away from the Union because Scotland has incredible renewable energy resources and more some. In an independent Scotland, we can expect to see a North Sea wide supergrid which is connected to her neighbours. She will be able to meet her targets and generate all of her energy requirements and sell excess to other countries. this will create jobs and economic growth in abundance. Scotland has engineering at its heart and can become the engineering hub for all forms of renewable energy.
The union does punch above its weight on the worlds stage - the UN security council seat; the G8 and the other things, the "special relationship" with the US is perhaps the best argument that there is for maintaining the union. Scotland being part of a union which has this influence is possibly a positive argument for staying in the union.
Is that really a reason for continuing in a Union in which the reason the UK punches above its weight is because of the UK nuclear "deterrent" situated on Scottish soil, despite a majority of Scots not wanting it there?
Do you really think that Scotland's voice is heard in any of those important places? Do you really think that the majority of Scots would have, if they had had the option, have been for the illegal Iraq war, for example? I am more inclined to think that the very one-sided "special relationship" with the USA is one of the worst reasons for continuing in the Union.
I'm not just being difficult...I genuinely do not see any benefit in the Union any more bar as a vehicle to provide a gravy train to Westminster politicians. I'm not saying the Union has always been bad for Scotland, because it hasn't.....but it has not been anything like good for Scotland for a substantial number of decades now.......and I don't really think the prestige of the UK in the world, with Scotland as a part of it, is a good enough reason for Scotland to accept policies which assume Scotland is less important in the UK scheme of things than the South of England or Northern Ireland.
It is a situation which the UK has had 305 years to change, and they have never been prepared to do that....so how long are we prepared to remain little more than a region of Greater England rather than a partner in a Union?
Thank you squidge. Indeed those things are good reasons for staying in the Union. I was hoping that Oddquine would say something like that or something else but unfortunately she was only willing to keep to her unbalanced and unreasoned debate.
OK its my turn.
I think it will be a good reason to break away from the Union because Scotland has incredible renewable energy resources and more some. In an independent Scotland, we can expect to see a North Sea wide supergrid which is connected to her neighbours. She will be able to meet her targets and generate all of her energy requirements and sell excess to other countries. this will create jobs and economic growth in abundance. Scotland has engineering at its heart and can become the engineering hub for all forms of renewable energy.
I have reasons for my opinions....just because you don't agree with them does not make them unreasoned or unbalanced...it just means you don't agree with them.
And we were asked actually by rheghead golach so if you want to give someone a row for taking the subject off topic you perhaps should address it to Rheghead
I have reasons for my opinions....just because you don't agree with them does not make them unreasoned or unbalanced...it just means you don't agree with them.
Can you say anything about the Union that might be a force for good?
Can you say anything about the Union that might be a force for good?
I and many others support it Rheg!!!
The union does punch above its weight on the worlds stage - the UN security council seat; the G8 and the other things, the "special relationship" with the US is perhaps the best argument that there is for maintaining the union. Scotland being part of a union which has this influence is possibly a positive argument for staying in the union.
Definitely good reasons, and, perhaps, amongst the main reasons for my belief in the Union.
I believe in strength in numbers, not necessarily militarily but in terms of "weight".
At the moment we have a real say in world affairs. Whether we use that power correctly or not is a different matter, but I'd rather have that power than not. An independent Scotland would go from being a G8 country to something on a par of Belgium. For me, a backward step.
One thing that I really don't understand is the stance of the SNP on separation. How can you be pro independence (home rule) and pro EU (outside rule) at the same time? Pick one or the other. Wanting your cake and eating it? I think so.
My reasons are selfish. I don't like the SNP, anyone in it, their history and as a result, anything they stand for.
The question on the referendum in my opinion should be; do you agree that Scotland should leave the Union and you as a citizen should lose all the rights and privilages that are associated with it, and put your future in the hands of a bunch of meglamaniacs that stand for a party that was quite prepared to sell out the UK to Hitler to further their own selfish aims?
Oh.. I'm sure that's what Chris thinks too. :D
Bliddy hell I just got a green dubry for that :eek:
Aaldtimer
10-Aug-12, 03:06
..."and put your future in the hands of a bunch of meglamaniacs that stand for a party that was quite prepared to sell out the UK to Hitler to further their own selfish aims?"
Wow Ducs, where did you get that from?
A source of that accusation might prove interesting!:confused
(It's "megalomaniacs" by the way.)
I and many others support it Rheg!!!
And that's a good reason for staying in the Union Golach?...I don't think so!!!!
C3..............:eek::roll:
My reasons are selfish. I don't like the SNP, anyone in it, their history and as a result, anything they stand for.
The question on the referendum in my opinion should be; do you agree that Scotland should leave the Union and you as a citizen should lose all the rights and privilages that are associated with it, and put your future in the hands of a bunch of meglamaniacs that stand for a party that was quite prepared to sell out the UK to Hitler to further their own selfish aims?
Oh.. I'm sure that's what Chris thinks too. :D
Bliddy hell I just got a green dubry for that :eek:
Yep Duke,
They are very selfish reasons indeed!
As been said many a time, after Independence you will be able to vote for any party you like, you dont have to be ruled by the SNP.
And I do sympathise because it must be very hard for anyone who isn't a Scot to grasp what Independence is about. You for one are not thinking about our children and future generations, I want them to be able to stand on their own two feet and run their own affairs. They will be more than capable and I am positive that they won't want to be seen as being tied to British rule because it is a safety mechanism.
C3............;)
[QUOTE=Aaldtimer;969039A source of that accusation might prove interesting!:confused
(It's "megalomaniacs" by the way.)[/QUOTE]
It's a well known fact (and not and never will be forgiven) Try google
(spelling....must try harder)
Yep Duke,
They are very selfish reasons indeed!
As been said many a time, after Independence you will be able to vote for any party you like, you dont have to be ruled by the SNP.
And I do sympathise because it must be very hard for anyone who isn't a Scot to grasp what Independence is about. You for one are not thinking about our children and future generations, I want them to be able to stand on their own two feet and run their own affairs. They will be more than capable and I am positive that they won't want to be seen as being tied to British rule because it is a safety mechanism.
C3............;)
Why not let future generations make their own minds up? :lol:
Definitely good reasons, and, perhaps, amongst the main reasons for my belief in the Union.
I believe in strength in numbers, not necessarily militarily but in terms of "weight".
At the moment we have a real say in world affairs. Whether we use that power correctly or not is a different matter, but I'd rather have that power than not. An independent Scotland would go from being a G8 country to something on a par of Belgium. For me, a backward step.
It isn't a deal breaker for me - I dont think that the cost of Britain maintaining that position on the world stage is worth it and that is cost in terms of lives and money. I think that we have capitulated to the US on too many occasions. I do not want nuclear weapons in Britain, never mind Scotland - however there is no way that I will ever be able to influcence the British Government to remove these weapons with my vote and yet in an Independent Scotland I would have that opportunity.
As for being independent and being part of the EU and NATO - i see no contradiction between the two. As part of the EU we will have some of the influence that we need to encourage growth and development. As part of NATO we will have access to specialists and experts which will be helpful as we develop our defence force. Also the possibilities of secondments and being involved in excercises and other opportunities will help us to offer excellent career development opportunities to staff within the defence force. As an independent country we can make our own decisions about these things whilst still being outward looking. I dont understand why people think there is a contradiction between these two things.
As for being like belgium - hmmm i dont know anything about Belgium but I believe that an Independent Scotland, in control of its own economy and able to vote for a government which has scottish priorities at the heart of its manifesto has to be a good thing and lay the foundations for a future generations to truly have control of their own society.
You may sneer at being like belgium....
One thing that I really don't understand is the stance of the SNP on separation. How can you be pro independence (home rule) and pro EU (outside rule) at the same time? Pick one or the other. Wanting your cake and eating it? I think so.[/QUOTE]
I have one question which I think is very important; How exactly does the SNP intend to finance an Independent Scotland?
Maverick - Easy! Alec's already said that Scotland will take 89% of the Oil assets, and 9% of the UK's liabilities. I'm sure Westminster will agree......
Firstly however the SNP need to win a majority in an election to decide which party leads us into independence and that is by no means certain that they will do that.
There are no definitive answers on the economy, however it is agreed by both sides of the referendum argument that Scotland COULD afford to be an independent country. The arguments that we are too poor to do so no longer hold water and are being avoided by the NO campaigners.
The answer to your question Maverick is that Whichever party governs Scotland will finance the country in the same way that every other independent country does - through taxes, borrowing and other income arising from grants and investments made on behalf of the people of their country. Much the same way as the UK government finances the UK - the difference being that in an Independent Scotland money raised in Scotland will be spent according to the priorities of Scotland decided by a government voted for by the people of Scotland.
How is that not better than what we have now?
Snip
One thing that I really don't understand is the stance of the SNP on separation. How can you be pro independence (home rule) and pro EU (outside rule) at the same time? Pick one or the other. Wanting your cake and eating it? I think so.I asked the same question on a previous thread about independence, I'm still waiting for an answer from those that support independence. I recall someone also posted that the referendum is illegal, that in the Scotland Act of 1997 or 1998, devolution would be granted but in a way that Scotland wouldn't be able to hold a referendum on independence. If Salmond is so keen for Scots to decide their future he should also ask them if they wish to remain part of Europe, I think he'd find the majority would rather pull out of the EU and remain part of the UK.
Snip I asked the same question on a previous thread about independence, I'm still waiting for an answer from those that support independence. I recall someone also posted that the referendum is illegal, that in the Scotland Act of 1997 or 1998, devolution would be granted but in a way that Scotland wouldn't be able to hold a referendum on independence. If Salmond is so keen for Scots to decide their future he should also ask them if they wish to remain part of Europe, I think he'd find the majority would rather pull out of the EU and remain part of the UK.
I have answered you and theone Joxville but Ill say it here so its clear
As for being independent and being part of the EU and NATO - i see no contradiction between the two. As part of the EU we will have some of the influence that we need to encourage growth and development. As part of NATO we will have access to specialists and experts which will be helpful as we develop our defence force. Also the possibilities of secondments and being involved in excercises and other opportunities will help us to offer excellent career development opportunities to staff within the defence force. As an independent country we can make our own decisions about these things whilst still being outward looking. I dont understand why people think there is a contradiction between these two things.
As for your question about a referendum on the EU - the Uk governemnt has ruled that out but as an Independent country we can very well decide to hold our own referendum.
Maverick - Easy! Alec's already said that Scotland will take 89% of the Oil assets, and 9% of the UK's liabilities. I'm sure Westminster will agree......The Oil in the North Sea will not last for ever, I also don't think that Scotland could cope with 9% of the UK,s liabilities, the reason for my question was to gauge how an Independent Scotland would be able to provide for future generations, I have paid into a British system all my working life and I feel that Independence may deprive me somewhat of my investment shall we say. I would be in complete agreement with you when it comes to Westminster's point of view. I feel that the Scottish Parliament should or Government should wait for at least 2 generations of our population to see the benefits of having our own Government before they start down the road to Independence. I personally have not seen or felt any benefit of having our own Government in Scotland, and unless I can see or feel a real benefit to me and my family and for our future generations I would not be prepared to vote to break up the union of our Great Nation...
I dont think that there is any perception that the oil will last for ever .... but depending on your point of view and who you read it might run out the day after independence is declared. I tend to think that it is somewhat further on that that. Again though i dont understand why people think industry will stand still..... our history shows us that it wont. the industrial landscape is completely different now than it was 20, 30 or 50 years ago and it will continue changing and developing. An independent Scotland can choose to prioritise research and sectoral growth to ensure that by the time the oil runs out we will have stopped relying on it to fund our economy - see Rhegheads post above.
I dont think that there is any perception that the oil will last for ever .... but depending on your point of view and who you read it might run out the day after independence is declared. I tend to think that it is somewhat further on that that. Again though i dont understand why people think industry will stand still..... our history shows us that it wont. the industrial landscape is completely different now than it was 20, 30 or 50 years ago and it will continue changing and developing. An independent Scotland can choose to prioritise research and sectoral growth to ensure that by the time the oil runs out we will have stopped relying on it to fund our economy - see Rhegheads post above.Squidge your point is taken and I do understand where you are coming from, the reality for me is the UK government is heavily reliant on the revenues generated from the oil industry and are not going to hand it over to a Scottish government. Scotland raising capitol through borrowing and taxes is no different to what is happening now, Independence will not change that, money spent in Scotland will be spent where there are the biggest populations, because that's where the biggest amounts of voters are, Independence will not change that.
In my opinion the Parliament in Scotland should work for the people of Scotland for at least 2 generations with maximum devolved power so as to allow the people of Scotland to gauge the benefits of having partial Independence before they vote in the issue of full Independence. At this moment in time my perception of the political standing is that the Scottish National Party are playing Russian roulette with my country...
Anyone who thinks an independent Scotland will have influence in the EU and NATO is deluded; do you seriously believe France and Germany wil pay heed to us, I dare say even the English will treat as as the runt of the litter. We don't and won't have the economic or military strength to be able to have a strong say in the decisions that are made. I'm afraid we'll be seen as just the wee yappy dug thats bark a lot but is actually quite weak.
money spent in Scotland will be spent where there are the biggest populations, because that's where the biggest amounts of voters are, Independence will not change that.
In my opinion the Parliament in Scotland should work for the people of Scotland for at least 2 generations with maximum devolved power so as to allow the people of Scotland to gauge the benefits of having partial Independence before they vote in the issue of full Independence. At this moment in time my perception of the political standing is that the Scottish National Party are playing Russian roulette with my country...
Independence WILL change that maverick because currently the money spent in he UK is spent on the priorities of the UK government - a government which is run by the conservatives - and you can argue that it is a coalition all you want but actually it is a tory led government and scotland voted ONE tory MP. The priorities of this government are NOT what the people of Scotland voted for. At the very least the priorities of a Scottish elected government will be those for which the Scottish electorate voted! And at the very least if what you say is true and them money will be spent on the areas where there are largest populations doesnt that equate to all the money being spent on London and the south east? Wouldnt it be better for the money to be spent in Scotland? Also if you want devo max and your suggestion is an is an interesting idea maverick - do you not support Alex Salmonds proposal that this referendum should be a two question referendum?
Squidge as I already said in my previous post, I understand your point of view and where you are coming from. You are right, monies spent in the UK are spent on priorities of the UK government, of which Scotland is still a part, now given the fact that only 1 tory MP was elected in Scotland sends a message to the UK government that the tories and their policies are not wanted here in Scotland. I do not believe that having an Independent Scotland will make things better, it is my understanding that all monies from the UK treasury are given to the Scottish Parliament who already decide where the money is to be spent in Scotland. If Independence means that we are going to simply adopt the same system of government whats the point of Independence?...
The point is Maverick that we dont have to..... We can choose to develop a competely different system of government if we want. Now that might happen quickly as the parties change and alter after a yes vote in the referendum or it may take some tiime but the opportunity will be there and you will be able to influence that with your vote. I was invited to an event in Edinburgh earlier this summer to look at that exactly - what sort of democracy people would want in an Independent Scotland run by the electoral commission. There will be other events for people to get involved with and have their voices heard. One thing though - without Independence there is little opportunity for change and little opportunity for influence even within our own UK.
Anyone who thinks an independent Scotland will have influence in the EU and NATO is deluded; do you seriously believe France and Germany wil pay heed to us, I dare say even the English will treat as as the runt of the litter. We don't and won't have the economic or military strength to be able to have a strong say in the decisions that are made. I'm afraid we'll be seen as just the wee yappy dug thats bark a lot but is actually quite weak.
Deluded - Thanks for that Joxville!!!! Very polite! There are plenty of reports and studies on this issue which show that small countries Can have and DO have influence in the EU particularly. The committee structure within the EU allows for the voices of small countries to be heard and to contribute to policies and procedures. It isnt the all encompassing influence of Germany and France but then small countries tend to have more specific goals dependent on their own economic or social aspirations. Where they focus on their own particular needs there is evidence to show they can be infuential. There is also the point of view that the influence that the UK has is diminishing through its own attitude to Europe and that being a fully committed member of the EU may give small countries more influence that Britain has currently.
As for NATO membership of NATO will give us the extra support and expertise we need to develop a defence force and a well defined and outward looking foreign policy - our own influence will depend on the role that Scotland chooses for itself ie: whether to be part of peacekeeping forces only or whether to be part of any aggressive forces. We can however decide for ourselves. And that also means we can decide on membership - simply because the SNP now state that membership of NATO is their policy doesnt mean that it will be the policy in an Independent Scotland because, as I have said before, the government deciding on these issues will be voted in after the referendum and might not be an SNP majority government.
Remember also that influence works both ways and we need to also be influenced BY the other countries that are part of the organisations we are talking about in order to ensure that we grow and develop as a newly independent country.
Anyone who thinks an independent Scotland will have influence in the EU and NATO is deluded; do you seriously believe France and Germany wil pay heed to us, I dare say even the English will treat as as the runt of the litter. We don't and won't have the economic or military strength to be able to have a strong say in the decisions that are made. I'm afraid we'll be seen as just the wee yappy dug thats bark a lot but is actually quite weak.
Agreed.
And there is another delusion which the SNP have and that is they believe that by separating militarily from the UK then Scotland will enter a blissful period of Caledonian Isolationism from the world's conflicts.
Can you say anything about the Union that might be a force for good?
If I could I would. Can you say anything about the Union that might be a force for good?
If I could I would. Can you say anything about the Union that might be a force for good?
Team GB did well!
Mystical Potato Head
11-Aug-12, 09:25
Its what he did NOT say Changi, the reporter tried everything to make him say he supported the Nats, and he did not say a word.
He said he was “frustrated” in getting drawn into the political battle over the SNP’s plans to create a separate Scotland but concluded that he was “very proud” to be part of Team GB.
Maybe,unlike you,he doesnt feel the need to voice his political opinions in public so that people dont use anything he says as a tool in their pathetic political games.
He hasnt said anything anti SNP but you twist that around to suit your own boringly predictable and extremely repetitive anti SNP agenda.
Chris HOY said "it's frustrating because as an athlete all you want to do is race and be the best you can and not get dragged into politics."
So in his own words he doesnt wish to be drawn into politics but that didnt stop you using the words he didnt say ,thats the words he DIDNT SAY!!!
to make him sound anti SNP.
Maybe he is anti SNP but he didnt actually say so.He is very proud to be part of team GB but he also has been very proud to represent Scotland in the commonwealth games and has stated it would be the ultimate swansong to represent Scotland in the 2014 commonwealth games in Glasgow.Like he says,you can be proud of both without being pro or anti unionist
He may,like an ever increasing number of people,have no interest in politics whatsoever or he may be sick and tired of the pro/anti SNP debate and sick and tired of the
people who twist words or use words which were never said(i think thats called lying) to suit their political agenda.
Sorry Squidge, maybe deluded was too strong a word. Maybe I'm wrong here but I have to bring class into it. My perception for a long time has been the independence movement appears to have been led by the middle class, they talk down to the working class by telling them what's best for them, that they, (the middle class), know better. At the moment the working class are more worried about having to pay bills, or worse, trying to find work, than to spend any length of time thinking about what Salmond and his ilk want, and I believe that's the hardest thing the SNP has to overcome, the apathy and cynicism of working class people. I'm not suggesting the working class are uneducated and don't understand what's happening, they understand fully what's happening in Scotland just now. I think the fear is if it all goes wrong, that the ones who will suffer most is those who can least afford to lose what little cash they have, that services they depend on will be cut, hospital treatment will be harder to get due to less doctors and nurses to treat them, council services will be cut to the bone, all the while their taxes will go up. I don't trust Salmond, the man has too big an ego, and for too long he's been a wee fish in a big pond, now he wants to be the big fish in a wee pond, even if that means Scotland paying the price for his vanity.
Thanks Joxville and I would maybe agree if you concentrate on the way it is being portrayed in the mainstream media however when you are on the street, in the pubs, involved in the debate you find that it is the ordinary man or woman who is leading the push for independence outwith party politics. They are not leading on behalf of the SNP but for Independence. If you read the blogs, the facebook pages, attend the various events - there is a march for independence in September in Edinburgh for example -you will find many many ordinary working people who are fed up of the way successive UK governments have ignored their concerns and needs and dont care that they ares struggling to pay the bills and put food on the table. At this march there will be people walking and speaking, across a whole range of parties and organisations and classes lol. There is a recognition amongst many that it things will not get any better as long as we are governed from Westminster.Here we have another example of this.... http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron-ally-says-all-benefits-1166473 The parties in Westminster are pretty much one and the same - there is little difference between them and no desire to build a fairer and better society. There are groups like Labour voters for independence and Women for independence and Voters Alliance for Scottish Independence who are cross party, sometimes volunteers, many not connected to the SNP and many who are not academics, or professionals.
I get why you dont trust Alec Salmond but this is not about Alec Salmond - its not even about the SNP - it is about the chance to build a society in Scotland which will look after the needs of the ordinary people rather than ignore them whilst feting those at the top of the pile. Fairer - more equal - It is the start of something exciting and empowering and if you look with an open mind and a fresh pair of eyes you will see that.
If I could I would. Can you say anything about the Union that might be a force for good?
The sheer taking advantages of scale is a force for good.
My explanation of the road maintenance was a classic example. But added to that, Scotland gets 90% of her imported goods via roads through England. Since England will need to maintain her roads that go to Scotland for Scotlands benefit then I can see toll charges being levied for transport northwards.
Here is a double whammie, we have to pay an extra premium for maintaining our own roads due to our lower population per miles of road network but also Scottish road haulers and other drivers will have to pay toll charges to maintain English roads.
All this extra expense will cause the cost of living in Scotland disproportionately to be more expensive for us than the rest of the UK as charges get passed onto Scottish consumers.
It is just the mathematics of it all and I don't argue with numbers.
In the end, relationships between Scotland and England will suffer because accusations of strangling the Scottish economy will be made at westminster and I can't sit here and let the world become a more disharmoniuos place.
Sorry Squidge, maybe deluded was too strong a word. Maybe I'm wrong here but I have to bring class into it. My perception for a long time has been the independence movement appears to have been led by the middle class, they I think the fear is if it all goes wrong, that the ones who will suffer most is those who can least afford to lose what little cash they have, that services they depend on will be cut, hospital treatment will be harder to get due to less doctors and nurses to treat them, council services will be cut to the bone, all the while their taxes will go up.At the moment the working class are more worried about having to pay bills, or worse, trying to find work, than to spend any length of time thinking about what Salmond and his ilk want, and I believe that's the hardest thing the SNP has to overcome, the apathy and cynicism of working class people. I'm not suggesting the working class are uneducated and don't understand what's happening, they understand fully what's happening in Scotland just now. I think the fear is if it all goes wrong, that the ones who will suffer most is those who can least afford to lose what little cash they have, that services they depend on will be cut, hospital treatment will be harder to get due to less doctors and nurses to treat them, council services will be cut to the bone, all the while their taxes will go up. I don't trust Salmond, the man has too big an ego, and for too long he's been a wee fish in a big pond, now he wants to be the big fish in a wee pond, even if that means Scotland paying the price for his vanity.
If you are going to believe Polls.....and some on here do.......the same poll cited to prove the Olympics made everybody all over the UK more British, and also used to claim that the cracks in the Independence movement were beginning to show , funnily enough also shows that more of the "working class" are for independence than among the "middle classes". Could that be because the "middle classes" are looking out for Number one and not considering the overall good of the Scottish population?
The apathy and cynicism is coming less from the C2DE grouping than the ABC1. So using your wording, but applying it where it appears actually to belong, if you believe polls, (with appropriate adjustments to the wording to reflect my perception of reality (bolded), as opposed to yours)....... I think the fear is if it all goes wrong, that the ones who will suffer most are those who have some cash saved and think they might have to lose some of it, that services they abuse by paying private companies to leech off NHS facilities, for elective surgeries, to the detriment of joe punter just trying to stay alive will be cut, hospital treatment will be harder to get due to less doctors and nurses to treat them, but that will be well compensated by the increase in the income from their shares in the private companies making the PFI profits..whether through their pension provision or directly owning shares...(because was that not one of Thatcher's definitions of Middle Class...owning your own (council) house and shares)..enabling them to buy private health provision, council services will be cut to the bone, possibly denying them the access to what exactly? Most cuts in council services impact disproportionately on those who can't pay to replace them than on those who could, (if they gave up a gas-guzzling car or a foreign holiday a year), all the while their taxes will go up.
Sorry, joxville..but you sound more like one of the "I'm all right, Jack and I'm not about to risk changing that" brigade than anyone who gives a toss about anything other than what you, personally, will get out of it. You don't have to bring class into it..because class has sod all to do with it...class has sod all to do with anything in the 21st Century. The only people who think having money/property/shares/ a white collar job etc makes them better in their own mind than anybody who doesn't have money/property/shares/ a white collar job etc are those with money/property/shares/ a white collar job etc...or people who wish to divide and conquer. I have had all of those in my time, bar the shares.......and never felt that I was any different to anybody else who had less or had more. I wouldn't bow to the Queen any more than I'd spit on a homeless person because they were better or lesser than I am.
Class is not a problem or a definition to those of us who don't give a toss as to the inflated perceptions individuals ...and groups have of themselves. Being "middle class" in your own mind doesn't imply intelligence, perception,.....or the courage to embrace change without guarantees that you won't lose anything....while it seems being "working class" in the minds of the "middle class" does, going by your post, imply lacking intelligence and perception..but funnily enough, it does not seem to mean that they lack the courage to embrace change without guarantees that they won't lose anything....though that is maybe because they are already going to lose so much by remaining in the Union, while the "middle classes" are not..and the absolute certainty of a crap future for the under 25s, the disabled etc is not as appealing as the possibility of a not quite so crap future in an Independent Scotland.
I'm a pensioner in the UK........I'm just very marginally above the maximum no perk threshold because I do have a small works pension, but a less than full Statutory one...but am still one of the protected UK species (because there are a lot of us to vote for those we believe protect us, maybe?) And I manage to do all I want to do on my income....though I have never expected to live in the same lifestyle as I had when I was working and earning a wage.....so I don't eternally carp about lack of holidays,the cost of running a car, the inability to sit in a hothouse in a tee shirt, or quaff bottles of wine when the mood takes, for example. I'm happy enough being able to support the charities etc I think deserve my support and am not overly bothered that I have to pay almost all I get above the maximum allowable pensioner income on Council Tax and and Housing Rent. I don't think I am owed any more than an income on which I can live comfortably.....but it appears "comfortably" is expectation defined on what you have been used to rather than what you need.
However, given that the one group most against Independence in any poll I have seen, are my age group, I think I may be in the minority there. That is, to an extent why I believe that 16/17 year olds should have the vote, because why should the likes of me, nearing the end of my life, be in a position to dictate their future to those who will have to live their longer lives in that future because we may just possibly be a shade worse off in our much shorter term?
Are you are basically saying that we have finally entered an era of "the UK dream" aping that of America, where the possession of money and property is God, and you just don't vote for anything which just maybe. possibly reduce your own personal income and possessions, even though it might help those who are being shat upon from a great height?
What is important is what we think of the abilities of Scotland...the people, the Governments, of whatever colour or political view, working solely for Scottish interests, the businesses etc without nanny UK dictating what we can do, how much we can spend and on what...that we think of Scotland without the centuries old cringe factor, the "we know what the Union gives us so why give up certainty for uncertainty" (even though the UK has no clue as to what the UK is going to be like tomorrow..and is that not uncertainty?) Union security blanket option.
What is important is that we look at the UK, as it has been for the last forty or so years....and think."is this how we want to live for the rest of our time on this earth, being controlled by right wing governments we did not vote for imposing policies on us we don't like, being drawn into wars which have all to do with the UK as a whole, far less us as Scotland, being obliged to harbour nuclear weapons we don't want, just because the UK needs them to punch above their weight in the world but can't find anywhere else to put them which is cheaper to set up, easier to maintain..and will kill proportionately less Scots than any other UK citizens if things get nasty, because there are less of us. Much the same reason as Dounreay got the five nuclear reactor trials in the 1950s...because any problems found causing accidents would trash less Scots than if it was put anywhere else in the UK.......and no matter that Caithness with its small population is, for generations, going to reap the benefits of the contamination introduced by the facilities, long after they have been closed down and cease to provide any benefit re jobs to the local community.
Could Scotland as an independent country treat us any worse than the UK already does? Really?
The sheer taking advantages of scale is a force for good.
My explanation of the road maintenance was a classic example. But added to that, Scotland gets 90% of her imported goods via roads through England. Since England will need to maintain her roads that go to Scotland for Scotlands benefit then I can see toll charges being levied for transport northwards.
Here is a double whammie, we have to pay an extra premium for maintaining our own roads due to our lower population per miles of road network but also Scottish road haulers and other drivers will have to pay toll charges to maintain English roads.
All this extra expense will cause the cost of living in Scotland disproportionately to be more expensive for us than the rest of the UK as charges get passed onto Scottish consumers.
It is just the mathematics of it all and I don't argue with numbers.
In the end, relationships between Scotland and England will suffer because accusations of strangling the Scottish economy will be made at westminster and I can't sit here and let the world become a more disharmoniuos place.
Thing is, Rheghead.....an Independent Scotland doesn't need to end up with England forbidding the use of her roads, or allowing them to get potholed into uselessness....unless England is into spitting out her dummy.
Norway has in their time, removed from a Union with both Sweden and Denmark on different occasions.but they can still all drive on all the roads in all three Scandinavian countries. Most of Europe has a toll system, as those who holiday in Europe already know....what is the problem with the same reciprocal system (as in not just England benefiting unless they never want to export anything to us) in Great Britain, the land mass........or are you also saying that all traffic will forever be one way? Scotland could also get the proportion of her imports which are not directly produced and delivered directly from English soil via her ports....couldn't she? Scotland used to do that at one time..before the Union.
Look, Rheghead, at which stage are you going to accept that Scotland's road are crap because we have had 293 years of the Union building/maintaining them (or rather not building/maintaining them) and only 12 of a Scottish Government, (with a restricted income for undertaking capital projects) able to start doing something about it. We have managed with crap roads for three centuries.....as have English hauliers driving up and down using them....so why would this all of a sudden change on Independence?
Why, with no Scottish MPs at Westminster, would there be any accusations of strangling the Scottish economy . Can't see anybody in the rUK Parliament giving a toss, as long as their own economy isn't strangled. Even with Scottish MPs in Westminster, Scotland is completely ignored unless the SNP is doing well........it has always been thus, has it not?
Could our world, as in that within the UK, possibly become more disharmonious? Really? I don't really see how you are going to stop the disharmony, tbh...unless you are David Cameron in disguise and are prepared to look seriously at Devo-Max. (Not convinced that even that will sort stuff out permanently, but I'm sure it would for a generation or so.)
Sorry squidge but if you think that the health service will improve under an independent government then think again.
I have recently had need to contact NHS and was told in no uncertain terms that as I live in a sparsely populated area then I should not expect and would not get the same level of care.
I have been trying for eight months now to get answers to some questions about how monies are spent within the service, I have an SNP MSP and Holyrood has an SNP majority, to date neither has furnished me with the required information which does not inspire any sort of confidence.
Both hospitals within the county are constantly under review with a view to closure, the provision of GP care is now falling well below what is required, maternity services seem to be centered on Raigmore with little of no thought for the expectant mother, my neighbour was recently sent to Leeds for an operation as there was no one at the time able to perform a complex surgery north of the border despite his having been advised that it would be done in Glasgow and he and his wife getting as far as Pitlochry only to be advised it had been cancelled and to go home!
Now if any one can explain how things will get better, I will listen to their argument with great interest.
Lizz I too needed specialist treatment whilst living in Caithness and had to be flown south by air ambulance for treatment which saved my life. The thing is that when we decided to move to Caithness we did it in full knowledge that we could not expect the same level of care as we would have living in Manchester or Aberdeen but that where we needed treatment we would get it but that it might be far away from where we lived. I do not have an issue with that. I do however agree that GP care should be the same and I am unclear what the issues are that prevents that being the case in Caithness. Maternity Services are an ongoing issue and Caithness MUST not lose the services it has but the staffing issue is a hard nut to crack. Attracting Drs and nurses and specialists to rural areas is going to be difficult but there may be some way resolving this in a similar way as they have done with teachers - if a newly qualified science teacher says they will do their probationary year anywhere then they can get a significant payment during this probationary year.
As for how money is spent well it baffles me too. However what I do know is that the money comes from the UK government as part of the block grant that Scotland receives. And that is ALL we have to spend. That money is reducing and as the deficit reduction plans tighten and tighten this money will be less and less. The Scottish Government budget is set by Westminster. It is fixed, just like our salaries every month, and has been decreasing steadily in real terms over the last few years. On top of that came a big cut from the Tories when they got into power. The NHS Scotland budget is paid wholly from the SG budget. Less money in = less money out. This is not a party issue it is a government issue.
As for the SNP Lizz - if you dont think they are doing a good enough job with the NHS then you need to vote for someone else - but the labour party's record on the NHS is not great and the torys will just introduce the health reforms in Scotland. That may be what you want but it isnt for me. After a yes vote - the political landscape will have to change and all the parties will readjust and develop new policies and you can have input and lobby on those policies as much or as little as you want - from posting on here or on facebook, or writing about your views, to standing for parliament in an Independent Scotland.
How will things get better under Independence.... Well firstly we will have the freedom to spend money collected in Scotland on scottish priorities - ALL the money - not simply the money given to us by the westminster government. We will have our own borrowing capability and we will have the freedom ( and I use that word wisely lol ) to completely change the way the NHS is funded, run and managed if that is what the electorate want. Its not going to change the day after independence but we have the opportunity to do things differently. We can start something which might indeed take several years to complete but we can do it with OUR money by voting for OUR government. Currently all the UK parties just fiddle around the edges but we have the chance to do something different and to vote for parties which offer something different. WE have NO chance to do that under the arrangement just now - firstly there is no political will - whilst health is a devolved responsibility there is no opportunity for Scotland to do something different as part of the union and there is not enough money to do something different whilst the money is given to Scotland by the UK.
The argument for Independence for me is about having that chance to change things in a way we dont have within the union. Its about being in control of our own finances and our own priorities and being able to elect a government which is voted for by the majority of people voting in Scotland and therefore reflects the priorities we have in Scotland. Because an Independent Scotland would have these things then we would have an opportunity to do things differently. It is the best chance we have because there is NO chance that a UK government would give us that opportunity.
I was born in Scotland, I am proud to call myself a Scotsman.
I was also born In the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and I served in the armed forces of that nation, I swore an oath to her Britannic Majesty Queen Elizabeth 2nd.
I have a birth right to call myself British as has every man, woman and child born in this country, that's every person born in Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales.
So what right does Alex Salmond and his SNP party have to take the birth right from every person born in the UK, because without Scotland there is no Britain and therefore there cannot be any British people. When we went to war with Argentina over the Falklands we didn't go as a coalition with any other country, we stood alone as a British armed force.
Even if an Independence vote was to succeed why should I have to surrender my British citizenship, something I feel is my right by birth?..
changilass
12-Aug-12, 15:30
I have a birth right to call myself British as has every man, woman and child born in this country, that's every person born in Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales.
You left me out :(. and thousands of others who were born abroad to working service members.
You left me out :(. and thousands of others who were born abroad to working service members. Lucky you you are entitled to duel nationality, but Eck Salmond can only take one away from you.
Thing is, Rheghead.....an Independent Scotland doesn't need to end up with England forbidding the use of her roads, or allowing them to get potholed into uselessness....unless England is into spitting out her dummy.
Norway has in their time, removed from a Union with both Sweden and Denmark on different occasions.but they can still all drive on all the roads in all three Scandinavian countries. Most of Europe has a toll system, as those who holiday in Europe already know....what is the problem with the same reciprocal system (as in not just England benefiting unless they never want to export anything to us) in Great Britain, the land mass........or are you also saying that all traffic will forever be one way? Scotland could also get the proportion of her imports which are not directly produced and delivered directly from English soil via her ports....couldn't she? Scotland used to do that at one time..before the Union.
Look, Rheghead, at which stage are you going to accept that Scotland's road are crap because we have had 293 years of the Union building/maintaining them (or rather not building/maintaining them) and only 12 of a Scottish Government, (with a restricted income for undertaking capital projects) able to start doing something about it. We have managed with crap roads for three centuries.....as have English hauliers driving up and down using them....so why would this all of a sudden change on Independence?
Why, with no Scottish MPs at Westminster, would there be any accusations of strangling the Scottish economy . Can't see anybody in the rUK Parliament giving a toss, as long as their own economy isn't strangled. Even with Scottish MPs in Westminster, Scotland is completely ignored unless the SNP is doing well........it has always been thus, has it not?
Could our world, as in that within the UK, possibly become more disharmonious? Really? I don't really see how you are going to stop the disharmony, tbh...unless you are David Cameron in disguise and are prepared to look seriously at Devo-Max. (Not convinced that even that will sort stuff out permanently, but I'm sure it would for a generation or so.)
Look I'm tired of your long winding woolly answers that never seem to say anything. I gave you specific issues to dwell upon and you just airbrushed over the whole thing.
You said you had your reasons for finding the Union objectionable. I can understand that, I knew a chap whose son was killed in action and he blamed the British Government etc for the death of his son and the only way he could go on in life was to support Scottish independence to 'get back' at old Blighty. But the fact is, the British stand up to bullies who may come knocking on your door some time.
Oddquine, can I just say that I'm not, and never have been, one of those 'I'm alright Jack' persons. I'm just an ordinary working class guy, I don't have shares or major savings, nor do I own a home, and given my age, (47), I'm unlikely to ever get a mortgage. With the exception of a couple of times, I've voted Labour all my life, the other twice I voted for Robert McLennan during the 11 years I lived in Caithness. I'll NEVER vote Tory, especially after the way they treated Scotland when Thatcher came to power. I believe in helping those less fortunate than myself, especially as I've always felt Governments run the country to suit the well off; and I have a few pounds deducted from my wages each month to donate to two charities.
My quandary is that I've always believed that Scotland should be independent, that we should be free to run our own country without interference from England. But given the state of the economy now, will Scotland really be able to stand on her own two feet. Is it playing in to the English hands for us to get independence, that they'll be free of the 'whinging Jocks' as some of my English colleagues love to annoy me with? The English seem to think they'll be better off financially without Scotland getting subsidies, an issue which I'm totally confused about, depending on which politician is speaking, some say Scotland doesn't get back what it pays in, others say we get more. What I'd really like is for Salmond or some other politician to stand up and tell the truth, lay it on the line what the real financial implications are, how our essential services will still be fully supported, and that yes, that Scotland will have a bad few years to begin with, but it can and will have a better and stronger economy without English shackles. Treat us with the respect we deserve, after all, we're the ones voting with our futures at stake.
Bobinovich
12-Aug-12, 19:37
...What I'd really like is for Salmond or some other politician to stand up and tell the truth, lay it on the line what the real financial implications are, how our essential services will still be fully supported, and that yes, that Scotland will have a bad few years to begin with, but it can and will have a better and stronger economy without English shackles. Treat us with the respect we deserve, after all, we're the ones voting with our futures at stake.
I fully agree, but I don't want to hear it from Salmond - he's not averse to spinning thing to make them sound too good to be true. I'd prefer to hear it from a totally independent body with access to all the facts & figures - not something I expect will happen unfortunately as too many are already swung either one way or the other :roll:.
http://www.stornowaygazette.co.uk/news/scottish-headlines/games-bolster-independence-support-1-2464095
Interesting article and poll.
C3...................:)
http://www.stornowaygazette.co.uk/news/scottish-headlines/games-bolster-independence-support-1-2464095
Interesting article and poll.
C3...................:)
Interesting poll? Are you Serious? A massive 4% swing with a huge poll of (under) 800 people................
What, honestly, did you find interesting?
My only surprise was an SNP MP supporting non Scottish team GB members.
I wonder if he'll be dismissed from the party for not following the party line in the same way as Cllr Bremner was?
I am still bemused, I chose to move here to the far north because I could see the very obvious attractions of the place and have no regrets, it has lived up to all expectations.
I have always considered myself british 2nd like so many scots but why should I have to accept 2nd rate services?
I am adding to the population in an area that both Holyrood and Westminster would like to see re-populated but are they offering any incentives?
Damned if they are, please excuse my expletive , and like so many I have paid my taxes throughout my working life so I for one and not prepared to accept the status quo.
I am still bemused, I chose to move here to the far north because I could see the very obvious attractions of the place and have no regrets, it has lived up to all expectations.
I have always considered myself british 2nd like so many scots but why should I have to accept 2nd rate services?
I am adding to the population in an area that both Holyrood and Westminster would like to see re-populated but are they offering any incentives?
Damned if they are, please excuse my expletive , and like so many I have paid my taxes throughout my working life so I for one and not prepared to accept the status quo.
Westminster or Holyrood, you might as well be a million miles away.
In ANY democracy those in the less populated regions will always see themselves being granted less from the pot than those where the majority live.
The grass is always greener on the other side.
Oddquine, can I just say that I'm not, and never have been, one of those 'I'm alright Jack' persons. I'm just an ordinary working class guy, I don't have shares or major savings, nor do I own a home, and given my age, (47), I'm unlikely to ever get a mortgage. With the exception of a couple of times, I've voted Labour all my life, the other twice I voted for Robert McLennan during the 11 years I lived in Caithness. I'll NEVER vote Tory, especially after the way they treated Scotland when Thatcher came to power. I believe in helping those less fortunate than myself, especially as I've always felt Governments run the country to suit the well off; and I have a few pounds deducted from my wages each month to donate to two charities.
My quandary is that I've always believed that Scotland should be independent, that we should be free to run our own country without interference from England. But given the state of the economy now, will Scotland really be able to stand on her own two feet. Is it playing in to the English hands for us to get independence, that they'll be free of the 'whinging Jocks' as some of my English colleagues love to annoy me with? The English seem to think they'll be better off financially without Scotland getting subsidies, an issue which I'm totally confused about, depending on which politician is speaking, some say Scotland doesn't get back what it pays in, others say we get more. What I'd really like is for Salmond or some other politician to stand up and tell the truth, lay it on the line what the real financial implications are, how our essential services will still be fully supported, and that yes, that Scotland will have a bad few years to begin with, but it can and will have a better and stronger economy without English shackles. Treat us with the respect we deserve, after all, we're the ones voting with our futures at stake.
My aplogies for misinterpreting your post, joxville......but anybody invoking the class system tends to do that to me, because I really do think it is little more than a divide and conquer method of putting people in their place and very little different to the Hindu caste system, with our working class being the equivalent of their untouchables.
Given the state of the economy and the uncertainty of the short/medium/longer term prospects for the UK given the global situation, I can't see we could do worse, tbh. The financial implications, both re remaining in the Union or having an Independent Scotland are unknowable......because relatively little depends on the economic decisions of either country, but more depends on the situation within the global community. The best anyone can do is look at the past and extrapolate to the future, which will certainly be the best case scenario, whether produced by Scotland or the UK...so there is not truth regarding the future, there is only truth regarding the figures of the past....and even those are subject to interpretation depending on the bias involved.
The production of figures by Scotland does have the problem, admittedly, that we are not privileged to know how much Scotland inputs to the UK, because the UK, if they know the figures, don't tell them. We are only ever told what we take out in "subsidies".....so we are limited to either using figures we can ascertain from the statistics we collect for ourselves, or assuming a population percentage of the UK wide input to the UK owned "bank" for those figures we cannot know, such as military spending, because we are not told. Best Scotland can do working from the basis of UK secrecy, is GERS, and I'm not saying for a second that those figures are 100% accurate......but the methods of arriving at the figures are at least logical within the limitations forced on us.and the methodology explained. Afraid I think that if the UK actually did have figures which proved that Scotland was subsidised, they'd have been on every UK newspaper for years....and in the run-up to the referendum, in Dayglo colours and bold capital letters.
If you are going just to look at the GERS figures, then Scotland does not get subsidised and pays her way in the UK.....something which has been acknowledged by members of the UK Government, if not by the Unionist punter on the comments sections of the UK media..or people in your place of work. The "subsidised Jocks" is a production of some members of the UK Government in the past initially, hyped up by the UK media, bought into by the English punter...and is being promulgated, even now, by some members of the UK Government, some of them embarrassingly Scots. Maybe always over the last three hundred years that was not the case....but it is now, and has been for decades. The figures used by the ONS for UK purposes does not apportion any ex-regio input, but treats it all as solely UK income...which, on independence would be properly allocated.
I am aware that twenty five economists can produce 25 different interpretations of the UK and GERS figures..but when there is nothing else, because the UK won't provide anything else, we have to work with what we have, however limited that is. The headline GERS figures for 2010-2011 at basic levels are:
Total Public Sector Expenditure for the benefit of Scotland by the UK Government, Scottish Government and all other tiers of the public sector, plus a per capita share of debt interest payments,was £63.8 billion. This is equivalent to 9.3 per cent of total UK public sector expenditure.
Total Scottish Non-North Sea public sector revenue was estimated at £45.2 billion, (8.3 per cent of total UK non-North Sea revenue).
Including a per capita share of North Sea revenue, total Scottish public sector revenue was estimated at £45.9 billion (8.3 per cent of UK total public sector revenue).
When an illustrative geographical share of North Sea revenue is included, total Scottish public sector revenue was estimated at £53.1 billion (9.6 per cent of UK total public sector revenue).
The estimated current budget balance for the public sector in Scotland was a deficit of £14.3 billion (12.0 per cent of GDP) excluding North Sea revenue.
A deficit of £13.6 billion (11.2 per cent of GDP) including a per capita share of North Sea revenue.
Or a deficit of £6.4 billion (4.4 per cent of GDP) including an illustrative geographical share of North Sea revenue.
While in 2010-11, the UK, as a whole,ran a current budget deficit, including 100 per cent of North Sea revenue, of £97.8 billion (6.6 per cent of GDP).
Scotland’s estimated net fiscal balance was a deficit of £18.6 billion (15.6 per cent of GDP) when excluding North Sea revenue.
A deficit of £17.9 billion (14.7 per cent of GDP) when including a per capita share of North Sea revenue.
Or a deficit of £10.7 billion (7.4 per cent of GDP) when a geographical share of North Sea revenue is included.
And in 2010-11, the equivalent UK position including 100 per cent of North Sea revenue, referred to in the UK Public Sector Accounts as ‘net borrowing’, was a deficit of £136.1 billion (or 9.2 per cent of GDP).
Now maybe my logic is weird.....but if you have a country with no fiscal autonomy, which is limited to spending UK assigned pocket money in UK permitted limited areas and is not allowed by the UK to borrow money to finance projects which might help their economy, except from the UK and with their permission, and that country ends up with a current budget deficit nearly twice as much as that of the UK,and has net borrowing, which they did not themselves initiate, of 7%+ more than the UK, a country which has access to all UK revenues.....which country is not managing its economy adequately?
So many interesting and valid concerns -
Maverick - no one is going to remove your British Citizenship - no one. being british is your right by birth and you will not lose that. Currently you do not lose your british citizenship if you become a citizen of another country unless that country requires it. alec Salmond or the SNP do not have the power to do this and will not remove anyone's British citizenship.
Bobinoviich - check out http://vasi.org.uk/ you will find many views there which are not linked to the SNP. There are often links to supporting information from the articles you read. Also I try to link to sites which are not SNP in many of my posts and so you can follow those and hopefully get other opinions which will help you to make an informed decision.
Lizz - What exactly do you mean by a 2nd class service? There is no way that an area like Caithness or the south of Scotland can afford or justify a hospital that offers state of the art specialist care in every area. When I was ill and had to be flown south, I was the first case my GP had seen in 20 years! I surely couldnt expect a specialist in my illness to be there on hand just when I needed it.
You are however absolutely right that Caithness and other rural areas must have robust services to deal with maternity, GP, podiatry, Accident and Emergency, dialysis and other service like these. Westminster, however has absolutely no idea of the rurality of areas like Caithness. I remember meeting with a Westminster rural affairs committee and their lack of understanding about issues affecting people in remote areas was surprising. They had no idea that it took 4 and half hours to travel to Inverness by train! There is no extra money forthcoming to meet the extra costs of providing care in the far north as part of the block grant, any money to fund initiatives like telecare or other initiatives which help to address the rural healthcare issues has to come from the block grant and we are back to the fact that this money is shrinking. The Scottish government is not going to be given MORE money from westminster. So far it has protected the NHS money and not reduced its funding, but there is absolutely NO chance of the block grant increasing. If Scotland was in control of its own finances, collecting its own revenue, deciding its own spending priorities then Scotland could INCREASE the spending on the NHS, they could choose to give EXTRA money to fund improvements in rural healthcare.
You could say they might not and you would be right - they might not - whether the government we elect decides to spend on the NHS is up to us. WE will have the chance to vote and elect a government which meets OUR needs. Today - as it stands right now - the westminster government is NOT going to increase spending on the NHS; it is NOT interested in what happens in the north of Scotland and it is NOT NOT NOT going to increase the block grant it pays to the Scottish government. If Scotland was independent then the money raised in Scotland by people living in Scotland will be spend in Scotland on Scottish priorities. It is up to us to decide what they should be.
If Scotland was independent then the money raised in Scotland by people living in Scotland will be spend in Scotland on Scottish priorities. It is up to us to decide what they should be......and you can be sure those priorities will be where the population is - the Central Belt. There is no guarantee that the far north will benefit from any investment by an independent Scottish government. I have yet to be convinced anywhere north of Aberdeen is going to benefit.
What benefits do we get now? What is the UK government doing or going to do to improve life for people living in the rural areas of Scotland? The answer is nothing .... We do not feature on their radar at all.
I think that an Independent Scotland will be more focused on the needs of rural populations because we have so much of it in comparison to the size of the country. Its not so easy to ignore rural issues when the percentage of the electorate living in rural areas is nearly 20% in Scotland. Thats a significant figure and enough to influence political parties and their results in an election. In the rest of the uk it looks to be about 8%.
There are no guarantees - you are right but are you happy with the Status Quo? If you are Gronnuck then vote no to independence. If you think that the best people to look after our interests are Coalition politicians or the Labour Party in Westminster then that is your right. I dont agree. We will continue to be ignored and overlooked with no chance for changing that. A Scottish government will overlook the rural population at its peril.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2011/09/29133747/2
changilass
13-Aug-12, 11:47
Where is the Scotish government going to get the extra money to be able to improve life for folks in rural communities?
They are hardly going to take it away from the 80% of the voters in the more populated areas.
Even if they only manage to sway half of the 80%, then it is still double what you could get in rural areas, even supposing you could get all of them. The maths just don't work in favour of rural areas.
The Scottish government already decide how to divi up the money from Westminster, they already have the option to spend more in rural areas.
We are back to why are we not changing for the better now? The excuse is we can't until independence does not wash. As changi said, the majority of the money Scotland receives from Westminster and elseware is spent in the way they decide.
BTW I'm just back from down south and a perception I picked up is that while their children are leaving uni with massive dept and they have to pay for perscriptions, eye tests etc. we don't and they are paying for it. So againB-off ASAP
BTW I'm just back from down south and a perception I picked up is that while their children are leaving uni with massive dept and they have to pay for perscriptions, eye tests etc. we don't and they are paying for it. So againB-off ASAP
So we Scots don't pay any taxes then and would sooner live off the generosity of the English? Thats very kind of them indeed!
If they wanted free prescriptions, glasses and higher education then most of the silly fools voted for the wrong party at the last elections. There is no way they are going to get those freebies with the Tories in charge are they?
Didn't you tell them that our Council tax has been frozen for the last 4 years Duke? I expect they think they are paying for that as well!
They have got far better NHS services and hospitals than we have and they have got to learn that you can't have everything and they have also got to learn that they don't subsidise us Scots. We pay all our taxes the same as they do and we only get back what we pay in.
Everytime I fill my car up I pay in the region of £50 in taxes, I often wonder where that money ends up, probably to the upkeep of Buckingham Palace!!
C3..............:roll:;)
Changi lets see if I can make myself clearer - If I earn 100 pounds a week and hand it over to my husband and he gives me back £90 per week and keeps the £10 but i have to pay for £89 of stuff then I only have £1 a week to spend on things that I would like to change. It means that I cant do what I would like to do - I dont have the flexibility or the income to do so. Thats what happens with the Scottish Budget just now.
If I earn £100 per week and keep £100 per week and have the flexibility to raise another £2.50 per week through closing loopholes or not spending on things that I dont have the option to give up currently, plus I can borrow another £1 per week that gives me an extra £13.50 per week which I can choose to spend on what I want.
Its a simplistic way of describing it but it is true nontheless.
Using the same example if i take my original £1 and spend it on lipstick and shoes then does my husband have the right to say HE is paying for my lipstick and shoes? Of course not I earned that money. But if I can manage to buy lipstick and shoes with my £1 then imagine what I can do with a whole extra £13.50.
There is no argument that Scotland doesnt contribute more than they receive back. All the political parties have stopped arguing this point and it is widely accepted. There is plenty of evidence to support this.
Why cant it change now? The answer to that is that there is no political impetus within the UK to change. There is no political impetus to reduce inequality and create a better and fairer society. The impetus is rising out of the Independence debate and leaving the Westminster political arena stone dead as far as change is concerned.
Oh!!! and Ducati dont be rude.... Im going nowhere - I rarely start the debate but I will continue to answer the questions I am asked as clearly as I can. If you are bored with me then go somewhere else
changilass
13-Aug-12, 14:26
Are you saying that Scotland, as a whole, generates 10% more money than it requires to provide all the services we currently use.
Does this include shared resources?
Surely if you are right on these figures, then we wouldn't need to borrow the £1, 10% would be a hell of a lot of money.
Blimey Changi nope I am not clever enough to make it accurate to the percentage point the figures are here http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/11/scotland-12288-union-public - they are available from GERS and other places and seem to be agreed across the political spectrum
It is the principle that is the issue - within an independent Scotland we will retain the money which we generate "earn" and have flexibility in a way which we dont have now. The point is that Scotland pays its way, it pays for its own university fees and free prescriptions and protects the NHS budget. IF we continue to earn £100 but the amount we get back reduces to £89 or £87 which it will then what happens then? Remember the money given back to Scotland is calculated not on Scottish Priorities but on the priorities of whichever party is in government and reflects that, so the money will reduce as the deficit reduction plans of the UK government bite.
changilass
13-Aug-12, 15:12
Is a percentage of that defecit not ours?
Question is, how much?
We arn't gonna be allowed to break away with a clear slate, we will have to take over our share of the debt, can we still hold our own in those circumstances?
Yon Chiel
13-Aug-12, 15:36
We are back to why are we not changing for the better now? The excuse is we can't until independence does not wash. As changi said, the majority of the money Scotland receives from Westminster and elseware is spent in the way they decide.
BTW I'm just back from down south and a perception I picked up is that while their children are leaving uni with massive dept and they have to pay for perscriptions, eye tests etc. we don't and they are paying for it. So againB-off ASAP
Maybe 'independence' will bring about an improved education system so that future generations can better spell.
I am not saying that services are second class squidge, just that they are seldom avilable where they are most needed.
I am also concerned`as to how the monies currently available are spent or mispent as the case may be as this could be a good indicator as to any future trends.
I see much evidence of good intentions but very little application but I do see alot of mismanagement and very poor judgement.
It's no good eulogising about a hyperthetical utopia that may or may not happen when all the current signs are that neither the politics,politicians ,civil service and the like look as though they are even living in the last century let alone this one and their resistance to any change that could affect their vested interests is blatantly obvious.
Call me an old cynic but I do have ,age, experience and a critical eye that has taught me over the years to take nothing on trust, to question everything, do alot of research on my own behest and then try and make a judgement on the facts available.
Oh!!! and Ducati dont be rude.... Im going nowhere - I rarely start the debate but I will continue to answer the questions I am asked as clearly as I can. If you are bored with me then go somewhere else
Eh?? Who's being rude? Oh! That is what the people south who have the perception I mentioned want the Scots to do.
Another debate I came across, conversely, is why have the Scots the right to vote when the rest ofthe UK don't?
And can I point at another European country that has successfully (rather than disastrously) broken away.
And someone else who is convinced it will start a war! Which sounds barking except she gave several examples in Europe where it had.
I found myself in the strange position of defending the Scotnats against very bitter animosity.
Well, all Scots actually because another perception is that all Scots want independence.
Maybe 'independence' will bring about an improved education system so that future generations can better spell.
Or you could get a life.
So we Scots don't pay any taxes then and would sooner live off the generosity of the English? Thats very kind of them indeed!
If they wanted free prescriptions, glasses and higher education then most of the silly fools voted for the wrong party at the last elections. There is no way they are going to get those freebies with the Tories in charge are they?
Didn't you tell them that our Council tax has been frozen for the last 4 years Duke? I expect they think they are paying for that as well!
They have got far better NHS services and hospitals than we have and they have got to learn that you can't have everything and they have also got to learn that they don't subsidise us Scots. We pay all our taxes the same as they do and we only get back what we pay in.
Everytime I fill my car up I pay in the region of £50 in taxes, I often wonder where that money ends up, probably to the upkeep of Buckingham Palace!!
C3..............:roll:;)
Don't tell me, tell them.
Aha Ducati, I thought you were telling ME to b..... off lol.
It's no good eulogising about a hyperthetical utopia that may or may not happen when all the current signs are that neither the politics,politicians ,civil service and the like look as though they are even living in the last century let alone this one and their resistance to any change that could affect their vested interests is blatantly obvious.
Call me an old cynic but I do have ,age, experience and a critical eye that has taught me over the years to take nothing on trust, to question everything, do alot of research on my own behest and then try and make a judgement on the facts available.
Im no spring chicken myself Lizz and I too have a critical eye - the thing is that I cast my critical eyes over what has happened over the last however many years and see that the Westminster politicians have made little or no effort to change - that the facts show us that we bounce from Tory governments to Labour governments and one side does one thing and one the other.... I see a society where the powers that be see ordinary people as those to be screwed whilst allowing multi million pound organisations and individuals to avoid tax by the bucket load, I see a society which doesnt value people and where many children fail to reach their potential. And then I cast my critical eye over the future and I see potential for changing that with Independence. Not overnight - not even in one or two or five years but to begin a process which will make life better and fairer. It may be short on details but surely its up to US to dot the Is and cross the Ts - us being the people who live in Scotland through lobbying, voting, entering into consultation processes. I am not blindly trusting anybody - i am and will be working to try to make some of the things happen that people are telling me and others they want. I am sure that within the union there is no catalyst for changing very much.
If people are ideologically committed to the Union - that is fair enough but I am not. I want something which makes society better and the only hope I see for beginning that process is Independence. We have just seen the olympics and seen first hand what hope, and hard work and enthusiasm can do - why can that not be applied to Society?
Yon Chiel
13-Aug-12, 18:50
why can that not be applied to Society?
The first, and only, woman entrusted to run the country famously said..."there is no such thing as society."
The first, and only, woman entrusted to run the country famously said..."there is no such thing as society."
There it is again! Finish the 'quote'
My ideology is for me to know, no where have I stated whether I am pro or anti independence, what I am looking for is facts and figures that are written in stone and not tossed into the air to be blown away life chaff on the wind.
I might then be able to make an informed judgement.
Sorry Lizz I wasnt really asking about your personal ideology - you are right - that is no ones business - I meant a more general point and I have altered my post to reflect this
No need for apologies squidge.
My ideology is for me to know, no where have I stated whether I am pro or anti independence, what I am looking for is facts and figures that are written in stone and not tossed into the air to be blown away life chaff on the wind.
I might then be able to make an informed judgement.
But nobody is ever going to get figures set in stone from either side of the divide, and we wouldn't even if the economy was buoyant and the economic/banking crisis had never happened. :confused
Best we will ever get is the forecast possibilities if everything works as the politicians/economists/pundits think it should. And they get their figures from what has occurred now and in the past, and the possible (not even probable) outcomes from extrapolating the new theories/policies based on the known past and assuming the best future. Doesn't always work......because if it did, the UK Government wouldn't have had to do so many policy U-turns since the Coalition took charge.
The only informed judgment anyone will ever be able to make with any vestige of certainty is if the UK and/or Scottish Government decide to bribe the electorate and guarantees (written in stone) an £x handout to every voter if the vote goes their way......and that isn't going to happen...or, alternatively, if the UK Government enshrines a Devo-Max option in stone to be applied on a winning no-vote..and that isn't going to happen, either.
There is a difference between getting facts and figures to enable an informed judgement by examining and comparing the possibilities for an independent Scotland, or for the possibilities within a continuance of the political Union......and getting facts and figures set in stone...because if people are looking for set in stone certainty then, imo, they have possibly made up their minds already and are looking for confirmation of that decision...because the future in a new situation comes without guarantees, while the future within a known situation can be pretty safely assumed to be basically same old, same old with appropriate tweaks to satisfy the dogma of the party in power.
There I have to agree, I have seen so many sets of figures that belie each other but just a few that stand up to scrutiny would be good.
Oh you too are a reader of Aristotle Oddquine that you have noticed nothing changes where politics and politicians are concerned, I congratulate you.
Oh and well done to Sir Chris Hoy winning his 6th Gold medal of what has been a sterling Olympic career, and well done to all our Olympic atheletes for many breathtaking moments and a very enjoyable London 2012.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.