PDA

View Full Version : An Independent Scotland



Rheghead
13-Mar-07, 18:36
The SNP seems to be ahead of the polls though the question of Independence seems not to be a high priority though an alternative to Labour is.

How would you vote today, given the chance?

Rheghead
13-Mar-07, 19:49
Does anyone know if a simple majority is needed in a referendum for Independence to take place?

Cattach
13-Mar-07, 19:57
I had a call from the SNP asking how I might vote. I made it quite clear that I had strong nationalist tendencies but would not consider voting for them as lone as they were against nuclear power and the replacement for trident.

peter macdonald
13-Mar-07, 20:34
Who is counting the votes here Rheggers ????? We in Scotland have had some funnies in the past with referendums where a majority vote YES meant NO

1 st March 1979
Devolution referendum. The Scottish people voted in a referendum to set up a Scottish Assembly. For a Scottish Assembly 1,230,937 votes (51.6 %), against 1,153,502 votes (48.4 %). However, London Labour, later SDP, MP George Cunningham had proposed that 40 % of the electorate must vote Yes, thus effectively counting abstainers as No voters. 32.9% of the electorate had voted Yes. Had the same conditions been imposed on the 1975 EEC referendum, Scotland would have left the EEC

The abstainers included those who had died between the time of the register of voters and the actual vote

So no funny business or rascallity with the votes now or Ill send Weeboyagee over on a factfinding mission!!!!!!
DM

whitechina
13-Mar-07, 20:42
Does anyone know if a simple majority is needed in a referendum for Independence to take place?


I'm sure I read recently that constitutional matters are not devolved to the Scottish parliament and therefore the SNP would not be able to hold a referendum without the consent of parliament in London.
I would not vote for independence because we would still be lumbered with the same bunch of halfwits as we have in power now.(I should add that I'm talking of all the parties not just Labour)

Naefearjustbeer
13-Mar-07, 20:46
I had a call from the SNP asking how I might vote. I made it quite clear that I had strong nationalist tendencies but would not consider voting for them as lone as they were against nuclear power and the replacement for trident.

I got a call as well. I didnt even let them ask me anything they got the same response any cold caller would get. As soon as I new it was a nusiance call i said not interested goodbye and hung up. I hate the fact I still get cold calls even though we are registered with the TPS.

crashbandicoot1979
13-Mar-07, 20:57
I got a call as well. I didnt even let them ask me anything they got the same response any cold caller would get. As soon as I new it was a nusiance call i said not interested goodbye and hung up. I hate the fact I still get cold calls even though we are registered with the TPS.

We still get cold calls aswell and we're registered with the TPS. Its bloomin' annoying.

Anyway, I would vote no for independence. In theory it would be great, so we could be a proud nation and all that, but economically I think we're better being joint at the hip with England. We're stronger together, I really don't think Scotland could support itself as well as its supported just now. I don't think England could either, for that matter.

I wouldn't vote SNP anyway, for the same reasons as Cattach. I don't like the idea of nuclear submarines but I think they are a necessity.

theone
13-Mar-07, 21:03
I fear an independant Scotland, especially under the SNP.

Take away the "Braveheart Factor" which seems to be the SNP's biggest vote winner and their policies are mediocre. I have no doubt the cities of the central belt may benefit under SNP, but anywhere north of Perth would suffer.

The FACT of the matter is that Scotland GETS more money from Britain than it GIVES. And that's including oil money, which will be declining from now on anyway. An independent Sotland would be poorer than the current one.

If you love Scotland, you should do what's good for Scotland and not vote for independence. I for one can be a proud, patriotic Scot at the same time as being British.

Oddquine
13-Mar-07, 21:42
If you love Scotland, you should do what's good for Scotland and not vote for independence. I for one can be a proud, patriotic Scot at the same time as being British.

Sure you can................that's allowed.....as long as you are humble with it if talking to English people on most forums...............don't object to the subsidy junkies description......and, of course, quite accept why the likes of Channel 4 describe Charles as the future King of England (I wish!)............... and appreciate that it is news that there is now a piccie of a Scot on the back of the English £20 note for the first time..............given that the Bank of England is the Bank of the UK! :roll:

Some of us think that Independence will be good for Scotland......and the rest of the UK.

Phoebus_Apollo
13-Mar-07, 21:43
I fear an independant Scotland, especially under the SNP.

Take away the "Braveheart Factor" which seems to be the SNP's biggest vote winner and their policies are mediocre. I have no doubt the cities of the central belt may benefit under SNP, but anywhere north of Perth would suffer.

The FACT of the matter is that Scotland GETS more money from Britain than it GIVES. And that's including oil money, which will be declining from now on anyway. An independent Sotland would be poorer than the current one.

If you love Scotland, you should do what's good for Scotland and not vote for independence. I for one can be a proud, patriotic Scot at the same time as being British.


Ask anyone what the word "British" implies - it`s a byword for Middle England.

If you love Scotland you should see that we have been treated with distain (remember the poll tax??), indifference and disrespect from Whitehall.

Rheghead
13-Mar-07, 21:47
If you love Scotland you should see that we have been treated with distain (remember the poll tax??), indifference and disrespect from Whitehall.

From what I understand, the Scottish Conservative party was voicing concerns over the old Rates system and it was them that persuaded the Government to push the Poll Tax through in Scotland first.

Oddquine
13-Mar-07, 22:13
From what I understand, the Scottish Conservative party was voicing concerns over the old Rates system and it was them that persuaded the Government to push the Poll Tax through in Scotland first.

Just goes to show how little the Scottish Conservative Party know............either about the Scots......or the terms of the Act of Union! :roll:

Rheghead
13-Mar-07, 22:20
Just goes to show how little the Scottish Conservative Party know............either about the Scots......or the terms of the Act of Union! :roll:

For once I completely agree ;)

Whitewater
13-Mar-07, 23:12
I voted no to Independence. I am a born and bred Scot and very proud of it, many times I have thought of Independence and how well or otherwise we would do. The thing that worries me about the SNP is simply that they talk a great story for an independent Scotland, but what are their aims if we get Independence???? No mention of policy after the big day, are they going to be the ruling party for ever??? A great way to start a newly Independent country.

I have never in my life felt anything other than Scottish, I'm proud of it, I'm also very proud of being British, the two can, and have worked well together to make the British Nation one of the most powerfull Nations in the world.

I look back into history to the battle of Culloden which often gets missrepresented as the Scots against the English. It was a Scottish disaster, a civil war, my own family and many others families were split and fought on both sides depending on how you felt. There was no glory for anybody, those that were on the winning side were too ashamed to admit it.

But that is in the past, a last futile attempt at Independence, a classic example of the way that the people of Scotland felt then. Now they are attempting to do it by the ballot box, it will never work, too many of us Scots today are "International" people, and appreciate the manner in which the rest of the world regard us.

jamieS
13-Mar-07, 23:31
well I am only 29 but I think had i been alive and old enough back when oil was found of Scotland then I may probably would have voted for Independance, but into days world, then no I would not vote for Independance, unless the political party are behind nuclear energy and the replacement of the current nuclear defense system.

I would rather see another dounreay site, than 1000 windmills in our county. At the very least a nuclear site will bring employment and wealth to the county, what money does the wind turbines give us; A few land owners make good money, a community council gets a pay off

Oddquine
13-Mar-07, 23:39
I voted no to Independence. I am a born and bred Scot and very proud of it, many times I have thought of Independence and how well or otherwise we would do. The thing that worries me about the SNP is simply that they talk a great story for an independent Scotland, but what are their aims if we get Independence???? No mention of policy after the big day, are they going to be the ruling party for ever??? A great way to start a newly Independent country.

Maybe that's because they may well not be the Government in an independent Scotland...that would be up to the electorate.

So why expect anyone to produce policies for Independence when what we have currently is a Parliament controlled by the Union?

JAWS
14-Mar-07, 01:40
Poll Tax? Funny how that should be used as an example when Scotland turned down certain Hospital Reforms and then MPs for Scotland forced the same reforms on England.
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=745612003

Surprising how conveniently forgetful some people can be when it suits them. Besides, once there was an Independent Scotland you would be left with nobody to blame for Scotland's countless failures.

darkman
14-Mar-07, 02:18
Poll Tax? Funny how that should be used as an example when Scotland turned down certain Hospital Reforms and then MPs for Scotland forced the same reforms on England.
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=745612003

Surprising how conveniently forgetful some people can be when it suits them. Besides, once there was an Independent Scotland you would be left with nobody to blame for Scotland's countless failures.Aside from it being a totally different issue, (The poll tax was illegal), it seems that the scots didn't change the outcome of the vote.
Had Scottish MPs from all parties stayed away, Mr Blair would have scraped victory on a more slender 23 votes

golach
14-Mar-07, 10:06
Besides, once there was an Independent Scotland you would be left with nobody to blame for Scotland's countless failures.

I am not an advocate for separation Jaws, but I take exception to your phrase "Scotlands countless failures".
See the link below and count your blessings

http://www.electricscotland.com/humour/h2.htm

IMO the best thing us Scots can do is to give England Home Rule [lol]

j4bberw0ck
14-Mar-07, 12:19
Ask anyone what the word "British" implies - it`s a byword for Middle England.

Just as "Scottish" is a by-word for the Central belt :lol:


If you love Scotland you should see that we have been treated with distain (remember the poll tax??), indifference and disrespect from Whitehall.

You mean you think it's wrong that Whitehall pays more per head in central government funding in Scotland than in England? It's demeaning, maybe?

It's certainly an interesting way of demonstrating "disdain" :lol:

The poll tax (which is hated largely because it was fashionable to hate it and it had Margaret Thatcher's name on it) was a single incident and don't let's overlook the fact that it was well over 20 years ago. I suggest it might be more sensible to look to the future rather than the past. Especially when the glasses for looking into the past very often seem to have the rose-tinted lenses in.

darkman
14-Mar-07, 12:33
Were you a yuppie then jabberwock?:lol:

j4bberw0ck
14-Mar-07, 12:43
I am not an advocate for separation Jaws, but I take exception to your phrase "Scotlands countless failures".
See the link below and count your blessings

http://www.electricscotland.com/humour/h2.htm

IMO the best thing us Scots can do is to give England Home Rule [lol]

Golach, incredibly, your link doesn't make any mention of this diamond geezer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Bain_%28inventor%29) - local connexion and all! :lol:

j4bberw0ck
14-Mar-07, 12:48
Were you a yuppie then jabberwock?:lol:

Nope; I wish! Just a realist, darkman (well, I think so, anyway). And a British one, to boot. :lol:

j4bberw0ck
14-Mar-07, 13:00
Golach, incredibly, your link doesn't make any mention of this diamond geezer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Bain_%28inventor%29) - local connexion and all! :lol:

Just re-reading that, I imagine that gives him a fair claim to having invented the concept of raster imagery, and so the basis of computer displays and television, as well as the more humble fax machine?

Remarkable man.

Jeemag_USA
14-Mar-07, 22:04
Don't forget one of the most famous guys in Thurso, Doupy Dan, he invented Free Tobacco, way ahead of his time, people are still going and paying a fortune for a pack at the corner cafe, he was a misunderstood genius!!

JAWS
14-Mar-07, 22:05
Aside from it being a totally different issue, (The poll tax was illegal), it seems that the scots didn't change the outcome of the vote.The Poll Tax was not illegal and was never shown to be, that was simply and excuse invented by those who wished to complain about it.

NHS changes turned down in Scotland but pushed through in England? Government majority 35, Scottish Labour MPs voting with the Government 41.

Our Constituents won't have to suffer it but we will make sure yours do. Well, that sounds very like what the English are always being accused of so where's the difference.

The Scots MPs who supported the Government knew full well that the changes would never affect their Constituencies North of the Border.
At least with the Poll Tax the English MPs knew that it would, and did, affect their Constituencies South of the Border.

Despite the picture painted by some Political Parties in Scotland, the Poll Tax was not something "imposed" on Scotland but not on England.

j4bberw0ck
14-Mar-07, 22:12
I am not an advocate for separation Jaws, but I take exception to your phrase "Scotlands countless failures".
See the link below and count your blessings

http://www.electricscotland.com/humour/h2.htm

IMO the best thing us Scots can do is to give England Home Rule [lol]

Interesting; just been doing some googling...... several of your Scots inventors had moved to London and similar places where they ended up doing their definitive work!

Strictly in the spirit of mischief, y'understand....

golach
14-Mar-07, 22:19
Interesting; just been doing some googling...... several of your Scots inventors had moved to London and similar places where they ended up doing their definitive work!

Strictly in the spirit of mischief, y'understand....

We were well kent for Missionary work as well, maybe thats why they were down there? Or could it be that they could sell sand to Arabs, so they were able to get their inventions off the ground. Even Alexander Graham Bell had to go to the USA to get his telephone invention off the ground.
He also built the biplane which flew the first public flight in USA (1908), designed a hydrofoil which captured the world water speed record (1918). But he is still as much a Scot as Andrew Carnegie who made his millions in the US.

Phoebus_Apollo
14-Mar-07, 22:29
Just as "Scottish" is a by-word for the Central belt



You mean you think it's wrong that Whitehall pays more per head in central government funding in Scotland than in England? It's demeaning, maybe?

It's certainly an interesting way of demonstrating "disdain"

The poll tax (which is hated largely because it was fashionable to hate it and it had Margaret Thatcher's name on it) was a single incident and don't let's overlook the fact that it was well over 20 years ago. I suggest it might be more sensible to look to the future rather than the past. Especially when the glasses for looking into the past very often seem to have the rose-tinted lenses in.


No - I mean i think it`s wrong that we are treated as second class citizens by the British (read English) Government.

BTW

I was using it in the poetic sense -
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/distain
;)

golach
14-Mar-07, 22:39
No - I mean i think it`s wrong that we are treated as second class citizens by the British (read English) Government. BTW

I was using it in the poetic sense -
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/distain
;)

I do not consider I am being treated as a second class citizen by the London or Edinburgh governments. If you do then, I feel sorry for you. IMO I am as good as the next man, just maybe owlder [lol] So I get a free bus pass to travel all over Scotland, my counterpart in England does not have that pleasure, and that is funded by the Scottish Executive not Whitehall

j4bberw0ck
15-Mar-07, 00:30
We were well kent for Missionary work as well, maybe thats why they were down there?

Nice one, golach :lol::lol: "Ree-spek", as I believe the vulgar modern parlance has it!

Humerous Vegetable
15-Mar-07, 10:56
I do not consider I am being treated as a second class citizen by the London or Edinburgh governments. If you do then, I feel sorry for you. IMO I am as good as the next man, just maybe owlder [lol] So I get a free bus pass to travel all over Scotland, my counterpart in England does not have that pleasure, and that is funded by the Scottish Executive not Whitehall

It's funded by the taxpayer, irrespective of whether it comes via Whitehall or Holyrood. When will people start recognising that any funding they get for whatever comes out of their own pockets?

golach
15-Mar-07, 11:12
It's funded by the taxpayer, irrespective of whether it comes via Whitehall or Holyrood. When will people start recognising that any funding they get for whatever comes out of their own pockets?
So! Whats your point? I am a taxpayer, and actually the Scottish Executive is at Victoria Quay not Holyrood.

j4bberw0ck
15-Mar-07, 12:20
It's funded by the taxpayer, irrespective of whether it comes via Whitehall or Holyrood. When will people start recognising that any funding they get for whatever comes out of their own pockets?


Amen. The only thing I'd add to that is that, the money having come out of the taxpayers' pockets, the government and civil service then reduce its value by their costs of handling the money (usually, that seems to be most of the value) and then of distributing it.

Be simpler and hugely less expensive to leave it in our pockets to begin with.

Holyrood (or Victoria Quay) just gets its money from Westminster, via the government's expensive money handling service.

peter macdonald
15-Mar-07, 18:40
Yes lets keep the same complacent system as have had for years Its done marvels for Caithness .. lets see we HAD a fishing industry we HAD rural post offices we HAD decent jobs/apprenticeships for kids ,we HAD a police force with more than 3 officers on duty at time ,we HAD a diary farming industry , we HAD farmers who got more than the price of shearing for fleeces on their sheep , we HAD a council that was not de centralised ,we HAD our own representatives on our health council , we HAD council houses so the kids could start out in life etc etc
Just lets keep going the same road as normal
Hey at least we have got Dounreay......OOoopppps
PM

j4bberw0ck
15-Mar-07, 23:45
Yes lets keep the same complacent system as have had for years Its done marvels for Caithness ..

The dairy farming, sheep farming and the fishing won't /wouldn't change under any other system because it's the working of the CFP and CAP (a.k.a. the distortion of free markets) which has screwed them both. And Alex Salmond is in favour of full EU integration.........

As for the rest of it, it's changed with communications and the evolution of the economy to services-based. Hard to see how an independent Scotland could do anything different since EU rules forbid subsidies to businesses which can't compete in this changing world.

Unless of course you're talking about several European national airlines, the Spanish fishing fleet and a few other things, but all that tells you is that the EU is terminally corrupt, as are those running it.

camor
16-Mar-07, 05:36
We could all nit pick at the small pros and cons of independance. Scotland is slowly losing it's national identity through the union. We only have to look a few miles west to see a successfull small country, Ireland or look east to Norway. We as a nation need to bite the bullet and gain our independance at the earliest opportunity. We are a proud nation and should be brave enough to face any problems that independance would bring with an attitude that can overcome them. We should not be listening to the faction in our country that is spouting the drivel that we cannot survive without England, we still have people with vision and drive that can put this great country of ours on the world map, independantly!! It would also get us away from the blame England for all our problem culture. Also it would get us away from a Scottish Prime Minister who is more concerned about courting the English vote than endearing himself to the nation of his birth. Can you trust a Scot that says Gazza's goal against Scotland is his favourite goal ever!!

peter macdonald
16-Mar-07, 09:17
"the fishing won't /wouldn't change under any other system because it's the working of the CFP and CAP (a.k.a. the distortion of free markets) which has screwed them both. And Alex Salmond is in favour of full EU integration........."

Jwok Just take a look at the relative Scottish and Irish fishing fleets ..the new builds etc and see what a difference being a nation in the EU means as against being a region

"As for the rest of it, it's changed with communications and the evolution of the economy to services-based"

A process hurried along by politicians whose lack of investment in manufacuring and primary industries in Scotland was/is criminal Who cares as long as the "financial services " sector does well ..Ever ask what they actually produce??????? Well nothing really do they

"Also it would get us away from a Scottish Prime Minister who is more concerned about courting the English vote than endearing himself to the nation of his birth. Can you trust a Scot that says Gazza's goal against Scotland is his favourite goal ever!!"

Aye I will give you a pound for a penny that if the Tories win the next election a lot of these Scottish labour MPs at Westminster will suddenly rediscover their Scottish roots and high tail it to Edinburh

All best Jwok and look after YOUR windfall from the oil industry up there

PM

j4bberw0ck
16-Mar-07, 10:02
"As for the rest of it, it's changed with communications and the evolution of the economy to services-based"

A process hurried along by politicians whose lack of investment in manufacuring and primary industries in Scotland was/is criminal Who cares as long as the "financial services " sector does well ..Ever ask what they actually produce??????? Well nothing really do they

Yes, they do produce something. Money and jobs. Far more money than the manufacturing industries ever produced. I grant you, they don't produce ships or machine tools or cars (at least, not in any significant numbers) but why produce them if no one wants to buy them because they're crap (think British Leyland) or too expensive? And see the point below about manufacturing....


"Also it would get us away from a Scottish Prime Minister who is more concerned about courting the English vote than endearing himself to the nation of his birth. Can you trust a Scot that says Gazza's goal against Scotland is his favourite goal ever!!"Ah, a Brayfart moment. Away from the nationalistic garbage and nonsense for a moment, and back to the real world.

You know, Peter, I imagine that somewhere back in the 1800s at the start of the Industrial Revolution, when people first saw that they no longer had to spend 20 hours a day scratching a living on the land, starving in the winter and dying of exhaustion, that there were other ways of earning a living which meant that mechanised farmers could grow more and sell their surplus so that others could go work in factories, Peter Macdonald the Elder-Elder-Elder-Elder-Elder was bemoaning the change in the economy with the words


A process hurried along by politicians and landowners whose lack of investment in farming and traditional lifestyles in Scotland was/is criminal Who cares as long as the "subsistence farming" sector does well ..Ever ask what all these metal bashers actually produce???????

The point is that the UK has one of the most advanced economies in the world - it's an information and services economy that's freed people from having to slave down deep holes in the ground, and chase sheep up and down Scottish hills (as well as English and Welsh ones).

Manufacturing industry has gone from producing big heavy crude things that break your leg if you drop them to small, clever, high-precision specialist things which aren't in such a competitive market but which earn far more - and where they are in a competitive market they're amongst the best in the world so they earn well. Employment in manufacturing is down, but earnings from manufacturing is still a significant part of the economy both in Scotland and the wider UK.

The point is that we all need to work far fewer hours to get the things we need and more to the point, the things we WANT, than people did even 20 years ago. I'd rejoice in the freedom, if I were you, and I reckon it's a fair bet that Peter Macdonald the Elder-Elder-Elder-Elder-Elder would look at our lifestyle today and be damn glad for his descendants that it's the way it is.


All best Jwok and look after YOUR windfall from the oil industry up there

OIC is looking after it; sort of. While Orkney receives far less per head than Shetland or the Western Isles from that wonderful edifice, the Scottish Executive.

darkman
16-Mar-07, 11:10
The Poll Tax was not illegal and was never shown to be, that was simply and excuse invented by those who wished to complain about it.
In direct violation of the act of union, the poll tax was imposed on scotland 15 months before anywhere else in the uk, is that not illegal enough for you?

jaykay
16-Mar-07, 13:38
We could all nit pick at the small pros and cons of independance. Scotland is slowly losing it's national identity through the union. We only have to look a few miles west to see a successfull small country, Ireland or look east to Norway. We as a nation need to bite the bullet and gain our independance at the earliest opportunity. We are a proud nation and should be brave enough to face any problems that independance would bring with an attitude that can overcome them. We should not be listening to the faction in our country that is spouting the drivel that we cannot survive without England, we still have people with vision and drive that can put this great country of ours on the world map, independantly!! It would also get us away from the blame England for all our problem culture. Also it would get us away from a Scottish Prime Minister who is more concerned about courting the English vote than endearing himself to the nation of his birth. Can you trust a Scot that says Gazza's goal against Scotland is his favourite goal ever!!

It would also get us away from paying a share of the 2012 London Olymics if we could do it soon enough. Another example of the Scottish people having to pay for something that only benefits England.

j4bberw0ck
16-Mar-07, 14:28
It would also get us away from paying a share of the 2012 London Olymics if we could do it soon enough. Another example of the Scottish people having to pay for something that only benefits England.

In return for which comment the English might say they've been paying for things which benefit only the Scots for years and years and years. Each of those statements is as meaningless and wilfully stupid as the other.

Unless of course you think Caithness should also be independent just to make sure that you might never have to pay for something that would mainly benefit only Edinburgh (like taxes, for instance).

Rheghead
16-Mar-07, 15:33
In direct violation of the act of union, the poll tax was imposed on scotland 15 months before anywhere else in the uk, is that not illegal enough for you?

Are you sure it was imposed or was it volunteered?

golach
16-Mar-07, 16:27
It would also get us away from paying a share of the 2012 London Olymics if we could do it soon enough. Another example of the Scottish people having to pay for something that only benefits England.
Will Scottish Athletes not be taking part in the 2012 Olympics then? Its a terrible price but it will benifit the Scots as well IMO.

Metalattakk
16-Mar-07, 16:33
Also it would get us away from a Scottish Prime Minister who is more concerned about courting the English vote than endearing himself to the nation of his birth. Can you trust a Scot that says Gazza's goal against Scotland is his favourite goal ever!!

Ah, but that's factually incorrect. He was asked what his favourite English goal was, by an English newspaper reporter.

The media (and various internet reactionaries) have twisted this around to suit their purpose.

As they do.

badger
16-Mar-07, 16:35
Just as a matter of interest, I heard someone on the radio say that if the SNP got in we would have Alec Salmond as First Minister. Shouldn't that be Nicola Sturgeon since Salmond went to Westminster?

If she were not a Conservative, I would like Annabel Goldie as FM. Seems like a sensible woman - pity about her party.

golach
16-Mar-07, 16:38
If she were not a Conservative, I would like Annabel Goldie as FM. Seems like a sensible woman - pity about her party.
NO Way we had Maggie Thatcher, and look at the damage she did to Scotland.

Rheghead
16-Mar-07, 19:11
Just as a matter of interest, I heard someone on the radio say that if the SNP got in we would have Alec Salmond as First Minister. Shouldn't that be Nicola Sturgeon since Salmond went to Westminster?

If she were not a Conservative, I would like Annabel Goldie as FM. Seems like a sensible woman - pity about her party.

From what i understand, Salmond is resigning from Westminster and is standing for Holyrood, might be wrong though, often am.

EDIT

Although he was re-elected in the United Kingdom general election of 2005, he has made clear his intention to return to the Scottish Parliament at the Scottish parliamentary election, 2007, at which point he would take over the role of SNP group leader in that body from his deputy Nicola Sturgeon. He has confirmed his intention to stand in the Gordon constituency currently held by Liberal Democrat Nora Radcliffe [1].

badger
16-Mar-07, 19:15
That would explain it - scenting power no doubt. Wish he'd make up his mind where he wants to be.

Rheghead
16-Mar-07, 19:22
That would explain it - scenting power no doubt. Wish he'd make up his mind where he wants to be.

So do you think he wants to be a big fish in a small pond?:confused

darkman
16-Mar-07, 20:52
Are you sure it was imposed or was it volunteered?Nobody voted for it and we didn't have our own parliament at the time so I guess it was imposed right enough.

darkman
16-Mar-07, 20:54
NO Way we had Maggie Thatcher, and look at the damage she did to Scotland.Apparently she hauled us kicking and screaming into the 20th century by destroying heavy industry.:roll:

j4bberw0ck
16-Mar-07, 23:30
Nope. Heavy industry destroyed itself. Poor management, over-powerful unions, underproductive workforces making expensive, poor quality goods no one wanted to buy because there was cheaper and better available elsewhere. Chrysler at Linwood, the Clyde shipyards, Ravenscraig - a story repeated right through the UK which laid the foundation for the prosperous periods of the eighties and nineties.

Shooting the messenger may give satisfaction but solves no problems - Margaret Thatcher was the messenger. All she did was allow some old and arthritic dinosaurs which had lost the ability to hunt and feed, to die. And as a result, a whole new economy grew up which successive governments, especially the Major and Blair governments (and if Cameron gets in, he'll do it too) have done a good deal to hinder and limit.

It's not a popular view, but then again, I don't specialise in opinions simply because I know they'll be popular :lol::lol: .

darkman
17-Mar-07, 01:21
Nope. Heavy industry destroyed itself. Poor management, over-powerful unions, underproductive workforces making expensive, poor quality goods no one wanted to buy because there was cheaper and better available elsewhere. Chrysler at Linwood, the Clyde shipyards, Ravenscraig - a story repeated right through the UK which laid the foundation for the prosperous periods of the eighties and nineties.

Shooting the messenger may give satisfaction but solves no problems - Margaret Thatcher was the messenger. All she did was allow some old and arthritic dinosaurs which had lost the ability to hunt and feed, to die. And as a result, a whole new economy grew up which successive governments, especially the Major and Blair governments (and if Cameron gets in, he'll do it too) have done a good deal to hinder and limit.

It's not a popular view, but then again, I don't specialise in opinions simply because I know they'll be popular :lol::lol: .I'll take one issue at the moment with you jabberwock, ravenscraig, it was the most productive, (record breaking) strip steel mill in europe at the time.

Oddquine
17-Mar-07, 01:57
The Poll Tax was not illegal and was never shown to be, that was simply and excuse invented by those who wished to complain about it.

There was an Act of Union, which was the basis for the Union of the Parliaments.......................

Article XVIII, taxes in England and Scotland to be the same......................Therefore the Poll Tax (1989) illegally introduced a tax on Scotland that was not applicable in England.

Do you know something we don't? :confused

Oddquine
17-Mar-07, 03:35
NHS changes turned down in Scotland but pushed through in England? Government majority 35, Scottish Labour MPs voting with the Government 41.

Our Constituents won't have to suffer it but we will make sure yours do. Well, that sounds very like what the English are always being accused of so where's the difference.

Maybe the fact that it has applied for the last 12 years or so in 300?

Don't you think it is ironic that the English rant as they do because for a relatively few years the Scots have been in a position to influence English law .......even though the English have influenced Scots Law since 1707........and we are MEANT to be a Union of sovereign countries?



The Scots MPs who supported the Government knew full well that the changes would never affect their Constituencies North of the Border.
At least with the Poll Tax the English MPs knew that it would, and did, affect their Constituencies South of the Border.

But they didn't really, did they? I'd guess ,given the final outcome, that they hoped the Scots would kick up such a fuss that Maggie would think again.........but they forgot that any Scottish reaction would have no influence on a Conservative government.



Despite the picture painted by some Political Parties in Scotland, the Poll Tax was not something "imposed" on Scotland but not on England.

Don't be daft..............they trialed it in Scotland to see what the reaction was........................if a bigger proportion of Scots had, as I did, refused to pay, then it would never have been introduced in England at all.................but unfortuately, the Scots tend to be law-abiding, so they had no excuse not to introduce it in England.

Scotland was the guinea pig..............against the Treaty of Union........and nothing can alter that fact.

Oddquine
17-Mar-07, 03:42
Will Scottish Athletes not be taking part in the 2012 Olympics then? Its a terrible price but it will benifit the Scots as well IMO.

How do you come to that conclusion? :confused

Oddquine
17-Mar-07, 03:58
Are you sure it was imposed or was it volunteered?

There was a referendum, was there?

Given that there were only about 22 Tory MPS in a Scottish contingent of 72 it doesn't look like a volunteer.more an imposing................and whether that was initiated by Scots Tories doesn't negate the fact that by far the majority of Scottish MPs voted against

j4bberw0ck
17-Mar-07, 09:28
What I think is an absolute outrage is that no one protests any more about how the English, with malice aforethought, of course ('cos that's the way they operate) breached Article VIII of the Act of Union some 210 years after it was passed, by sacrificing the guaranteed equality for export of cured Scottish fish.

It says >>>here<<< (http://www.freescotland.com/treaty.html) that the British Govt sacrificed the largest part of Scots European trade, that with Russia, to satisfy English Anti-Bolshevism (c1918). Interestingly, it doesn't say how or why, but that's par for the course when people stand on their pomposity.

Think of the billions being lost to Scotland by not being able to export cured fish. My God, such a trade would have meant a much harder bargain being driven with some of those nasty foreign American and Japanese hi-tech companies coming in.

peter macdonald
17-Mar-07, 10:02
Now Jwok It was that descision about cured fish that led to a heck of a lot of poverty around the Moray Firth and believe it or not it took until the 60s for a lot of the places to recover !!! and if PM the elder elder elder was about he could inform you better
With your style of economics I hope you would note the comments of the man who pushed the RB of S into its world leading role

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6456319.stm

However Blair tries to push the arguements into other fields the basic fact remains that New Labour without Scottish labour MPs are unelectable in Westminster
Blair can seriiously damage the SNP if he backs up the economics spin if he produced the figures showing what Scotlands GDP is INCLUDING the oil revenues Funny that he hasnt I wonder why???? perhaps he is not telling the whole truth ???
Either that or he is too fucused on his part time job as the US presidents puppy
PM

JAWS
17-Mar-07, 11:30
There was an Act of Union, which was the basis for the Union of the Parliaments.......................

Article XVIII, taxes in England and Scotland to be the same......................Therefore the Poll Tax (1989) illegally introduced a tax on Scotland that was not applicable in England.

Do you know something we don't? :confusedSo we in Scotland are paying the same Council Tax as people in London? Using that as an argument we, in Caithness, should now be paying the same amount of Council Tax, which is the Tax which replaced Community Charge, to give the Poll Tax it's correct name.

Was the claim that the Community Charge in Scotland was illegal ever tested in any Court? If not, why not?
That would have been the obvious manner in dealing with that claim to confirm it's validity.
I await the day when somebody in Scotland takes the Government to court to demand that the Council Tax should be raised to the levels paid in the South East of England for properties of the same size.

If you wish to quote laws which are centuries old then I suggest you read the following site very carefully before ever visiting York because to o so could prove very painful. http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1974495.html

Article XVIII relates to the Regulation of Trade, Customs and Excise, and not Taxation and are "alterable by the Parliament of Great Britain".
The full and correct version as as follows.


XVIII. That the Laws concerning Regulation of Trade, Customs, and such Excises to which Scotland is, by virtue of this Treaty, to be liable, be the same in Scotland from and after the Union as in England; and that all other Laws in use within the Kingdom of Scotland, do after the Union, and notwithstanding thereof, remain in the same force as before, (except such as are contrary to, or inconsistent with this Treaty) but alterable by the Parliament of Great Britain: with this difference betwixt the Laws concerning Public Right, Policy and Civil Government, and those which concern Private Right, that the Laws which concern Public Right, Policy, and Civil Government, may be made the same throughout the whole United Kingdom; But that no alteration be made in Laws which concern private Right, except for evident utility of the Subjects within Scotland.

The full Articles of Union can be found at http://www.scotsbarons.org/unionarticles.htm
Perhaps reading the original version rather than the "Wished for" version might prove useful.

golach
17-Mar-07, 12:06
How do you come to that conclusion? :confused
Maybe I should have said it will benefit Scots Athletes also:confused

j4bberw0ck
17-Mar-07, 16:41
Now Jwok It was that descision about cured fish that led to a heck of a lot of poverty around the Moray Firth and believe it or not it took until the 60s for a lot of the places to recover !!! and if PM the elder elder elder was about he could inform you better
With your style of economics I hope you would note the comments of the man who pushed the RB of S into its world leading role

OK, OK, I apologise........ and Peter the Elder Elder Elder needn't be after me with his walking stick.

It was a feeble attempt to point out that things enshrined in law in one century don't necessarily make sense in another. UK (English and Scottish) law is full of anomalies caused by the impracticality of cross-referencing and repealing laws replaced over the years - I mean, I haven't actually exercised my legal right to shoot Scotsmen, in the Scottish Borders, with a longbow (yet) but I'm sure no one would mind. :lol:

Lots of people in the UK find it very strange that Americans are permitted the right to bear arms; it's in the Constitution, phrased and signed in 1776 - so not much younger than the Act of Union. Such people in the UK snort in derision at the right to bear arms being preserved into the 20th and 21st centuries "because times have changed".

It's interesting to learn that times have changed everywhere but in Scotland (or in the minds of a few rabid Brayfarts). Now, where's my longbow and the timetable for coach services to the Borders? I don't think BA would be keen on my taking my longbow on the plane...

Woops, forgot your parting shot about George Mathewson. He's been a lifelong SNP supporter anyway, long time friend of Alex "Slippery" Salmond, long time believer in independence, and stands to gain much from patronage of the Salmond cause if Slippery himself gets into power. No real surprise, I think, and anyway, he's entitled to his view! It is yet a free country (to some extent).

peter macdonald
18-Mar-07, 14:10
http://www.sundayherald.com/analysis/analysis/display.var.1267753.0.0.php

a very insightful view IMHO
PM

cuddlepop
18-Mar-07, 14:32
Thank you for posting that link Peter Macdonald.
It would appear that Mr Salmond has rolled his sleaves up and is "In it to win it" this time.:)

j4bberw0ck
18-Mar-07, 14:59
It is a good article and paints the SNP is a very positive light. The reason business leaders are signing up is the promise of lower corporate taxes, but Slippery is (AFAIK) still very quiet on the subject of personal taxes and most of all on the EU.

If Scotland becomes a full member state and adopts the euro (as it would have to) it would cede control of the economy to Brussels and so suffer the fate of many other small - peripheral - members. Remember Portugal? Everyone whiffles on about Ireland and Norway as examples of small countries able to make their own prosperous way (in fact, I think someone did it again within this thread) but the comparison is absolute rubbish, as I've several times tried to make clear in different threads here.

Norway is a huge country with a small population, has vast oil reserves and a vibrant fishing industry. It's also moved its manufacturing base towards high-tech engineering (and as it happens, arms manufacture - it earns more per head of population in arms sales than any other, and is the world's 11th biggest arms exporter). It is NOT a member of the EU; it maintains control over its own currency and economy. It has massive reserves of hydro-electric power (40% I believe), high incomes and high taxes.

Ireland started from an economic baseline way below where Scotland is and so was a massive net beneficiary of EU funds for years. There was huge economic growth driven by government spending, followed by a huge influx of high-tech companies such as Dell, Gateway, Motorola and others, attracted by generous subsidies and grants. Ireland also benefited from a well educated school population with a high percentage of university graduates. Sounds good, huh?

It was, until inflation blossomed on the back of government spending. But at the same time Germany and France were going into recession and so the EU central bank was reducing interest rates to suit the Big Two while Ireland, which needed higher interest rates to tackle inflation, had petrol poured on its inflationary spiral, hitting 10% p.a. House prices increased to levels like those in London. Pressure on wage costs made the high-tech incomers, working on thin margins, close up and go home. Inflationary control had to come through tax rises. Unemployment followed. Ireland is not a success story, though it's still ahead of where it was.

Ah, yes, Portugal. _Ju_ can probably comment. Portugal was also coming in from a low economic base and benefited massively, but the government wanted to spend money on social programmes to improve the lot of the population at large. Again, EU spending limits were breached and inflation was taking hold, prices spiralling upwards so the poorest saw their [position becoming worse, not better.

As it happens, the Germans and French were also breaking EU spending limits at the same time by increasing public spending to try to stave off recession. Under the EU rules, countries breaking the spending limits could have their economy effectively taken over by Brussels, who would say what the national government could and couldn't spend and on what. Now, a question; of the three countries mentioned - Germany, France and Portugal - which ones did the EU turn a blind eye to, and which one did it take over the economy of, forcing tax rises and slashing social expenditure?

If you figured out that Portugal got stuffed completely while Germany and France (who run the EU) got away with it scot-free (can I say that here? :lol: ), go to the head of the class.

Portugal is a much better exemplar for Scottish membership of the EU than Ireland. Scotland, like Portugal, as a member state wouldn't amount to a row of beans in terms of influence, while the rapid increase in other countries joining mean it wouldn't get the kind of subsidies and investment from the EU that Ireland (or Portugal) got because (a) there's nae money left and (b) Scotland has a higher economic base.

Sorry it's a long post, but as long as people drivel on about how Ireland and Norway are great examples for Scotland, I'll keep trying to point out that they're not.

Moral of the story: The EU is corrupt. EU leaders are corrupt.

percy toboggan
18-Mar-07, 20:32
Assuming any referendum was as close as this poll should such a mammoth constitutional change be given the nod?
Should not be a requirement for a two thirds majority or similarly more emphatic result?
Just a thought.

peter macdonald
18-Mar-07, 23:36
Why???? we have had bad experiences before before with MPs at Westminster skewing democracy The result of any referendum should stand which ever way it would go ( if it ever happens) i dont think this was the case in any of the other separation referendums throughout Europe so why should the Scottish people not be trusted with democracy

peter macdonald
19-Mar-07, 10:23
"NATS' RECIPE FOR CONFLICT
ALEX SALMOND claims he will "co-operate" with the Westminster Government if he becomes First Minister after May 3.

Don't believe a word of it.

The Nats' detailed plans for their first 100 days running the Executive, published yesterday, are a recipe for conflict.

Salmond was at his canny best addressing the SNP faithful in Glasgow.

He knew he did not have to rally them.

Leading in the polls and boasting high profile support from former bank chief Sir George Mathewson and bus tycoon Brian Souter, they are on a high already.


So instead, Salmond ditched his usual barnstorming style and adopted a more restrained tone, designed to make himlook like a serious Prime Minister in waiting.


It might have worked, too, had the Nats not published their 35-page dossier, It's Time To Look Forward, minutes after the speech.


Salmond may claim he wants a "more mature relationship" with the UK Government.


But his plans make crystal clear what he really wants: to pick fights.


He will demand control over oil and gas - and the £1billion a month in tax revenues they are worth.


He will demand £40million which used to be paid in attendance allowance in Scotland, before free personal care ensured that no one needed the benefit any longer.


He will demand that Scotland negotiates on behalf of the UK in EU fisheries talks.


And he will demand new powers for the Scottish parliament over firearms, even though experts say guns, like drugs, are best controlled by laws covering the whole of the UK.


They are not the only scraps the Nats would go looking for, either.


Their ill-considered plans to replace council tax with a 3p hike on income tax rely entirely on Westminster handing over £380million which currently comes to Scotland in the form of council tax benefit.


But, as UK ministers said last week, Scotland would not get council tax benefits if there was no council tax.


Westminster is sure to resist the other calls, too. Salmond knows it, and he's rubbing his hands in anticipation of the turmoil that would follow.


Why? Because he believes it is the only way to win independence.


He realises that, on a good day, no more than a third of Scots want to split from the rest of the UK.


So he wants to manufacture artificial grievances in the hope they will increase support.


Remember, if the Nats win, they are likely to put their independence referendum on ice until the end of their four years in charge.


That's not just to reassure sceptical voters, it is to give them time to create as much cross-border tension as they can.


It is a dishonest plan and it deserves to fail.


Scotland cannot afford four years of ruinous instability. Not for anything. Certainly not to satisfy the whims of Alex Salmond.


The SNP leader might think he pulled off a statesmanlike performance yesterday but do not be fooled.


The cat is out of the bag. A vote for the SNP is a vote for chaos."

From the Daily Record ....with the amount of the money this paper gets from the executive in advertising etc you would think it would have made a better attempt in supporting the executive than this

PM

Jeemag_USA
19-Mar-07, 13:14
Pretty even split as far as the voting goes. I am one of two who voted yes but don't live in Scotland. lived in Caithness from birth for 32 years and moved my family somwhere that I would not be forever in debt to the banks for the rest of my life and where I could find it easier to put my son through college. if I had stayed in Scotland I think I would still be miserable, which hurts because I love Scotland so much!

Humerous Vegetable
19-Mar-07, 16:08
"NATS' RECIPE FOR CONFLICT
ALEX SALMOND claims he will "co-operate" with the Westminster Government if he becomes First Minister after May 3.

Don't believe a word of it.

The Nats' detailed plans for their first 100 days running the Executive, published yesterday, are a recipe for conflict.

Salmond was at his canny best addressing the SNP faithful in Glasgow.

He knew he did not have to rally them.

Leading in the polls and boasting high profile support from former bank chief Sir George Mathewson and bus tycoon Brian Souter, they are on a high already.


So instead, Salmond ditched his usual barnstorming style and adopted a more restrained tone, designed to make himlook like a serious Prime Minister in waiting.


It might have worked, too, had the Nats not published their 35-page dossier, It's Time To Look Forward, minutes after the speech.


Salmond may claim he wants a "more mature relationship" with the UK Government.


But his plans make crystal clear what he really wants: to pick fights.


He will demand control over oil and gas - and the £1billion a month in tax revenues they are worth.


He will demand £40million which used to be paid in attendance allowance in Scotland, before free personal care ensured that no one needed the benefit any longer.


He will demand that Scotland negotiates on behalf of the UK in EU fisheries talks.


And he will demand new powers for the Scottish parliament over firearms, even though experts say guns, like drugs, are best controlled by laws covering the whole of the UK.


They are not the only scraps the Nats would go looking for, either.


Their ill-considered plans to replace council tax with a 3p hike on income tax rely entirely on Westminster handing over £380million which currently comes to Scotland in the form of council tax benefit.


But, as UK ministers said last week, Scotland would not get council tax benefits if there was no council tax.


Westminster is sure to resist the other calls, too. Salmond knows it, and he's rubbing his hands in anticipation of the turmoil that would follow.


Why? Because he believes it is the only way to win independence.


He realises that, on a good day, no more than a third of Scots want to split from the rest of the UK.


So he wants to manufacture artificial grievances in the hope they will increase support.


Remember, if the Nats win, they are likely to put their independence referendum on ice until the end of their four years in charge.


That's not just to reassure sceptical voters, it is to give them time to create as much cross-border tension as they can.


It is a dishonest plan and it deserves to fail.


Scotland cannot afford four years of ruinous instability. Not for anything. Certainly not to satisfy the whims of Alex Salmond.


The SNP leader might think he pulled off a statesmanlike performance yesterday but do not be fooled.


The cat is out of the bag. A vote for the SNP is a vote for chaos."

From the Daily Record ....with the amount of the money this paper gets from the executive in advertising etc you would think it would have made a better attempt in supporting the executive than this

PM

I should think that even an illiterate rag like the Daily Record would have trouble defending the indefensible. Maybe the only risk to SNP success this time will be if they peak too early. Or if the Labour party gangmasters start handing out large "sweeteners" in the next couple of months. However if the Budget press-releases are right, it sounds as though Gordon Brown is about to double road tax on 4x4s, which will affect a lot of people living in remote rural locations like ours. That combined with his failure to do anything at all about reducing fuel tax for the Highlands might well be enough to demonstrate to Scottish taxpayers that they are of little or no interest to Westminster politicans.

percy toboggan
19-Mar-07, 18:54
If the government has any sense - okay, I know that's a large assumptiom - it will limit road tax increases for 4 x 4's to urban postcodes only. To levy extra tax on those who really need these vehicles is wrong.
I know the postcode levy is not perfect and open to anomally but is there any other way.
Personally I think there ARE too many of these vehicles cluttering up urban roads and posing a nuisance ( and a danger) with their size and bulk. I know this is not strictly on thread but never mind eh?

percy toboggan
19-Mar-07, 19:03
Why????

Beacause in any referendum I'd suggest that ten per cent of voters are waverers. To adopt such a cataclysmic policy as independence on the strenth of a 51 % -49 % is not, in my opinion sufficent. A ringing, emphatic endorsement is what is needed to sustain such a drastic course of action. I
remember a year after Thatcher got in - those stickers 'Don't Blame Me, I Voted Labour'

If the independence thing goes pear shaped for you and you're reduced to the status of insignificant backwater looking for endless subsidy then the near half who voted 'NO' will have every right to feel cheated because you can bet your bottom dollar, or euro - as you'll likely have by then - that many who voted yes will deny it.


Big decisions need emphatic support. I don't thing the Scots, ultimately have the stomach to go it alone. You will wind up poorer, and in the end the pocket wins over the heart. You're independent enough now surely. Most of the English (I except myself here) don't give a stuff and would gladly see you jetttison any ties. I'd wager a referendum down south would result in a very emphatic 'buzz - off' were it held today. I'd regret that , of course.

Playing with constitutional affairs is a very serious business. Decisions take decades at the least, to reverse.

A narrow majority for change will tear Scotland apart if it all goes sour, as it well might.

peter macdonald
19-Mar-07, 22:15
so a narrow decison indepandence against would not be contested ???? Percy is like this ..with the farce on the referendum in the 70s it should be that Scotland should be left to test democracy in its true form ..We should be big enough to take a decision and take the consequences whether that be the status quo or seperation .. just like the Czechs Slovaks Estonians Latvians etc etc

percy toboggan
20-Mar-07, 18:34
so a narrow decison indepandence against would not be contested ???? Percy is like this ..with the farce on the referendum in the 70s it should be that Scotland should be left to test democracy in its true form ..We should be big enough to take a decision and take the consequences whether that be the status quo or seperation .. just like the Czechs Slovaks Estonians Latvians etc etc

you'll be on a par with that lot too, economically. Is that what you what? Relegated to the level of the baltics?

I really want to retire to Scotland in eight years time. I hope it's not a skint, disadvantaged backwater by then with huge social problems and a health service in crisis. No navy, no nowt. Huge council tax bills.
Just my luck if it is. I'll have to consider Cumbria.:~(

scotsboy
20-Mar-07, 18:44
you'll be on a par with that lot too, economically. Is that what you what? Relegated to the level of the baltics?

I really want to retire to Scotland in eight years time. I hope it's not a skint, disadvantaged backwater by then with huge social problems and a health service in crisis. No navy, no nowt. Huge council tax bills.
Just my luck if it is. I'll have to consider Cumbria.:~(

I was there two weeks ago and that is just what it was like!! Also who would lead the Navy now Denny Simpson is no longer master of the Prolific?

peter macdonald
20-Mar-07, 19:44
Scotsboy poor Denny is long gone ..It would not have been a boring navy I think !!!.... Is cumbria so bad??????
I took these folks as an example who were deemed adult and responsible enough make their own decisions Surely the people of Scotland should be treated on an equal footing to them

scotsboy
20-Mar-07, 19:56
Yes Peter, may he rest in peace.

As for the elections - I think it could be interesting. Although a staunch Unionist, I am note sure who I would more rather see defeated, Joke McConnell or Alex "Braveheart" Salmond - not got much time for either really. I actually think Scotland may have a better chance on its own than with the current Labour establishment.......or whats the alternative, a UK led by Cameron?!!

percy toboggan
21-Mar-07, 20:15
Is cumbria so bad??????


It would be a whole lot better were it a part of Scotland.
Perhaps you independent minded lot could put a claim in for it?
The weather's very similar ! There's also a nuclear connection !

mmm maybe not.

KittyMay
23-Mar-07, 10:45
Just how chaotic could things get if the SNP succeed in May?
They're unlikely to get a second crack at the whip so surely they'd have to show a little restraint in their dealings with Westminster. Their performance would be closely scrutinised by all of Scotland and if judged negatively they'd be booted out along with their dream of an independant Scotland. Never voted SNP in my life (not entirely convinced by the independant argument) but maybe it's time for a bit of a gamble. But Rob Gibson - mmm?

j4bberw0ck
23-Mar-07, 11:04
It's a bit of a side issue unless it's a topic that really gets you wound up, but of course the SNP just accepted £500k from Brian Souter, the well-known "homophobic" businessman who campaigned against schools teaching pupils that homosexuality is natural. And it was claimed in a blog that reminded of Souter's stance on such issues, that Alex Salmond while at Westminster has abstained in all votes on any legislation which would result in increasing the rights of homosexuals or homosexual couples. 'Course, you may all know different..... :lol::lol:

darkman
23-Mar-07, 11:35
What is natural about homosexuality?

peter macdonald
23-Mar-07, 12:54
the SNP just accepted £500k from Brian Souter,
Aye Jwok but that was a donation unlike some of the shananigans that have been going on in Westminster recently ALLEDGEDLY!!! Flogging honours like it was Tescos ALLEDGEDLY
Lets see what names come to mind ...Lord Levi Sir Christopher Evans etc etc
but here is the timeline

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/funding/story/0,,1972222,00.html

oh and Scotland Yard interviewed almost all the cabinet including Tony Blair

re Alex Salmonds abstentions on homosexuality issues in England ..isnt the law relating to this in England different to ours??? West Lothian question surfaces again !!!!!!!!
PM

j4bberw0ck
23-Mar-07, 20:34
Aye Jwok but that was a donation unlike some of the shananigans that have been going on in Westminster recently ALLEDGEDLY!!! Flogging honours like it was Tescos ALLEDGEDLY

I know it was a donation! Anyway, how's Souter going to get a peerage from the Scottish Parliament?


re Alex Salmonds abstentions on homosexuality issues in England ..isnt the law relating to this in England different to ours??? West Lothian question surfaces again !!!!!!!!
PMIt may indeed have been that he was abstaining on a matter of English law, in which case more power to his elbow; but it was my clear understanding that all the issues relating to equality of race / sexual proclivities or anything else were UK-wide and so the West Lothian Question is an irrelevance (as is so often, but not always, the case :roll: ).

The_man_from_del_monte
23-Mar-07, 21:43
Sir Christopher Evans

Chris Evans got a knighthood?? Blimey, who next, Keith Chegwin? :confused

caroline
28-Mar-07, 00:10
May I ask in the poll, you are asking people who do not live in Scotland if they would vote for independence or not. Hope that is Scots who were born in Scotland and no longer living in Scotland or people with Scots descendants who are voting.

j4bberw0ck
28-Mar-07, 10:21
May I ask in the poll, you are asking people who do not live in Scotland if they would vote for independence or not. Hope that is Scots who were born in Scotland and no longer living in Scotland or people with Scots descendants who are voting.

Scots antecedents, surely?

Why (I mean it politely, not aggressively)? Only last week Alex Salmond wrote an article (a clever one too) in which he dealt with Scottish Independence as being more important to the English than the Scots - he phrased it as being "don't the English deserve Home Rule for England?". I'm not a big fan of the man but that was clever.

A significant number of English people living in England would be very happy (they say) to see Scotland independent; they're as entitled to a view as anyone else.

Oddquine
28-Mar-07, 20:11
It may indeed have been that he was abstaining on a matter of English law, in which case more power to his elbow; but it was my clear understanding that all the issues relating to equality of race / sexual proclivities or anything else were UK-wide and so the West Lothian Question is an irrelevance (as is so often, but not always, the case :roll: ).

The SNP only vote on issues in Westminster which can affect Scotland and this is party policy. They have never, as far as I'm aware ever voted on anything which only and would only ever affect England and Wales.

Clause 28 in schools comes under education, which is devolved to Edinburgh...and the SNP voted for the repeal...which certainly doesn't appear to have bothered Brian Souter enough to keep his money in his wallet. :roll:

j4bberw0ck
28-Mar-07, 22:44
Then I defer to your superior knowledge on the subject. No problem. :D But all matters relating to gender equality and discrimination are a matter of UK law, dealt with by Westminster, and Souter's objections went wider than education. And Slippery still abstained!

Oddquine
29-Mar-07, 02:31
Then I defer to your superior knowledge on the subject. No problem. :D But all matters relating to gender equality and discrimination are a matter of UK law, dealt with by Westminster, and Souter's objections went wider than education. And Slippery still abstained!

Not at all.............the Westminster vote dealt with Clause 28 in England, so the SNP would abstain as it had no relevance to Scotland. It had nothing to do with gender equality and discrimination anywhere but in education. Section 28/2A was never UK Law.

And Alex Salmond was an MSP and voted when Section 2A was repealed here, btw.......even though Souter was a financial supporter of the SNP before the repeal.

j4bberw0ck
29-Mar-07, 08:20
"Salmond's own commitment to equality has long been in doubt, having failed to vote for the following government-sponsored pieces of gay rights legislation, including equalisation of the age of consent and the repeal of Section 28 (Clause 2A):
22 Jun 1998 Crime and Disorder Bill [Lords] — Reduction in age at which certain sexual acts are lawful (http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=1998-06-22&number=311&mpn=Alex_Salmond&mpc=Banff+%26amp%3B+Buchan)

1 Mar 1999 Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill - Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill (http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=1999-03-01&number=79&mpn=Alex_Salmond&mpc=Banff+%26amp%3B+Buchan)

10 Feb 2000Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill (http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2000-02-10&number=71&mpn=Alex_Salmond&mpc=Banff+%26amp%3B+Buchan)
5 Jul 2000 Local Government Bill [Lords] - Prohibition on promotion of homosexuality: bullying (http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2000-07-05&number=253&mpn=Alex_Salmond&mpc=Banff+%26amp%3B+Buchan)

24 Oct 2001 Relationships (Civil Registration) (http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2001-10-24&number=41&mpn=Alex_Salmond&mpc=Banff+%26amp%3B+Buchan)

29 Oct 2001 Adoption and Children Bill (Programme) — Consideration and Third Reading (http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2001-10-29&number=45&mpn=Alex_Salmond&mpc=Banff+%26amp%3B+Buchan)

16 May 2002 Adoption and Children Bill — [2nd Allotted Day] — Applications for adoption (http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2002-05-16&number=244&mpn=Alex_Salmond&mpc=Banff+%26amp%3B+Buchan)

20 May 2002 Adoption and Children Bill — [3rd Allotted Day] — Clause 131 — General interpretation, etc. (http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2002-05-20&number=246&mpn=Alex_Salmond&mpc=Banff+%26amp%3B+Buchan)

4 Nov 2002 Adoption and Children Bill — Suitability of Adopters (http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2002-11-04&number=345&mpn=Alex_Salmond&mpc=Banff+%26amp%3B+Buchan)

10 Mar 2003 Local Government Bill — [2nd Allotted Day] — New Clause 11 — Repeal of Section 2A of Local Government Act 1986" (http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2003-03-10&number=109&mpn=Alex_Salmond&mpc=Banff+%26amp%3B+Buchan)

Oddquine
29-Mar-07, 14:00
"Salmond's own commitment to equality has long been in doubt, having failed to vote for the following government-sponsored pieces of gay rights legislation, including equalisation of the age of consent and the repeal of Section 28 (Clause 2A):
22 Jun 1998 Crime and Disorder Bill [Lords] — Reduction in age at which certain sexual acts are lawful (http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=1998-06-22&number=311&mpn=Alex_Salmond&mpc=Banff+%26amp%3B+Buchan)

1 Mar 1999 Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill - Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill (http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=1999-03-01&number=79&mpn=Alex_Salmond&mpc=Banff+%26amp%3B+Buchan)

10 Feb 2000Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill (http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2000-02-10&number=71&mpn=Alex_Salmond&mpc=Banff+%26amp%3B+Buchan)
5 Jul 2000 Local Government Bill [Lords] - Prohibition on promotion of homosexuality: bullying (http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2000-07-05&number=253&mpn=Alex_Salmond&mpc=Banff+%26amp%3B+Buchan)

24 Oct 2001 Relationships (Civil Registration) (http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2001-10-24&number=41&mpn=Alex_Salmond&mpc=Banff+%26amp%3B+Buchan)

29 Oct 2001 Adoption and Children Bill (Programme) — Consideration and Third Reading (http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2001-10-29&number=45&mpn=Alex_Salmond&mpc=Banff+%26amp%3B+Buchan)

16 May 2002 Adoption and Children Bill — [2nd Allotted Day] — Applications for adoption (http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2002-05-16&number=244&mpn=Alex_Salmond&mpc=Banff+%26amp%3B+Buchan)

20 May 2002 Adoption and Children Bill — [3rd Allotted Day] — Clause 131 — General interpretation, etc. (http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2002-05-20&number=246&mpn=Alex_Salmond&mpc=Banff+%26amp%3B+Buchan)

4 Nov 2002 Adoption and Children Bill — Suitability of Adopters (http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2002-11-04&number=345&mpn=Alex_Salmond&mpc=Banff+%26amp%3B+Buchan)

10 Mar 2003 Local Government Bill — [2nd Allotted Day] — New Clause 11 — Repeal of Section 2A of Local Government Act 1986" (http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2003-03-10&number=109&mpn=Alex_Salmond&mpc=Banff+%26amp%3B+Buchan)


On that premise.....his voting record in a UK Parliament would assume he is uninterested in preventing Disability Discrimination,Sexual Discrimination, Racial and Religious Hatred, Terrorism and anti-social behaviour, to cite just a few.

Maybe you could check his voting record............and see when he was actually there...........not voting can mean either abstention or absence...........but why spoil a good chance to promote your bias? :roll:

http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpn=Alex_Salmond&mpc=Banff+%26amp%3B+Buchan&display=allvotes#divisions

for actual votes

or for votes he could have taken part in.................if he had wanted to..or been there and not in Scotland

http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpn=Alex_Salmond&mpc=Banff+%26amp%3B+Buchan&display=everyvote#divisions

By the way, he was there.......and voted for ..........the Sexual Offences (Amendment )Bill on 10th February 1999.

He also voted for the repeal of Section 2A when an MSP.

scotsboy
29-Mar-07, 14:35
I think it worthwhile that the SNP get in just to see how they will sell the "removal" of the island of Stroma as part of their wave power plans.

Rheghead
29-Mar-07, 15:05
but why spoil a good chance to promote your bias?

And you're not I take it?? :lol: :cool:

Oddquine
29-Mar-07, 18:44
And you're not I take it?? :lol: :cool:

I'm correcting misinformation.............just as I would if someone was being economical with the truth about anything and I knew it.

golach
30-Mar-07, 15:29
I think Ian Banks is talking sense here

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=496002007


Ooops I should not be reading two books at the same time I will read Ian Rankins first now

scotsboy
30-Mar-07, 18:11
Ian Rankin, Golach. Iain Banks (aka Iain M Banks in the science fiction world) is another Edinburgh based author.........who I incidently met on the ferry to Stromness a few years ago, his sister lives there.