PDA

View Full Version : Scottish Independence



porshiepoo
31-Jul-07, 09:01
I've started this thread on 'Scottish Independence' because it is evolving from another thread named 'Britishness' and is in danger of completely losing the initial aim of that thread.

So, who's for Scottish Independence and why?
Is it just independence from England that the poeple want or independence from all things British?
How will it affect UK obligations already in place within the UN etc?

There are obviously alot of people with passionate views on this topic both for and against a Scottish Independence.
So could Scotland sustain itself financially in the event of independence? Or has England just spent too long convincing Scots that it couldn't that there is a fear of attempting it? Is Scotland really that naiive?

I don't know the ins and outs of how independence would work exactly but I assume Scotland would need a military? How would nuclear power be affected? Would Scotland be depending primarily on North Sea Oil?

paris
31-Jul-07, 10:11
Good god Poo , thats a bit heavy for so early in the morning !! jan x:lol:

NickInTheNorth
31-Jul-07, 11:00
I can't see why Scotland would need a military - if by that you mean a standing army ready to go over seas and do battle on our behalf against all our worldwide enemies.

Probably would need a beefed up fisheries protection fleet.

Nuclear power? Well why not at least it would be for the benefit of Scotland rather than just keeping it as far from London as possible.

Could it Scotland survive financially - probably.

Should we stay in the EU - yes.

Membership of the UN - well why not.

It probably is easier for Scotland to be a small independant state within Europe than at any time in past.

What I would really like to know is what benefits we get by belonging to the United Kingdom?

Victoria
31-Jul-07, 11:04
i'm up for it as long as you let me in without any hassle!:lol:

Boozeburglar
31-Jul-07, 11:06
I've started this thread on 'Scottish Independence' because it is evolving from another thread named 'Britishness' and is in danger of completely losing the initial aim of that thread.

So, who's for Scottish Independence and why?
Is it just independence from England that the poeple want or independence from all things British?
How will it affect UK obligations already in place within the UN etc?

There are obviously alot of people with passionate views on this topic both for and against a Scottish Independence.
So could Scotland sustain itself financially in the event of independence? Or has England just spent too long convincing Scots that it couldn't that there is a fear of attempting it? Is Scotland really that naiive?

I don't know the ins and outs of how independence would work exactly but I assume Scotland would need a military? How would nuclear power be affected? Would Scotland be depending primarily on North Sea Oil?


Polls taken among people who actually vote in Scotland indicated the majority were not for independence at the moment.

The Scots certainly are not naïve, who runs Westminster?

Do you mean depending on North Sea Oil as an economic asset? Darn tooting we will, and the gas.

If it was good enough to prop up the UK economy all these years, and with 50% of it still there, it is a major asset. Also, as oil becomes more expensive the more difficult to access becomes viable.

I don't think the question is whether or not Scotland could sustain itself financially, the question is how hamstrung we are with the policies that are currently foisted upon us.

You don't have to look far to find examples like Denmark and Ireland, we can follow suit.

Salmond campaigned to save the regiments; of course Scotland will have an army. We can take our part in any operation our government supports, UN/NATO or whatever comes along.

Nuclear Power has no future under the SNP, that is certain.

Are you posing these questions because we poor wee Scots' brains might not have the capacity to consider all these things?

;)

Boozeburglar
31-Jul-07, 11:28
i'm up for it as long as you let me in without any hassle!:lol:

Victoria,

You might have to change your name though. Any reminder of the auld enemy may be frowned upon.

All 'incomers' will need to have Mac added to their name.

So you will be MacVictoria, but let us say MacVicky for brevity.

All 'incomers' shall require to gain proficiency in the rolling of rs and the pronunciation of Loch. All must recite Tam O' Shanter to gain access through the huge gates of oak we shall be erecting in Hadrian's Wall, rebuilt as it shall be and none of those within it shall prefer to remain in England I have no doubt.

The headscarf shall once more be the garment of choice for the 'wifies' who inhabit the crofts, all of which shall be returned to service with their original eco friendly turf roofs.

Televisions shall be kept in depots by the Council, and once a year shall be distributed for the enjoyment of Rikki Fulton and Still Game, and live highlights of the New Year celebrations around the globe, which shall be no crack whatsoever as all the bonnie folk will have returned to the motherland.

Or something like that...

porshiepoo
31-Jul-07, 12:31
What relevance has a poll which includes people who will have no vote on the matter were a referendum held?


It's an opinion of orgers I'm looking for. Can we only have an org vote on subjects that we can dictate now?




Which leads me to wonder where you get such strong views from, and why you are all over this issue on a message board. Why not do a little research? Read the papers, watch the news.

Why not be all over the issue? And why is it that you feel the need to chase this topic round the board if it should be so obvious to the entire nation as to what you do want? My views are not strong either for or against Scottish independence. I'm very interested in the views of people on this forum though which is why I am asking the question. If you do not like me asking the questions simply don't answer them, if you don't like the subject even being discussed then don't discuss it.



Maybe you have, and you are posing these questions because we poor wee Scots' brains might not have the capacity to consider all these things.

Hahahaha!

I'm sure there are many people on this forum - scottish and english - who DO have the capacity to enter into a conversation about this topic without getting as defensive as you appear to.

Boozeburglar
31-Jul-07, 13:49
Hahahaha!

I'm sure there are many people on this forum - scottish and english - who DO have the capacity to enter into a conversation about this topic without getting as defensive as you appear to.

Mmmhh.

I am not sure I am not just reacting to the tone of your posts in that other thread. I don't believe anyone would accuse me of being defensive, more offensive.

Sorry if I come over a little terse.

> It's an opinion of orgers I'm looking for. Can we only have an org vote on subjects that we can dictate now?

Fair comment.

>And why is it that you feel the need to chase this topic round the board

Mmmmhhh, I do believe this was at the top of the board, not a long chase, and the previous topic was too. I rarely post, but I think I am entitled to add my thoughts on a current issue.

> If you do not like me asking the questions simply don't answer them, if you don't like the subject even being discussed then don't discuss it.

Thanks for that advice, it would never have occurred to me.

Bit defensive though, is it not?

;)

Jeemag_USA
31-Jul-07, 13:58
Didn't we already have a poll and the majority ruled for independence. Just go back and look at the results of it, it was posted before the last elections.

Boozeburglar
31-Jul-07, 14:04
It might be interesting to see the Salmond effect in the new results!

Victoria
31-Jul-07, 14:36
Victoria,

You might have to change your name though. Any reminder of the auld enemy may be frowned upon.

All 'incomers' will need to have Mac added to their name.

So you will be MacVictoria, but let us say MacVicky for brevity.

All 'incomers' shall require to gain proficiency in the rolling of rs and the pronunciation of Loch. All must recite Tam O' Shanter to gain access through the huge gates of oak we shall be erecting in Hadrian's Wall, rebuilt as it shall be and none of those within it shall prefer to remain in England I have no doubt.

The headscarf shall once more be the garment of choice for the 'wifies' who inhabit the crofts, all of which shall be returned to service with their original eco friendly turf roofs.

Televisions shall be kept in depots by the Council, and once a year shall be distributed for the enjoyment of Rikki Fulton and Still Game, and live highlights of the New Year celebrations around the globe, which shall be no crack whatsoever as all the bonnie folk will have returned to the motherland.

Or something like that...



hahaha! I like that its like McVitties but not..:lol:

rockchick
31-Jul-07, 15:06
Why bother becoming independent? We'd just be invaded by England or the US for our oil, so we'd just be back where we started from?

Boozeburglar
31-Jul-07, 15:12
No worries there, we are going to keep our hands on the tiller at Westminster for ever!

EDDIE
31-Jul-07, 18:39
My opinion is every country in the world should be entitled to be independant.
Scotland should put it to the vote of being independent to settle this debate once for all i think its very sad that scotland,Ireland and wales are not fully independent and governed by england.For me i just cant understand any citizen that wants the country they were born and brought up in to be ruled by another country.

Jeemag_USA
31-Jul-07, 23:00
Check out this Video, I thought it was hilarious, its suitable for pretty much all ages, nothing dirty, just funny [lol]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=KK6jHFezO_8

golach
31-Jul-07, 23:45
I like these

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iH-jUieW9c4&mode=related&search=


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ0qYKBPCXQ&mode=related&search=


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vrtkw8RfEQ

Rheghead
01-Aug-07, 01:08
Scotland should put it to the vote of being independent to settle this debate once for all

But will you get behind the result, once and for all?:confused

Oddquine
01-Aug-07, 01:19
But will you get behind the result, once and for all?:confused

Until the next time..........but it wouldn't be in my lifetime.........which admittedly isn't going to be much more than 20 years max! :Razz

theone
01-Aug-07, 04:01
Why don't we just go the whole nine yards and have an independent Highlands. Or how about an independent Caithness?

I personally don't feel any more alligiance to someone from Southern Scotland than I do from Northern England.

What percentage of glaswegians do you think could point out Caithness on a map?

Lolabelle
01-Aug-07, 04:20
Check out this Video, I thought it was hilarious, its suitable for pretty much all ages, nothing dirty, just funny [lol]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=KK6jHFezO_8

Oooohhhh, that was great Jeemag_USA. [lol]

porshiepoo
01-Aug-07, 09:33
Why bother becoming independent? We'd just be invaded by England or the US for our oil, so we'd just be back where we started from?

:lol: I don't think so! There's only about 6 - 10 years worth of sustainable oil left here.

Rheghead
01-Aug-07, 10:33
Until the next time..........but it wouldn't be in my lifetime.........which admittedly isn't going to be much more than 20 years max! :Razz

Does that mean if we had a referendum and the result went for Independence you won't get behind the result until there is another one in 20 years when there is a referendum to go back to the UK?:confused

Oddquine
01-Aug-07, 11:37
Does that mean if we had a referendum and the result went for Independence you won't get behind the result until there is another one in 20 years when there is a referendum to go back to the UK?:confused

Meant that if there was a referendum on independence and the country voted against, there wouldn't be another one in my lifetime........if we voted for, there'd not need to be another one......unless in the future there was a UK nationalist party formed.

If by getting behind the result you mean accepting the majority will..are there any other options?

Boozeburglar
01-Aug-07, 11:42
:lol: I don't think so! There's only about 6 - 10 years worth of sustainable oil left here.

Really? You are 100% on this?

I think you must know something that one of my mates who carries out exploratory geological surveys for Chevron/Texaco does not. I am sure his company would pay a lot for what you know, they stand to lose billions of current investment if this is true.

The oil discoveries that were beyond the technology in the past, but are viable now, are just going to be left because they can't be bothered then?

The new sources West of Shetland are a hoax?

Of course, oil companies have to disclose everything they know to the public, and thus to their competitors.

Not! Only to select .Orgers I guess.

;)

Oddquine
01-Aug-07, 11:44
:lol: I don't think so! There's only about 6 - 10 years worth of sustainable oil left here.

A link to those figures?

There are around 25-27 million barrels left....and it has taken 40 years to remove 37 million.

Rheghead
01-Aug-07, 11:50
if we voted for, there'd not need to be another one......unless in the future there was a UK nationalist party formed.

That doesn't seem very democratic to me, if the vote goes one way then we should get behind the result which ever way it goes. We could have as many votes for Independence as we want if we are not satisfied with the result and maybe after the nth time it goes Independence, that doesn't mean it will be good for Scotland or that the people want it. Similiarly, a complete novice can have as many throws at a dartboard until he hits the bullseye, doing that won't make him a good player.

Oddquine
01-Aug-07, 12:25
That doesn't seem very democratic to me, if the vote goes one way then we should get behind the result which ever way it goes. We could have as many votes for Independence as we want if we are not satisfied with the result and maybe after the nth time it goes Independence, that doesn't mean it will be good for Scotland or that the people want it. Similiarly, a complete novice can have as many throws at a dartboard until he hits the bullseye, doing that won't make him a good player.

A result in a referendum won't stop those who didn't want that result from trying to change it politically.......and it is somewhat naive to expect it.

But if there was one in this Parliament which voted no (or yes), I can't see another one in my lifetime. That was what I was trying (badly) to say.

Boozeburglar
01-Aug-07, 12:51
That doesn't seem very democratic to me, if the vote goes one way then we should get behind the result which ever way it goes. We could have as many votes for Independence as we want if we are not satisfied with the result and maybe after the nth time it goes Independence, that doesn't mean it will be good for Scotland or that the people want it. Similiarly, a complete novice can have as many throws at a dartboard until he hits the bullseye, doing that won't make him a good player.

People who are against it don't need to get behind it; if they don't want to live in an independent Scotland they can leave, campaign to change it or just put up with it grudgingly. Getting behind it could mean getting on with life as normal, and I suspect for the majority it will mean just that.

If it went for independence on the nth time it would mean the majority voted for it. Ipso facto the people want it, at the time at least.

When the masses vote the Tories back in after Gordon Brown's first full term it won't be good for the UK, but what can you do about those masses?

Anyway, it is not going to happen any time soon.

My opinion is that more and more powers will be devolved until we are all but in name independent, and the actual declaration of such shall assume less and less importance.

;)

Rheghead
01-Aug-07, 14:25
if they don't want to live in an independent Scotland they can leave

I think the same applies visa versa...

;)

scotsboy
01-Aug-07, 14:53
Really? You are 100% on this?

I think you must know something that one of my mates who carries out exploratory geological surveys for Chevron/Texaco does not. I am sure his company would pay a lot for what you know, they stand to lose billions of current investment if this is true.

The oil discoveries that were beyond the technology in the past, but are viable now, are just going to be left because they can't be bothered then?

The new sources West of Shetland are a hoax?

Of course, oil companies have to disclose everything they know to the public, and thus to their competitors.

Not! Only to select .Orgers I guess.

;)

Most of them were not beyond technology, they were economically unviable. However now that the oil price has risen, they become economically viable......of course the oil price was forced up by tensions and conflict in the Middle East........and most of the companies involved in Exploration and enhanced oil recovery etc just happen to be American..........where's Fred?

Oddquine
01-Aug-07, 15:05
Most of them were not beyond technology, they were economically unviable. However now that the oil price has risen, they become economically viable......of course the oil price was forced up by tensions and conflict in the Middle East........and most of the companies involved in Exploration and enhanced oil recovery etc just happen to be American..........where's Fred?

In addition,they're economically unviable because of the tax levels that Gordon Brown levied. There would be more incentive to get at the more difficult wells if oil revenues hadn't become such a cash cow for the UK Government that they can't consider reducing their take.

porshiepoo
01-Aug-07, 16:36
OK, I see it was somewhat silly of me to say anything unless I have statistical analysis to back up what I say, I'll remember this in the future. :lol:

I did read a while ago a snippet about the amount of oil left in the North Sea and I'll see if I can find that same bit of info and quote it on here.
Perhaps I'll have to agree that my comment was as ignorant as the comment of Rockchicks that it was in reply to. ;)

horseman
01-Aug-07, 20:58
Why don't we just go the whole nine yards and have an independent Highlands. Or how about an independent Caithness?

I personally don't feel any more alligiance to someone from Southern Scotland than I do from Northern England.

What percentage of glaswegians do you think could point out Caithness on a map?

Thats enough to make me think !Verdana you have a valid point.Food for thought there,no all that sure what to make of it yet,need to chew it over for a bit,no doubt some intelligentsia may disagree.

whitechina
02-Aug-07, 19:22
Why bother having polls about independence?They'll only be hijacked by supporters of the SNP to give reinforce the myth that a majority of Scots support such a policy.
As for being an independent country within the EU,well it's about time people woke up to the reality of that,the reality being that when your nation is having to implement and abide by laws passed by politicians in the EU parliament,politicians who incidentally, know little about us and care even less,then your country can in no way be described as truly independent.
We all know that the reason the SNP are so keen on the EU is that they see it as means by which to undermine the United Kingdom and to facilitate it's break up.

NickInTheNorth
02-Aug-07, 22:36
It is perfectly possible to be "independent" and within the EU. Sure there is some legislation comes from the black heart of Brussels, but I prefer that to the stuff that comes direct from westminster.

As for the SNP, well they got my vote this time round, simply because I cannot bring myself to vote for either of the conservative parties, and I did not like some of the Libdems policies.

theone
03-Aug-07, 00:27
As for the SNP, well they got my vote this time round, simply because I cannot bring myself to vote for either of the conservative parties, and I did not like some of the Libdems policies.

I think that is why the SNP were so succesful. A lot of people voted for them simply as protest against the rest.

The majority of "real" SNP supporters are that way because they want Scottish independance.

I personally think the majority of their policies stink.

golach
03-Aug-07, 09:15
I think that is why the SNP were so succesful. A lot of people voted for them simply as protest against the rest.

The majority of "real" SNP supporters are that way because they want Scottish independance.

I personally think the majority of their policies stink.
I agree, I personally think that this election results were just a ginger vote, against Tony Blair and the problems in Iraq, under normal circumstances, Wee Fat Eck and his Tartan Tories would never have had a look in, roll on the next 4 years

whitechina
03-Aug-07, 11:49
It is perfectly possible to be "independent" and within the EU. Sure there is some legislation comes from the black heart of Brussels, but I prefer that to the stuff that comes direct from westminster.

As for the SNP, well they got my vote this time round, simply because I cannot bring myself to vote for either of the conservative parties, and I did not like some of the Libdems policies.


No country can be independent if it is bound by laws passed in a parliament outwith it's own borders.That is a fact.
I'd rather be a citizen of the United Kingdom than a citizen of Europe.
Yes,I am proud to be Scottish.I am also equally proud to be British.But am I a European?Never!

NickInTheNorth
05-Aug-07, 09:28
whitechina - I love "facts" made up on the fly to support peoples opinions :D

A real fact for you.

The UK parliament cannot pass legislation that is binding upon future parliaments. So each parliament is free to repeal any legislation it sees fit. Since the UK became a member of the EU no parliament has seen fit to repeal any of the legislation put in place by the EU and adopted in the UK.

As there is such a freedom available to the UK parliament then we are still "independent", i.e. we cannot be constrained to do what any other nation or supra national body dictates.

Also another wee problem for you. You state that you are not european. I am afraid that geomorphology has some bad news for you. You are european whether you like it or not. Of course being european has nothing to do with politics it is a simple accident of fate.

Rheghead
05-Aug-07, 11:04
As there is such a freedom available to the UK parliament then we are still "independent", i.e. we cannot be constrained to do what any other nation or supra national body dictates.

I think the point that whitechina was making was that the Scottish Parliament cannot repeal any aspects of law that are not devolved, so in his/her opinion Scotland is not independent. If Salmond got a veto then the SNP could make real progress, however, he is not as strong as Thatcher and so he can't.

j4bberw0ck
05-Aug-07, 11:44
....each parliament is free to repeal any legislation it sees fit. Since the UK became a member of the EU no parliament has seen fit to repeal any of the legislation put in place by the EU and adopted in the UK.....

That's because it's not legally possible for the UK to repeal EU laws which are enshrined in the various Treaties from the Treaty of Rome onwards, so each parliament is not in fact free to repeal prior legislation. So for instance, when you hear some idiot politician talking about "renegotiating the Social Chapter", they can't. It no longer exists; it's part of the Treaty of Amsterdam, from which withdrawal isn't possible without ceasing membership of the EU altogether. In its turn, a country's withdrawal has to be unanimously approved by all Member States. If a country seceeds anyway, it becomes liable to financial penalties equivalent (IIRC) to 10% of its GDP. the UK's GDP is (2006) £1.93 trillion so if I can still shuffle commas around in my head (a feat not under any form of guarantee) then we'd face a fine of £193 billion, which should do the pound in your pocket a power of no good.

NickInTheNorth
05-Aug-07, 12:49
I think the point that whitechina was making was that the Scottish Parliament cannot repeal any aspects of law that are not devolved, so in his/her opinion Scotland is not independent. If Salmond got a veto then the SNP could make real progress, however, he is not as strong as Thatcher and so he can't.

I see where you are coming from Rheghead, but as the original question was regarding Sottish Independence, and thus Scotland truly governing itself again I wished to indicate that a sovereign parliament might well choose what laws and treaty obligations to carry on. Any such decision would be made by the Scottish Parliament if ever independence were to come about, and thus the Scottish Nation could still be "independent" within the EU.

NickInTheNorth
05-Aug-07, 12:53
That's because it's not legally possible for the UK to repeal EU laws which are enshrined in the various Treaties from the Treaty of Rome onwards, so each parliament is not in fact free to repeal prior legislation. So for instance, when you hear some idiot politician talking about "renegotiating the Social Chapter", they can't. It no longer exists; it's part of the Treaty of Amsterdam, from which withdrawal isn't possible without ceasing membership of the EU altogether. In its turn, a country's withdrawal has to be unanimously approved by all Member States. If a country seceeds anyway, it becomes liable to financial penalties equivalent (IIRC) to 10% of its GDP. the UK's GDP is (2006) £1.93 trillion so if I can still shuffle commas around in my head (a feat not under any form of guarantee) then we'd face a fine of £193 billion, which should do the pound in your pocket a power of no good.

Whilst not wishing to disagree with anything you have stated there, it is still constitutionally possible for the UK parliament to repeal any law, and for the UK government or the crown to repudiate any treaty. That there might well be significant practical difficulties is undoubtedly true. But the legality of such a decision within the UK is in no doubt whatsoever.

Tilter
05-Aug-07, 18:48
I AM EUROPEAN. Yes I'm shouting.


Victoria,
All 'incomers' shall require to gain proficiency in the rolling of rs and the pronunciation of Loch.
Ooh please let me stay. I'll be good. I been here a million years longer than in England where I grew up but can't roll R's (so good job I'm not French as that speech defect would immediately proclaim my sexual proclivity to the world). Can do "loch" though (O level German).

As a never-ending (20 years' duration) incomer, I might have voted SNP if they'd just get on with what's left of the oil and as backup agree to progress nuclear power here. That way we could hack it in Europe as a small country and I've no prob with that. (Just listen to our SNP going on about Finland.) But they won't back nuclear power. For any country to make it these days we need our own power.

What am I supposed to vote? "Who cares"? No - we should always care.

Rheghead
05-Aug-07, 20:00
People who are against it don't need to get behind it

Then they aren't a Scottish patriot.

j4bberw0ck
05-Aug-07, 21:03
it is still constitutionally possible for the UK parliament to repeal any law, and for the UK government or the crown to repudiate any treaty

I think you're missing the point. The Crown has no rights in this matter; none at all. Asking the Queen to sign a law is a nicety, and no more.

EU law has primacy over the UK's and the UK has no right to overturn or ignore laws passed by Brussels. This is why the referendum promised and reneged upon by both Blair and Brown is so important.

If the current Constitution Treaty goes through as it stands, the EU will have almost unlimited powers amongst its member states. Article 3 of the Treaty defines the objectives of the EU which used to say something along the lines of "anything to do with promoting the Common Market". Now it says that the EU can do anything it likes; the EU can decide what is in the interests of the Union from time to time and pursue it. The EU will be able to tell countries how to run their economies and how to conduct their foreign policy.

Article 262 gives the EU - unelected as it is! - the power to levy taxes. So you may just find yourself paying UK and EU taxes. If you decide you don't like paying EU taxes you will not be able to vote them out. Remember? They're not elected.

Article 308 gives the EU the power to adopt any new powers it might wish in pursuit of objectives not yet defined. So if in 5 years it decides that it should control the military, or national (elected) parliaments it can do it. And you cannot vote them out or repeal their laws.

National sovereignty is dying. Independence has a death-rattle. An independent Scotland would be a tiny little country squeaking "how high?" when the EU says jump. Mind you, if the population is stupid enough to vote for it they'll be in the same boat as the rest of the UK so maybe stupidity doesn't matter this once.........

Oddquine
05-Aug-07, 21:13
Originally Posted by Boozeburglar http://forum.caithness.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?p=249843#post249843)
People who are against it don't need to get behind it


Then they aren't a Scottish patriot.

Rheghead............you mean like Wallace? :confused

Accepting something is a different thing altogether from getting behind it.

Acceptance of a status quo doesn't preclude the possibility of changing it..................getting behind it smacks of cheer-leading!

Oddquine
05-Aug-07, 21:16
An independent Scotland would be a tiny little country squeaking "how high?" when the EU says jump.

And the difference between that and the relationship between England/UK and Scotland since the Union is what? :confused

j4bberw0ck
05-Aug-07, 21:34
And the difference between that and the relationship between England/UK and Scotland since the Union is what?

Oddquine, a variety of answers:

1. Since you seem to be firmly wedded to the belief that England has been an oppressor nation feeding itself on Scotland's entrails, you wouldn't see any alternatives to your view even if they presented themselves naked, perfumed and powdered on silken bedsheets.

2. The West Lothian Question.

3. A bunch of Scotsmen running the UK.

4. The Barnett Formula.

5. Thousands of jobs in defence industries.

6. And going back to the first question, if Scotland's been condemned to squeaking these hundreds of years why would you want your beloved country to squeak to a bunch of corrupt and unelected bureacrats in Brussels who can tell your national government exactly when to breathe, when to salute, when to stand and when to sit? Oh and how much tax to levy. And what services you can and can't have.

:lol::lol:

Rheghead
06-Aug-07, 00:09
getting behind it smacks of cheer-leading!

Getting behind a democratically derived constutional decision is being patriotic because the people have spoken. Constitutional decisions shouldn't be swapped and changed like nobody's business because it plays into the hands of political opportunism.

Rheghead
06-Aug-07, 00:12
6. And going back to the first question, if Scotland's been condemned to squeaking these hundreds of years why would you want your beloved country to squeak to a bunch of corrupt and unelected bureacrats in Brussels who can tell your national government exactly when to breathe, when to salute, when to stand and when to sit? Oh and how much tax to levy. And what services you can and can't have.

:lol:

Yeah, some independence that'll be....:roll:

Oddquine
06-Aug-07, 12:02
Getting behind a democratically derived constutional decision is being patriotic because the people have spoken. Constitutional decisions shouldn't be swapped and changed like nobody's business because it plays into the hands of political opportunism.

Nope...........it plays into the hands of the majority vote at the time. Whether that time lasts any longer than the next general election is down to the votes of the people...........that is democracy.

Democracy isn't putting up with something forever because other people have decided that is what you should have ...............when it comes up for grabs again anyone is at liberty to try to change things.

Democracy is having a say.........whether other people like your say or not......and hoping enough people agree with you to make a constitutional decision that approximates more to your vision.

Or do you define it differently?

Bobinovich
06-Aug-07, 13:54
Sorry if this is a daft question/supposition but IF Scotland became independent then would it be beholden to decisions made when part of the Union ruled over from Westminster?

If not then surely a referendum would be held as to whether to remain in the EU?

...and if in said referendum it was decided not to remain as part of the EU then would an independent Scotland still be subjected to the leaving fee as, in essence, Scotland has never been an EU member in its own right.

Again, never being particularly politically minded, is there any good reason for Scotland to stay within the EU? All I see it as is another layer of beurocracy which we could all do with less of these days :confused.

Oddquine
06-Aug-07, 14:03
Oddquine, a variety of answers:

1. Since you seem to be firmly wedded to the belief that England has been an oppressor nation feeding itself on Scotland's entrails, you wouldn't see any alternatives to your view even if they presented themselves naked, perfumed and powdered on silken bedsheets.

Of course it has been the oppressor nation...........it could hardly be anything else given that their representation in the UK Parliament is ten times that of Scotland.
I have never accused England of being deliberately oppressive after they managed to get a Union...........just noted that it was a fact of life.



2. The West Lothian Question.

The West Lothian Question is easily sorted if England makes enough noise to get their own Parliament...........as Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have done.

It does, at least, give the English voters a taste of the position of Scotland since the Union........with English members dictating Scottish law.

And bear in mind........Scottish /Welsh/NI MPs votes in Westminster would make no difference, if there were enough English MPs voting against/for something. Always strikes me as kinda racist that it is only ever the Scottish vote English people rail against!



3. A bunch of Scotsmen running the UK.

Well...no.......a bunch of Scotsmen aren't running the UK.........a small bunch of Scotsmen are in the Cabinet at the head of a Government which contains MPs from all the airts............that's what a Union is all about, isn't it..........MPs from all countries in the Union having a say.



4. The Barnett Formula.

What about the Barnett Formula?

The Barnett Formula does not determine the overall size of the budgets but provides that,
where comparable, changes to programmes in England (Great Britain in the case of Northern
Ireland) result in equivalent changes in the budgets of the territorial department calculated on
the basis of population shares. The Barnett Formula does not directly reflect public
expenditure ‘need’.

This percentage reduces/increases as population reduces/increases and applies to reductions in budgets as well as increases.

All the monetary allocation to Scotland, btw, is not under the Barnett Formula...............however much some people try to say it is.

did you know......residents in Solihull receive only 42p per head from central Government for every £1 paid in next-door Birmingham, even though Solihull has four of the most deprived wards in the country?

Goes to show not everybody will ever be happy with the allocation of funds...........but at least the Barnett formula is a transparent way of doing it.........and as soon as there is nothing paid out for comparable programmes in England...........Scotland will get nothing.


5. Thousands of jobs in defence industries.

The latest available estimate for those people employed directly in industry and commerce in England and Wales in those companies that receive contracts directly from MOD is approximately 126,000 full-time equivalent jobs and approximately 9,000 for Scotland. January 2007 Hansard



6. And going back to the first question, if Scotland's been condemned to squeaking these hundreds of years why would you want your beloved country to squeak to a bunch of corrupt and unelected bureacrats in Brussels who can tell your national government exactly when to breathe, when to salute, when to stand and when to sit? Oh and how much tax to levy. And what services you can and can't have.

:lol::lol:

If Scotland were to be in the EU, it would be the choice of the Scots, and they would have the voice they do not have as a member of the UK.

Personally, I hope the EU would go the way of the Union.............but if not, I can live with it.

Oddquine
06-Aug-07, 14:05
Sorry if this is a daft question/supposition but IF Scotland became independent then would it be beholden to decisions made when part of the Union ruled over from Westminster?

Even the next government in the UK isn't beholden to decisions made by the previous one!



If not then surely a referendum would be held as to whether to remain in the EU?

...and if in said referendum it was decided not to remain as part of the EU then would an independent Scotland still be subjected to the leaving fee as, in essence, Scotland has never been an EU member in its own right.

Again, never being particularly politically minded, is there any good reason for Scotland to stay within the EU? All I see it as is another layer of beurocracy which we could all do with less of these days :confused.

Hear hear!

peter macdonald
06-Aug-07, 15:33
"And going back to the first question, if Scotland's been condemned to squeaking these hundreds of years why would you want your beloved country to squeak to a bunch of corrupt and unelected bureacrats in Brussels who can tell your national government exactly when to breathe, when to salute, when to stand and when to sit? Oh and how much tax to levy. And what services you can and can't have."

Have a read of this link
http://www.fleetwood-trawlers.info/betrayal.html

and then please answer the following question
What government were falling over backwards to join the EU??? UK perchance??
so when these nasty Johnnie foreigners in Brussels (according to the Daily Mail and Evening Standard at least)are being so dastardly just stop a minute to think how we got there

celtic 302
07-Aug-07, 01:00
im all for independance. and heres why...

at last years wimbledon, SCOTTISH tennis player, Andy Murray got to the 4th round. I distinctly remember that after he had taken Andy Roddick to pieces in the 3rd round, BBC News said (when reporting on the day at Wimbledon) that Brittish tennis player had beaten...... and so on.

then a few days later after Murray had lost to the guy from cyprus, with the name that sounds like the capital of Iraq, BBC News said that Scottish tennis player Andy Murray has lost....... and so on.

This is what annoys me about the English... they are happy to call Scottish success (in General not just Sport) a Brittish success... but when its a Scottish failure (in General...) the will call it a Scottish failiure... they distance themselves from it.

ps. i have nothing agaisnt the Welsh or The N. Irish and would be more than happy to see a new joining of countries without Ole England

porshiepoo
07-Aug-07, 07:49
im all for independance. and heres why...

at last years wimbledon, SCOTTISH tennis player, Andy Murray got to the 4th round. I distinctly remember that after he had taken Andy Roddick to pieces in the 3rd round, BBC News said (when reporting on the day at Wimbledon) that Brittish tennis player had beaten...... and so on.

then a few days later after Murray had lost to the guy from cyprus, with the name that sounds like the capital of Iraq, BBC News said that Scottish tennis player Andy Murray has lost....... and so on.



It probably happens in all those countries that you claim to have no problems with also, the difference being you're not sensitive to their comments so either don't hear them or aren't affected by them. They don't have the same trigger as any comment you deem negative coming from an English voice.

What's really sad is that that is what you would base the independence of your country on!




This is what annoys me about the English... they are happy to call Scottish success (in General not just Sport) a Brittish success... but when its a Scottish failure (in General...) the will call it a Scottish failiure... they distance themselves from it.

No! Not 'the English' at all! Maybe Englands media may say things like that but let's get it into perspective here, that hardly consitutes 'the English'.
Blimey, half of Englands media ain't even British.

Let's also remember that it isn't only England that does things like that.
I've mentioned this before but I recieved a job application for Wick hospital once and one of the questions was 'Are you White Scottish' or 'Other white British'. That has to be a rascist query. Not only toward anyone that isn't scottish but also toward anyone that isn't White.
Whether you like 'the English' or not, there is no way on earth that the majority of English would tolerate a question like that from our hospitals and would be the first to stand up to a system that asked that kind of question against anyone, never mind against fellow British.



ps. i have nothing agaisnt the Welsh or The N. Irish and would be more than happy to see a new joining of countries without Ole England

So there's the real problem then. You're rascist!

Why exactly don't you have a problem with 'the welsh' or 'N.Irish'? Do you watch their TV and read their papers as much as you do Englands? Can you compare fairly and accurately the media in those countries to those in England?
Do you know anything about those countries or 'the welsh' and 'N.Irish' to come up with the opinion that you'd be happy to have a union of just those countries?
Or are they just safe partners in crime so to speak, because you believe that their thoughts and feeling would be the same as yours??

porshiepoo
07-Aug-07, 08:15
Incidentally, I've only just gotten around to actually casting a vote in my own poll. Oops!
My vote was yes, for a scottish independence.
I think Scotland is probably more than capable of sustaining itself, I think that in this day in age if independence is wanted by the majority then they have a right to demand it and achieve it and also because I think in the long run it could be good for everyone.
However, I do think that the downfall of Scotland and it's people could be the fact that they cling tightly to history and refuse to learn from it, grow from it and move on. If we as people individually lived our personal lives the way that Scotland does, clinging to this hatred and animosity then we'd all be basket cases going no further than basics on Maslows hierarchy ;).
We all know the history between England and Scotland, we all know the atrocities that were carried out on both sides, we all know that Scotland feels second rated in British politics etc etc etc but if Scotland were ever to become independent and successful at it, those feelings would need to be contained for the benefit of it's new country. To begin a new independent country on feelings of inferiority, rascism and defiance would end in one of two ways : Ethnic cleansing or the downfall of a new country - again! ;)
We all like to believe that we're superior to those countries that have and continue to carry out such atrocities but a nation riled up can be a dangerous thing. We're not so different to them when you look below the surface.

Tristan
07-Aug-07, 08:34
Even the next government in the UK isn't beholden to decisions made by the previous one!

Hear hear!

You are right about the way the UK government often deals with things but I do find it funny that the current government's excuse for not elimination the Fuel Price Escalator was that they were beholden to decisions made by the previous government. :lol: Just goes to show you they make up their own rules to suit themselves and only a fool would put all their faith in governments being honest!

Boozeburglar
07-Aug-07, 12:03
Blimey, half of Englands media ain't even British.

Care to elaborate?


So there's the real problem then. You're rascist!

That is a word one should take care with.

Boozeburglar
07-Aug-07, 12:18
However, I do think that the downfall of Scotland and it's people could be the fact that they cling tightly to history and refuse to learn from it, grow from it and move on. If we as people individually lived our personal lives the way that Scotland does, clinging to this hatred and animosity then we'd all be basket cases going no further than basics on Maslows hierarchy.
We all know the history between England and Scotland, we all know the atrocities that were carried out on both sides, we all know that Scotland feels second rated in British politics etc etc etc but if Scotland were ever to become independent and successful at it, those feelings would need to be contained for the benefit of it's new country. To begin a new independent country on feelings of inferiority, rascism and defiance would end in one of two ways : Ethnic cleansing or the downfall of a new country - again!

This is pure drivel.

Do you ever consider reading your posts before you submit them?

:(

Oddquine
07-Aug-07, 13:10
I've mentioned this before but I recieved a job application for Wick hospital once and one of the questions was 'Are you White Scottish' or 'Other white British'. That has to be a rascist query. Not only toward anyone that isn't scottish but also toward anyone that isn't White.
Whether you like 'the English' or not, there is no way on earth that the majority of English would tolerate a question like that from our hospitals and would be the first to stand up to a system that asked that kind of question against anyone, never mind against fellow British.


It is a requirement that racial equality forms use the categories as set out in the 2001 Census.................and Scotland's questions regarding race weren't the same as England's........hence the White Scottish.

Maybe England is feart to find out how many native white English people there are left...........or they assume that White British=White English and anyone who doesn't want to be can complete the White Other category? ;)

porshiepoo
07-Aug-07, 15:57
It is a requirement that racial equality forms use the categories as set out in the 2001 Census.................and Scotland's questions regarding race weren't the same as England's........hence the White Scottish.

Maybe England is feart to find out how many native white English people there are left...........or they assume that White British=White English and anyone who doesn't want to be can complete the White Other category? ;)


Hmmmmmmmm! I beg to differ.
That kind of question should not be acceptable anywhere in the UK.
Why would that question need to be on an application form for a job? On a general questionnaire maybe but not a job application. Unless of course the country of origin and the colour of skin matter to those questioning it.
If finding out how many 'natives' there are left in England meant questions like that being included in job applications then I think I'd rather not know and if that's a downfall of being English then so be it.
The thing is England doesn't see Scottish as any different to themselves in that we're all British.

It's amazing the double standards that are acceptable up here.

porshiepoo
07-Aug-07, 16:25
This is pure drivel.

Do you ever consider reading your posts before you submit them?




Yep, looking at it I'd have to agree. :eek:
What can I say! I'd love to be able to say I was drunk but I don't drink, it wasn't me but unfortunately it was or even that I didn't know what I was saying. All would be lies unfortunately.

I guess I have to admit to a tad of ignorance and arrogance and got so wrapped up in what I wanted to say that I didn't take care with how I said it.
I shan't edit or remove the comment as that would make it even worse.

In the future I'll try to make my point without being quite so......blah!!!!!
:)

squidge
07-Aug-07, 16:44
Many application forms for a variety of jobs and other things include questionnaires about ethnicity. These should be anonymous - on a seperate sheet of paper with no identifying marks and I have completed ones where they are handed in seperately too. They also often include a question about disability or gender as well.

Measuring ethnicity sometimes is a useful tool in ensuring open and fair recruitment. It allows you to look over the whole recruitment process and identify whether people have had equal access to the vacancy. If they havent then you might need to look at where you are advertising the vacancies to ensure they appeal to the widest audience and the wording of the vcacancy to ensure it doesnt put people off applying because of their ethnicity or their ability or gender.

They usually have a "do not wish to answer this" box for you to tick so you arent actually obligated to tell anyone anything.

peter macdonald
07-Aug-07, 17:28
The thing is England doesn't see Scottish as any different to themselves in that we're all British.

Im not sure that isnt because the English have lost their sense of a being a nation and assume that everyone wants to join in with their cozy notion of being British

It's amazing the double standards that are acceptable up here.

Sorry Im not with you on this for what I can see with some of the posts/posters on here about immigration I would suggest the attitude up here is slightly different to that "other parts" of the UK
PM

Oddquine
07-Aug-07, 17:40
Hmmmmmmmm! I beg to differ.
That kind of question should not be acceptable anywhere in the UK.
Why would that question need to be on an application form for a job? On a general questionnaire maybe but not a job application. Unless of course the country of origin and the colour of skin matter to those questioning it.
If finding out how many 'natives' there are left in England meant questions like that being included in job applications then I think I'd rather not know and if that's a downfall of being English then so be it.
The thing is England doesn't see Scottish as any different to themselves in that we're all British.

It's amazing the double standards that are acceptable up here.

It has nothing to do with double standards...........it has to do with the census return questions being a devolved issue..............and the use of the categories for race in those returns being a UK wide requirement for compliance with the Race Relations Act.

It is a legal requirement that a questionnaire on ethnic origin (and disability and sexuality) is appended to any job/housing etc application........it is not, however, a legal requirement that it be completed.

The thing is that England sees British as equalling English. Do you have any idea how many English people I have met who actually SAY England when they mean Britain............and really can't see why I would have a problem with it, because that is what they have always said.....so why would they have to change it now? :roll:

By the way, have you seen http://tinyurl.com/yrew3p (http://tinyurl.com/yrew3p)

It does rather look as if white British equals White English, doesn't it?

Maybe the Scottish question was added here so that Scotland can fulfill the quotas of foreigners as well! ;)

Boozeburglar
07-Aug-07, 17:56
By the way, have you seen http://tinyurl.com/yrew3p (http://tinyurl.com/yrew3p);)

Well she can always get a job as a model for SunSilk.

;)

Boozeburglar
07-Aug-07, 18:03
Yep, looking at it I'd have to agree. :eek:
What can I say! I'd love to be able to say I was drunk but I don't drink, it wasn't me but unfortunately it was or even that I didn't know what I was saying. All would be lies unfortunately.

I guess I have to admit to a tad of ignorance and arrogance and got so wrapped up in what I wanted to say that I didn't take care with how I said it.
I shan't edit or remove the comment as that would make it even worse.

In the future I'll try to make my point without being quite so......blah!!!!!
:)

No don't. I was being a git, you are entitled to say what you think at the time, we all should do that and it would be a lot more interesting.

I frankly don't give a fig about this issue really, I don't see any reason the wheels will come off the process of devolution, and enough powers will come Scotland's way to make this a place worth continuing to live in, whether you are English, Scottish or whatever other background or chosen nationality.

If I or anyone else here comes off as anti English you have to remember it is mainly just reactionary.

My spiritual home is London, and that is because I have a stronger affinity with London than anywhere else I have lived.

I would hate to lose the ability to flow freely from one place to another. I delight to see all the small communities being revived in rural Scotland thanks to the influx of English escaping the rat race.

porshiepoo
07-Aug-07, 18:10
The thing is that England sees British as equalling English. Do you have any idea how many English people I have met who actually SAY England when they mean Britain............and really can't see why I would have a problem with it, because that is what they have always said.....so why would they have to change it now? :roll:


Being someone who was born and raised in England I can honestly say that I have never come across anyone who sees Britain being anything less than a union of countries.

I do think Scots can be over sensitive on the subject though and read something into a comment or conversation that simply isn't there.
It's almost as though scots have to keep insisting that that is how England feels about Scotland so that Scots have ammunition to keep firing.
Like it or not the majority of England see Scotland as its equal and just as important and necessary as itself. We simply do not hold the grudges against Scotland and her people as Scots do to the English.

Oddquine
07-Aug-07, 18:35
Being someone who was born and raised in England I can honestly say that I have never come across anyone who sees Britain being anything less than a union of countries.

I do think Scots can be over sensitive on the subject though and read something into a comment or conversation that simply isn't there.
It's almost as though scots have to keep insisting that that is how England feels about Scotland so that Scots have ammunition to keep firing.
Like it or not the majority of England see Scotland as its equal and just as important and necessary as itself. We simply do not hold the grudges against Scotland and her people as Scots do to the English.

I assume you are speaking about those you know, porshiepoo..........I'm speaking about those I know...........and believe me, both in conversation and on forums, the Britain=England syndrome is extremely irritating.

We don't need to invent ammunition........it is all around.............even down to the "National" news consisting largely of items only of interest to England to pad it out to the time allocated, rather than allow an opt-out after the truly national news.

Grudges are now being held in England, though..........because for the first time, they are realising that Scotland isn't the Northernmost region of England........thanks to devolution.

porshiepoo
07-Aug-07, 18:47
I assume you are speaking about those you know, porshiepoo..........I'm speaking about those I know...........and believe me, both in conversation and on forums, the Britain=England syndrome is extremely irritating.

We don't need to invent ammunition........it is all around.............even down to the "National" news consisting largely of items only of interest to England to pad it out to the time allocated, rather than allow an opt-out after the truly national news.

Grudges are now being held in England, though..........because for the first time, they are realising that Scotland isn't the Northernmost region of England........thanks to devolution.


Is it not???????? Seriously??????????? ;)

Rheghead
07-Aug-07, 22:32
We don't need to invent ammunition........it is all around.............even down to the "National" news consisting largely of items only of interest to England to pad it out to the time allocated, rather than allow an opt-out after the truly national news.

Can you give any examples of 'English interest only' news that doesn't have an impact on Scottish life?:confused

And could a Scottish only news mean that you will lose out on real impacting news stories?

Come on, get real...

Tristan
07-Aug-07, 23:21
Can you give any examples of 'English interest only' news that doesn't have an impact on Scottish life?

And could a Scottish only news mean that you will lose out on real impacting news stories?

Come on, get real...


Cricket?:lol:
Alan Baxter....oops sorry he was British .... oops sorry that was until he tested positive and then he was that Scottish skier. [evil]

A big problem with the news is that in the past (it has become better) there has been an overemphasis on English themes. In fairness the sporting news (esp the last Common Wealth Games was much better, and it showed all British athletes in a positive light. In the past that was not always the case.

Back to you question of "English interest only" - Miss-management of their water supply? There would be others of an English rather than a British nature but you do have a valid point. We are a very small Island.

I like that fact there are local, regional, Scottish, British and International news casts. It adds a lot to our knowledge of the world we live in.

Oddquine
07-Aug-07, 23:56
Can you give any examples of 'English interest only' news that doesn't have an impact on Scottish life?:confused

And could a Scottish only news mean that you will lose out on real impacting news stories?

Come on, get real...

Impact on who?

When you consider that the devolved issues include
# health
# education and training
# local government
# social work
# housing
# planning
# tourism, economic development and financial assistance to industry
# some aspects of transport, including the Scottish road network, bus policy and ports and harbours
# law and home affairs, including most aspects of criminal and civil law, the prosecution system and the courts
# the Police and Fire services
# the environment
# natural and built heritage
# agriculture, forestry and fishing
# sport and the arts
# statistics, public registers and records

a great deal of the "National" news solely applies to England.............or happens in England with no relevance to the rest of the UK.

The truly National and International part could be finished in half the time.

golach
08-Aug-07, 00:03
Impact on who?

When you consider that the devolved issues include
# health
# education and training
# local government
# social work
# housing
# planning
# tourism, economic development and financial assistance to industry
# some aspects of transport, including the Scottish road network, bus policy and ports and harbours
# law and home affairs, including most aspects of criminal and civil law, the prosecution system and the courts
# the Police and Fire services
# the environment
# natural and built heritage
# agriculture, forestry and fishing
# sport and the arts
# statistics, public registers and records

a great deal of the "National" news solely applies to England.............or happens in England with no relevance to the rest of the UK.

The truly National and International part could be finished in half the time.
Hmmm,
no sign of Defence, Taxation, or National Health and State Pensions on your List

crayola
08-Aug-07, 00:20
Another thread of visceral thought? Probably.

Rheghead
08-Aug-07, 02:08
a great deal of the "National" news solely applies to England.............or happens in England with no relevance to the rest of the UK.

That only seems so because England makes up the majority of people in the UK, it is simple maths. There are lots of Scottish news stories, Madeleine McCann for example, I am sure there aren't lots of English people thinking, 'Oh, not another Scottish story!:roll:" They don't because, British people are genuinely interested in British affairs wherever they occur.[evil]

Your reasoning is beyond me.

peter macdonald
08-Aug-07, 08:33
British people are genuinely interested in British affairs wherever they occur.

What utter drivel A heck of a lot of people in the South of the UK could not give a toss what happens on the other side of the Watford Gap
As for reporting of Scottish affairs ..OK remember the Evening Standards edit on the E Coli outbreak in Airdrie a few years ago "Whining Jocks with funny tummies"
As for UK coverage Yes I usually notice every time England play Germany at football because of the utter nationalistic piffle reported by the tabloids and the BBC so bad that it prompted a former West German PM to write a letter of complaint to the Times about it It makes me squirm with embarrasment

I see also on the main news this morning that the country wide ban on animal movements is still in place except they missed this bit http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6935714.stm
PM

Rheghead
08-Aug-07, 09:17
What utter drivel A heck of a lot of people in the South of the UK could not give a toss what happens on the other side of the Watford Gap

but not all or even a majority, similiar to Oddquine's view that "I'm Scottish, I couldn't give a toss what goes on south of Hadrian's wall."


As for reporting of Scottish affairs ..OK remember the Evening Standards edit on the E Coli outbreak in Airdrie a few years ago "Whining Jocks with funny tummies" "

Can't comment if it was for real, I never read the publication. However, I read lots of newspapers and saw lots of TV news from English newspapers and I cannot recall reading such poor reporting. But I know newspapers do get it wrong now and again, the Sun got it wrong after Hillsborough (re scousers pickpocketing fans) but I am not sure if there is a big anti unionist movement on Merseyside?



As for UK coverage Yes I usually notice every time England play Germany at football because of the utter nationalistic piffle reported by the tabloids and the BBC so bad that it prompted a former West German PM to write a letter of complaint to the Times about it It makes me squirm with embarrasment

Why would you be embarrassed, except due to the fact that Scotland has never reached the knockout stage of the World Cup! [lol]


I see also on the main news this morning that the country wide ban on animal movements is still in place except they missed this bit http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6935714.stm
PM

Wrong again, it is on the TV news and have you not noticed? That news story is on the English Broadcasting Corporation's website.[lol]

porshiepoo
08-Aug-07, 09:47
Perhaps we should have a devolved English parliament?.

Scots complain about the lack of Scottish representation in England but obviously seem to forget that the two main posts in goverment are held by Scotsmen who represent Scottish constituencies AND will be enacting laws that affect only England.
Do we get to vote on scottish matters?
Think I read somewhere that Gordon Browns response to the West Lothian question was 'To not ask the west lothian question'. Do you think if the shoe had been on the other foot Scots would have accepted that? Or is more likely that they would have added it to the stewing pot along with 'British media don't include Scotland enough, wahhhhhhhhhhh'.?

Boozeburglar
08-Aug-07, 09:58
Should MPs for London constituencies be excluded from votes on nuclear power because they won't be built in London?

porshiepoo
08-Aug-07, 10:15
Should MPs for London constituencies be excluded from votes on nuclear power because they won't be built in London?

So Scotland will dispose of its own nuclear waste then???????? Won't be bought down to Sellafield???? In England.

Boozeburglar
08-Aug-07, 11:03
Is your question whether MPs for areas that do not have nuclear waste needing dealt with or coming to their area to be dealt with should have a say on the issue?

Oddquine
08-Aug-07, 11:19
but not all or even a majority, similiar to Oddquine's view that "I'm Scottish, I couldn't give a toss what goes on south of Hadrian's wall."

Did I say that?

But I don't particularly want to be watching/listening to items about English health boards, English housing, English policing, English education etc when I could, if the EBC would permit it, be watching that kind of information as it applies to Scotland.

If I wanted to know what happens in day to day life South of Hadrian's Wall, I can read it in any newspaper.i.......f I want to buy one.

I have no problem with a news which solely consists of Defence, Taxation, Pensions, Terrorism and other non-devolved issues.........that, after all, is what a National news programme is all about.......national issues.



There are lots of Scottish news stories, Madeleine McCann for example, I am sure there aren't lots of English people thinking, 'Oh, not another Scottish story!:roll:" They don't because, British people are genuinely interested in British affairs wherever they occur.

How do you make Madeleine McCann into a Scottish story? The only thing Scottish about her is her father. :roll:

Oddquine
08-Aug-07, 11:58
Perhaps we should have a devolved English parliament?.

Good idea......never understood why England didn't.........and it might have if the UK Parliament didn't equate Scotland and Wales with Regions of England rather than distinct countries in their own right..........like England.




Scots complain about the lack of Scottish representation in England but obviously seem to forget that the two main posts in goverment are held by Scotsmen who represent Scottish constituencies AND will be enacting laws that affect only England.
Do we get to vote on scottish matters?

No we don't..........we complain about National representation in the media consisting of day to day English issues rather than national ones.

The Government consists of twenty people.......four of whom are Scottish. Who holds the main posts is completely irrelevant as four out of twenty isn't a majority.

There are 533 English MPs and 117 others...........so I guess that if they wantedEnglish MPs could always get what England thinks England wants..
...which is more than Scotland, NI and Wales were ever able to do.

But that would take a bit of backbone and gumption.

Scottish MPs don't get to vote on Scottish devolved matters either.......and given it has more relevence to them, are they complaining?



Think I read somewhere that Gordon Browns response to the West Lothian question was 'To not ask the west lothian question'. Do you think if the shoe had been on the other foot Scots would have accepted that? Or is more likely that they would have added it to the stewing pot along with 'British media don't include Scotland enough, wahhhhhhhhhhh'.?

Gordon Brown is well aware that the West Lothian question is no different for England now than the situation Scotland, Wales and NI were in until devolution.

Maybe he's waiting three hundred years to do anything about it! [lol]

Rheghead
08-Aug-07, 12:56
How do you make Madeleine McCann into a Scottish story? The only thing Scottish about her is her father. :roll:

Fair enough, so I will turn this point on its head, if Madeleine McCann is English, why should you be interested in the story?


Did I say that?

But I don't particularly want to be watching/listening to items about English health boards, English housing, English policing, English education etc when I could, if the EBC would permit it, be watching that kind of information as it applies to Scotland.

I think you have just answerred your own question.


I have no problem with a news which solely consists of Defence, Taxation, Pensions, Terrorism and other non-devolved issues.........that, after all, is what a National news programme is all about.......national issues.


The BBC covers all sorts of news stories across the UK, I would be disappointed if they just covered English stories and I am glad that they cover Scottish stories as well. If we just had an SBC then I think you would just get bored with all the central belt stuff, and even so, the reporting of such events be very repetitive....

Rheghead
08-Aug-07, 12:59
Perhaps we should have a devolved English parliament?

Why should they? In the light of the Scottish Executive fiasco, why should they pay for just another costly layer of beaurocracy?:confused

Oddquine
08-Aug-07, 13:32
Fair enough, so I will turn this point on its head, if Madeleine McCann is English, why should you be interested in the story?

It is international news........it just happens to be an English child who was abducted.

I'm sure there would have been as much coverage whatever the child's nationality........given the circumstances.

Oddquine
08-Aug-07, 13:37
Why should they? In the light of the Scottish Executive fiasco, why should they pay for just another costly layer of beaurocracy?:confused

Think it should be "we pay", Rheghead.

But if you don't think there should be another layer of bureaucracy, I assume you are quite happy with a status quo which seems to enrage so many of your compatriots.

rockchick
08-Aug-07, 13:46
OK, I see it was somewhat silly of me to say anything unless I have statistical analysis to back up what I say, I'll remember this in the future. :lol:

I did read a while ago a snippet about the amount of oil left in the North Sea and I'll see if I can find that same bit of info and quote it on here.
Perhaps I'll have to agree that my comment was as ignorant as the comment of Rockchicks that it was in reply to. ;)

Perhaps you haven't gotten the hang of sardonic irony yet...but my comment wasn't made in ignorance.

Rheghead
08-Aug-07, 13:56
I'm sure there would have been as much coverage whatever the child's nationality........given the circumstances.

Are you sure?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Kidnapped_children

Oddquine
08-Aug-07, 15:34
Are you sure?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Kidnapped_children

Were they kidnapped from a European holiday resort, Rheghead?

Maybe where I said international news it should have been European news............but I still say that if an American or other nationality child had gone missing as Madeleine McCann did, it would have been reported as that has been and is being.

Rheghead
08-Aug-07, 17:29
Were they kidnapped from a European holiday resort, Rheghead?

Maybe where I said international news it should have been European news............but I still say that if an American or other nationality child had gone missing as Madeleine McCann did, it would have been reported as that has been and is being.

So this is the pinnacle of your arguement for independence and it depends upon the the newsworthiness of a kidnapping, but only if it is from a European resort?

You gotta do better than that...

Oddquine
08-Aug-07, 20:23
So this is the pinnacle of your arguement for independence and it depends upon the the newsworthiness of a kidnapping, but only if it is from a European resort?

You gotta do better than that...

It isn't the pinnacle of my argument for independence....it is the pinnacle of my argument for a Scottish Six...in that, without being force fed purely local English issues, Scotland would still be able to access real news.

percy toboggan
08-Aug-07, 20:30
If the pro-independent Scots want a similar resource in terms of quality and scope to the BBC - maybe a SBC then the licence fee will cost 'em about two thousand pounds apiece per annum. Off the top of my head.

Your call. Reception cut off at Carter Bar can be organised.

I just think, why bother? Your almost as marginalised news-wise as we in the North of England - live with it.

Oddquine
08-Aug-07, 21:38
If the pro-independent Scots want a similar resource in terms of quality and scope to the BBC - maybe a SBC then the licence fee will cost 'em about two thousand pounds apiece per annum. Off the top of my head.

Your call. Reception cut off at Carter Bar can be organised.

I just think, why bother? Your almost as marginalised news-wise as we in the North of England - live with it.

The BBC now spends just 4 per cent of its budget in Scotland (that should be around 9 per cent), while network commissions from all four terrestrial channels have halved in the past three years, from 6 per cent of the entire UK spend to 3 per cent, according to the regulator, Ofcom. Its report also revealed that, from 2001 to 2006, the budget for current affairs television in Scotland (BBC as well as STV) declined by 45 per cent – a massive drop. Those declines are not mirrored elsewhere in the UK.

Seems they are getting there before Independence, doesn't it? Why should we pay TV licences at the same rate as South of the border?

percy toboggan
08-Aug-07, 21:49
I'm sorry oddquine but your parochial whining is beyond the pail.

I'd like to see the BBC spend more in Scotland, and less in the South-East but a national broadcasters go (if you ignore the left of centre bias) it ain't bad.

I remind you that to have such a comprehensive resource avilalble to Scotland only would cost you an inordinate amount.

For goodness sake lay off the 'poor deprived Scot' thing for a bit. You lot get more per head than the rest of us in subsidy...the oil is all but spent...
we're in this together. Deprived northern Anglo's and (allegedly) hard up jocks.

Salmond's attempts at driving wedges between us twinned-nations brothers & sisters will not work because he has not got the funds to re-assure you all you'll not end up like paupers. I don't want that because when it all kicks in I'll probably be livin' in a nissen hut in Scourie, or some such abandoned wee place.

Oddquine
08-Aug-07, 22:15
I'm sorry oddquine but your parochial whining is beyond the pail.

I'd like to see the BBC spend more in Scotland, and less in the South-East but a national broadcasters go (if you ignore the left of centre bias) it ain't bad.

I remind you that to have such a comprehensive resource avilalble to Scotland only would cost you an inordinate amount.

For goodness sake lay off the 'poor deprived Scot' thing for a bit. You lot get more per head than the rest of us in subsidy...the oil is all but spent...
we're in this together. Deprived northern Anglo's and (allegedly) hard up jocks.

Salmond's attempts at driving wedges between us twinned-nations brothers & sisters will not work because he has not got the funds to re-assure you all you'll not end up like paupers. I don't want that because when it all kicks in I'll probably be livin' in a nissen hut in Scourie, or some such abandoned wee place.

Percy........I'm sorry if you don't want to emigrate to Scotland if it is going to cost you more than the current crop of incomers expect.........but if it is what the people decide...........hard cheese!

I rather resent the whinging cry instead of any attempt to contradict what I say with facts rather than opinions or snide comments.

Alex Salmond doesn't have to drive a wedge.........it has been there for years, but now England has noticed it as well and is doing it's own whinging.

peter macdonald
08-Aug-07, 22:20
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter macdonald View Post
What utter drivel A heck of a lot of people in the South of the UK could not give a toss what happens on the other side of the Watford Gap
but not all or even a majority, similiar to Oddquine's view that "I'm Scottish, I couldn't give a toss what goes on south of Hadrian's wall."
You have to ask Oddquine about her views ..I cant answer for her It is a view I dont share

Quote:
Originally Posted by peter macdonald View Post
As for reporting of Scottish affairs ..OK remember the Evening Standards edit on the E Coli outbreak in Airdrie a few years ago "Whining Jocks with funny tummies" "
Can't comment if it was for real, I never read the publication. However, I read lots of newspapers and saw lots of TV news from English newspapers and I cannot recall reading such poor reporting. But I know newspapers do get it wrong now and again, the Sun got it wrong after Hillsborough (re scousers pickpocketing fans) but I am not sure if there is a big anti unionist movement on Merseyside?
What do you mean IF it was for real??? The Evening Standard is well known for its "views" on anything which doesnt fit their views on life outside London
Why was I reading it?? i was employed in Essex at the time

Quote:
Originally Posted by peter macdonald View Post
As for UK coverage Yes I usually notice every time England play Germany at football because of the utter nationalistic piffle reported by the tabloids and the BBC so bad that it prompted a former West German PM to write a letter of complaint to the Times about it It makes me squirm with embarrasment
Why would you be embarrassed, except due to the fact that Scotland has never reached the knockout stage of the World Cup!

What a pathetic comment ... I am not very interested in football The comment was made about the English medias portrayal of Germans ,,the repeated comments about the 2 world wars .. The Tommy versus the Hun
Tasteless comments at best I view them as offensive
No wonder Helmut Schmidt was writing to the Times to compain ...and all over a game of football
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter macdonald View Post
I see also on the main news this morning that the country wide ban on animal movements is still in place except they missed this bit http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6935714.stm
PM
Wrong again, it is on the TV news and have you not noticed? That news story is on the English Broadcasting Corporation's website.

Not at 9 this morning it wasnt and if you bothered to look it is in the Scotland section not the UK one

PM

Rheghead
08-Aug-07, 23:15
It isn't the pinnacle of my argument for independence....it is the pinnacle of my argument for a Scottish Six...in that, without being force fed purely local English issues, Scotland would still be able to access real news.

Wrong, the main broadcasters don't purely force feed us English issues.

I agree with a Scottish 6 but I fear it would be a vehicle for Scottish nationalism, that in itself would preclude itself from being a real channel for all residents in Scotland. Wales has S4C so I can't see any reason against it, though I must respect the Welshman who nearly starved his self to death to get that channel, a degree of nationalism that is rarely seen in Scotland.

The reason why English only issues (though not exclusively as you try to make out) are broadcasted on the BBC and ITV is that there isn't a slot for exclusive English issues that serves the whole and exclusively England, unlike Scotland with 'Reporting Scotland', England is split into broadcasting regions which can't serve the whole of England. I am sorry you don't have the patience to view these news items, but you can't claim to find all the other non 'English only' news interesting, so even if Salmon gets his way, you will still have to cherry pick what you find interesting.

Oddquine
08-Aug-07, 23:53
Wrong, the main broadcasters don't purely force feed us English issues.

I agree with a Scottish 6 but I fear it would be a vehicle for Scottish nationalism, that in itself would preclude itself from being a real channel for all residents in Scotland. Wales has S4C so I can't see any reason against it, though I must respect the Welshman who nearly starved his self to death to get that channel, a degree of nationalism that is rarely seen in Scotland.

The reason why English only issues (though not exclusively as you try to make out) are broadcasted on the BBC and ITV is that there isn't a slot for exclusive English issues that serves the whole and exclusively England, unlike Scotland with 'Reporting Scotland', England is split into broadcasting regions which can't serve the whole of England. I am sorry you don't have the patience to view these news items, but you can't claim to find all the other non 'English only' news interesting, so even if Salmon gets his way, you will still have to cherry pick what you find interesting.

Why on earth would a Scottish Six become a vehicle for nationalism when the Welsh Six hasn't? :confused

As for cherrypicking..........all education/health/policing etc stuff emanating from Scotland will be of some relevance to us...while not one iota of what goes on in those areas in England is.

porshiepoo
09-Aug-07, 08:10
But I don't particularly want to be watching/listening to items about English health boards, English housing, English policing, English education etc when I could, if the EBC would permit it, be watching that kind of information as it applies to Scotland.


Tough!
If you don't want to watch it or listen to it then don't!
But I suspect you do enjoy watching it as it adds fuel to the fire that you so obviously want to keep burning.



If I wanted to know what happens in day to day life South of Hadrian's Wall, I can read it in any newspaper.i.......f I want to buy one

Sorry but the the UK, Britain whatever does not revolve around what Oddquine wants. There may be a minority who feel like you do but the majority of the UK are interested in a little more than what goes on directly under their noses.


I have no problem with a news which solely consists of Defence, Taxation, Pensions, Terrorism and other non-devolved issues.........that, after all, is what a National news programme is all about.......national issues.

Again, tough!!!!
Some of us British ARE actually interested in all things to do with British news.
We don't feel the need to exclude the news from a particular country just because we don't like that country.




How do you make Madeleine McCann into a Scottish story? The only thing Scottish about her is her father. :roll:[/QUOTE]

Still Scottish though.
Now if the story had described him as British you'd have been up in arms and used that as yet another example of so called 'Englash Media' mis representing Scotland.
Can't win really can they!

Oddquine
09-Aug-07, 15:14
Tough!
If you don't want to watch it or listen to it then don't!
But I suspect you do enjoy watching it as it adds fuel to the fire that you so obviously want to keep burning.

Had a couple of years watching it..don't have a TV now.better for the stress levels! But Radio 4 is just as bad!



Sorry but the the UK, Britain whatever does not revolve around what Oddquine wants. There may be a minority who feel like you do but the majority of the UK are interested in a little more than what goes on directly under their noses.

Never said it did..in fact that was a rather idiotic remark to make.

I'm speaking solely for me..............just as you are speaking solely for you.........because sure as eggs is eggs, the majority of the UK haven't any interest at all in Scotland........unless it is to carp about Scottish MPs or complain because we have a more left wing government than the Nulabour one so they do things differently..........and better.



Again, tough!!!!
Some of us British ARE actually interested in all things to do with British news.
We don't feel the need to exclude the news from a particular country just because we don't like that country.

And what news about Scotland did you get inundated with in England when you lived there?

National news should have news from or appertaining to all four countries, not just one.




Still Scottish though.
Now if the story had described him as British you'd have been up in arms and used that as yet another example of so called 'Englash Media' mis representing Scotland.
Can't win really can they!

Are you really trying to tell me what I'd do, porshiepoo? I'm amazed that you think you know me that well.

I may have :roll: to myself because the media couldn't identify a Scottish accent......but his nationality, in the circumstances is neither here nor there.

I only mentioned it at all, because Rheghead tried to say it was a Scottish story headlining the National News. :confused

porshiepoo
09-Aug-07, 16:13
Never said it did..in fact that was a rather idiotic remark to make.

because sure as eggs is eggs, the majority of the UK haven't any interest at all in Scotland.........


And that's not an idiotic remark to make! :roll:

You don't like the fact that I make an assumption on your way of thinking based on what I have read on here but you're quick to suggest that the majority of the UK have no interest in Scotland AT ALL, based on what????

Like I said before I grew up in England and the anti-scottish attitude that you seem to want to believe exists there simply doesn't. Sorry!
If a news item comes on that pertains to Scotland and / or Scots we, as English, don't jot it down in a book and compare it to all things English.
News is news no matter where it happens in the UK. England and Scotland are no more better than or worse than each other.

Happy days!!!!:lol:





And what news about Scotland did you get inundated with in England when you lived there?

National news should have news from or appertaining to all four countries, not just one.


And in Oddquines regulated, regimented little corner of the world it probably would but seriously get over it, you'll find life alot more interesting and far less stressful if you stop looking for things that simply aren't there.





Are you really trying to tell me what I'd do, porshiepoo? I'm amazed that you think you know me that well.

I may have to myself because the media couldn't identify a Scottish accent......but his nationality, in the circumstances is neither here nor there.

I only mentioned it at all, because Rheghead tried to say it was a Scottish story headlining the
National News. [/quote]

I'm going by the opinion you have shown in this thread. You seem to be very anti English in most all areas, you seem to revel in the little things that you SEEM to enjoy turning into huge things.

Oddquine
09-Aug-07, 20:39
I'm going by the opinion you have shown in this thread. You seem to be very anti English in most all areas, you seem to revel in the little things that you SEEM to enjoy turning into huge things.

I'm not actually........I am anti Westminster Government, and anti English-centric media.

I'm not even anti those English people I know who say England when they mean Britain............they can't help their ignorance. :roll:

I have no problem with individuals........I do have a problem with the institutions.

Though hundreds of years of little niggles are bound to, at some stage, become big niggles......after all..........if they hadn't there wouldn't even be a Scottish National Party, would there?

Or are you saying that everyone is out of step but you and the people you know?

And if you have a problem with my opinions, then that is your prerogative.......but kindly don't put words in my mouth. [evil]

porshiepoo
09-Aug-07, 22:56
And if you have a problem with my opinions, then that is your prerogative.......but kindly don't put words in my mouth. [evil]
[/QUOTE]


And by the same token, if you do not want to be percieved a certain way then don't act that way. [disgust]

Oddquine
09-Aug-07, 23:40
And by the same token, if you do not want to be percieved a certain way then don't act that way. [disgust]

I can't say I'm particularly bothered how I am perceived by people on internet forums that I don't know and who don't know me.

However, perhaps one of you Caithness living English natives who have been replying to me could tell me where my comments on this thread were erroneous. I have examples to illustrate my case..........do you?

I did note that it has been mainly Caithness living English natives who have been replying to me in a rather supercilious manner........in fact, a rather defensive manner.

Let's be completely honest here................if you still lived in England, and had absolutely nothing in common with Scotland bar the fact you lived on the same land mass and shared a few national policies would you be chuffed if, for half an hour every night in life you were informed about Scottish Education, health, laws, murders, housing, planning, curling, shinty etc ad nauseam?

I can understand that an English person would be interested in what is happening in daily life in England..........but in Scotland I really do think you are in a minority nowadays.

Boozeburglar
10-Aug-07, 08:57
I bet the pair of you would probably be best of mates once you spent five minutes together in the real world.

Just saying.

golach
10-Aug-07, 09:31
I have no problem with individuals........I do have a problem with the institutions.

Though hundreds of years of little niggles are bound to, at some stage, become big niggles......after all..........if they hadn't there wouldn't even be a Scottish National Party, would there?
Good on you Oddquine, you stick with Wee Fat Two Cheques, and everything will be all singing and all dancing, IMO he and his immoral attitude are a great advert for Scotland, if we have a cheating, money grabbing, First Minister in charge of the purse what hope have we got? [evil]

peter macdonald
10-Aug-07, 13:59
Aha the voice of the Murdoch press speaks!!!!
Ever heard of Henry Macleish and why he left his job????? Either that or Peter Mandelson Lord levi Monklandsgate Tessa Jowell The Dr Kelly affair etc etc
Or the theft of votes by the thousand by a right wing party calling itsself New LABOUR
PM
PS why are are your comments so personal ?? If you dont like the SNP or Conservatives etc please comment on the policies not the shape of the politicians

golach
10-Aug-07, 19:55
Ever heard of Henry Macleish and why he left his job????? Either that or Peter Mandelson Lord levi Monklandsgate Tessa Jowell The Dr Kelly affair etc etc
Or the theft of votes by the thousand by a right wing party calling itsself New LABOUR PM
PS why are are your comments so personal ?? If you dont like the SNP or Conservatives etc please comment on the policies not the shape of the politicians
Who am I being personal too?
You brought Macleish, Mandelson, Levi into the frame, not me, But I agree, they like Two Cheques tipify the crooked politicians that are supposed to be looking after our country, so IMO he is no better than them.
And while your at it, why not mention why the Scottish Independant Convention set up by the SNP, say that key decisions on how a separate Scotlannd would work must be kept secret and not be revealed until after a referendum, that would mean the electorate would vote on Independence without knowing whether a seperate Scotland would retain the queen as head of state, be in the EU or still be in NATO.

porshiepoo
10-Aug-07, 21:24
I can't say I'm particularly bothered how I am perceived by people on internet forums that I don't know and who don't know me.


So then don't blinkin complain when I DO percieve you as a certain way.


However, perhaps one of you Caithness living English natives who have been replying to me could tell me where my comments on this thread were erroneous. I have examples to illustrate my case..........do you?

I believe your comments are correct in your eyes.
But I really don't believe you have proof to back up your comment that 'The majority of the UK have no interest in Scotland AT ALL'. Unless of course you know most of the UK???? Therefore, I believe at least one of your comments to be erroneous!


I did note that it has been mainly Caithness living English natives who have been replying to me in a rather supercilious manner........in fact, a rather defensive manner.

Defensive???? Yes, maybe someone who has an inferiority complex with regards to the English, England or the UK could see it that way.

Besides, I'm a caithness living Brit.


Let's be completely honest here................if you still lived in England, and had absolutely nothing in common with Scotland bar the fact you lived on the same land mass and shared a few national policies would you be chuffed if, for half an hour every night in life you were informed about Scottish Education, health, laws, murders, housing, planning, curling, shinty etc ad nauseam?

The fact is that were I still living in England, Scotland would still be part of the Uk / Britain so yes, I would be interested in hearing news from Scotland.


I can understand that an English person would be interested in what is happening in daily life in England..........but in Scotland I really do think you are in a minority nowadays.

Really? Is that another erroneous comment or do you have proof to back it up?

Why are you so intent on believing that England has as little or less interest in Scotland as you so obviously do of England? Can your brain not cope with too much info? Is it so hard for you to show an interest in any country other than your country of birth?
Are you an only child and have sharing issues???? :lol:

Oddquine
10-Aug-07, 21:31
Who am I being personal too?
You brought Macleish, Mandelson, Levi into the frame, not me, But I agree, they like Two Cheques tipify the crooked politicians that are supposed to be looking after our country, so IMO he is no better than them.
And while your at it, why not mention why the Scottish Independant Convention set up by the SNP, say that key decisions on how a separate Scotlannd would work must be kept secret and not be revealed until after a referendum, that would mean the electorate would vote on Independence without knowing whether a seperate Scotland would retain the queen as head of state, be in the EU or still be in NATO.

Where do they say that, golach?


From the Convention Booklet of November 2005

The Queen will continue to be Head of State of Scotland for as long as the Scottish people wish it.

Any future decision on continued membership or Norwegian status outside of the EU would be one for the Scottish people.

The key defence decisions facing Scotland would be on nuclear bases and NATO membership.
Under the most likely political scenarios, Scotland would end British nuclear military bases. A Scottish government would have the choice between either the neutrality of Sweden,Ireland, Finland, Austria, Switzerland who are not NATO members or non-nuclear membership of NATO like Norway.

golach
10-Aug-07, 23:48
Read todays newspapers Oddquine, and maybe the truth will out....maybe

peter macdonald
10-Aug-07, 23:51
Who am I being personal too?
You brought Macleish, Mandelson, Levi into the frame, not me, But I agree, they like Two Cheques tipify the crooked politicians that are supposed to be looking after our country, so IMO he is no better than them.

Yes but I had the decency to call them by their names..some thing you cant seem to do regarding the first minister of Scotland
Do you have a problem with the Democratic system as practised in Scotland?? or is it the fact it was not "highjacked" as it was in the referendum in the 70s???

And while your at it, why not mention why the Scottish Independant Convention set up by the SNP, say that key decisions on how a separate Scotlannd would work must be kept secret and not be revealed until after a referendum, that would mean the electorate would vote on Independence without knowing whether a seperate Scotland would retain the queen as head of state, be in the EU or still be in NATO.

To answer this question I suggest you ask a member of the SNP or someone who is privy to the information I am neither The last political party i was a member of was the SLP in 1976-7

My political background is such that I am proud that one of my ancestors was educated by Jimmy Maxton another was the Labour MP for Motherwell and Wishaw (he actually won the seat from the SNP)..and oh my they must be doing somersaults in their grave to see the way THEIR party has turned out

At least with the SNP/Lib Dems /Tories et all we might not have ended up as vassals to George Bush I wonder how Dubya enjoyed the pullover "Blair" bought him
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/07/23/ngift23.xml
Pathetic
PM (for the last time ...Good night and God bless)

Oddquine
11-Aug-07, 01:04
Read todays newspapers Oddquine, and maybe the truth will out....maybe

Which papers, golach?

golach
11-Aug-07, 13:56
Which papers, golach?

Here is one Oddquine

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/news/tm_method=full%26objectID=19603978%26siteID=66633-name_page.html

crayola
11-Aug-07, 14:14
Golach, I'm not an SNP supporter and not a great fan of the wee man but the Record is a staunch Labour supporter and its articles on Salmond, the SNP and independence are about as biased as they come. Well, not as biased as the Scottish Daily Mail. Did you see yesterday's front page? You would have liked it because it cherry picked opinion polls in the way you do. It portrayed 48% support for the SNP as a disaster because the number of people supporting independence had dropped significantly in the last few months.

golach
11-Aug-07, 14:31
Golach, I'm not an SNP supporter and not a great fan of the wee man but the Record is a staunch Labour supporter and its articles on Salmond, the SNP and independence are about as biased as they come. Well, not as biased as the Scottish Daily Mail. Did you see yesterday's front page? You would have liked it because it cherry picked opinion polls in the way you do. It portrayed 48% support for the SNP as a disaster because the number of people supporting independence had dropped significantly in the last few months.
I make no excuses for highlighting the Daily Record, but I must admit I never read the Daily Mail yesterday, I was called away, I will give myself 100 lines for that :(.
I admit I cherrypick for anything against Independence, as I openly admit and think that it will be a bad thing for Scotland.
And if you had set up your own poll in a decent manner then maybe the result would have been a little clearer

crayola
11-Aug-07, 14:35
And if you had set up your own poll in a decent manner then maybe the result would have been a little clearerThe poll was ok. Your interpetation of the result was simply wrong, as I have already explained.

David Banks
13-Mar-09, 14:46
. . . it is about a difference that has always existed in hearts and minds. On which subjects, may I recommend a book written by an American, Arthur Hermann, entitled "How the Scots invented the Modern World."
That intellectual force is still alive.