What will the Nat's do for Caithness?

[Oddquine]

Note I stated nationalism as a generalisation not naming specific parties. I have encountered nationalism before its a closed mindset and may start off innocently enough but once its matured it can be very unhealthy note I gave examples already admittedly they where on religious grounds. Back in the 1980s the security services were very aware of scottish nationalist heavily involved with the IRA so there are those out there already established who have this mind set.

So you don't think the wish for Scottish independence has matured at all since the first time we tried to get out of the Union in about 1714? You've been reading golach's link to "Britain First", haven't you?

Paraphrased from Wiki...but how I pretty much remember it, having been active in the SNP locally at that time. Early in 1982, Sinn Fein wrote inviting a 79 Group speaker to its conference. With PIRA violence ongoing, Sinn Féin were considered unacceptable to public opinion in the UK. Alex Salmond moved to reject the request and won, but minutes of the meeting were leaked to the press, linking the two groups. Later that same year, the leading members of the 79 Group were expelled from the SNP. They grew up and came back...and eventually moved the SNP from being perceived as Tartan Tories (because they had mainly been elected in previously Tory held rural constituencies, like my one) to the party they are now.

So how was that being heavily involved with the IRA, pray explain.....bar as a part of a political party, at that time, interested in Independence, being invited to talk to another political party..Sinn Fein.... interested in independence....and refusing?

And you will, I am sure, excuse me for thinking back on the way the "security services" acted for the Government and against free speech (and still do really) and wonder why you think that being "watched" by them was for any more reason than that the Government didn't like people who didn't agree with them....given the same kind of surveillance (and the same irrational assumptions) were made about Bruce Kent, Joan Ruddock and other CND members? In the eighties, I thought that the "security services" were ensuring their continued employment, given the biggest proportion of people they were "watching" were pretty harmless and the "communist sympathiser" epithet smacked of McCarthyism.

I am not claiming that the odd individual member of the SNP did not became involved in IRA or other terrorist activities....... because I do not know, but given the Irish Catholic presence in Glasgow, that would be just as likely as Scottish Orangemen being involved in the UDF......and I don't know if they were either......but it is less likely to be because of their membership, in either case, of a political party, and more to do with their antecedents and religion.

[RagnarRocks]

Note I haven't once mentioned the particular party or its leader you keep referring to so will you stop trying to foist your own little agenda. But I can confirm I have met nationalist who aren't a members of that particular party . Neither have I read the article you refer to.I am fully capable of reading and researching history without extremists from either side trying to sway my view.

[ducati]

So, no change then?

What about having an Edinburgh based administration, with less to worry about, maybe they would look a bit to the north and think ooh! about half the land mass of Scotland seems to be struggling for jobs and services?

No?

[Alrock]

What about having an Edinburgh based administration, with less to worry about, maybe they would look a bit to the north and think ooh! about half the land mass of Scotland seems to be struggling for jobs and services?

Certainly more likely than with a Westminster Government. Can't say for certain either way, only time will tell.

[Oddquine]

Note I haven't once mentioned the particular party or its leader you keep referring to so will you stop trying to foist your own little agenda. But I can confirm I have met nationalist who aren't a members of that particular party . Neither have I read the article you refer to.I am fully capable of reading and researching history without extremists from either side trying to sway my view.

Don't try to pretend that anybody on here was not expected by you to take a post like Note I stated nationalism as a generalisation not naming specific parties. I have encountered nationalism before its a closed mindset and may start off innocently enough but once its matured it can be very unhealthy note I gave examples already admittedly they where on religious grounds. Back in the 1980s the security services were very aware of scottish nationalist heavily involved with the IRA so there are those out there already established who have this mind set.

How do you make out that the bolded (by me) bit was not aimed at the SNP? Unless you are aware of other UK Nationalist parties, bar the 79 group in the SNP, in existence at that time who had been all over the media in the eighties regarding an IRA connection? Can't remember ever reading anything on that lines re Plaid.

[RagnarRocks]

So by the assumption of your statement you claim that nationalists can only belong to that one party,and because I refuse to agree with you, you've now started a little vendetta to force your mind set and opinions upon me. You do not have to be a member of any party to be an extreme nationalist so your assumption that in the 80s the only extreme nationalist were members of that party is entirely incorrect. You can be a nationalist and scottish but not belong to the snp. I've encountered nationalism in many countries can't say they where all scottish . You assume I'm referring to the SNP because you want it to fit your argument I for one do not wish to encourage your rantings as it appears you have a set agenda and as like so many of a particular persuasion wish to reduce it down to name calling bullying or febrile ranting. So there you go my vote is set and will not change ! Please feel free to tell Mr S that's another vote lost and a bit of a bigger hill to push up

[ducati]

So no-one could tell us how/why Caithness would benefit from independence. Oh well....

[RagnarRocks]

Well its like this Ducati they will nationalise the post office and prestwick airport give everything away free to everyone then when everyone is stones broke through all the carefree spending and wonderful ideas we will all be equally skint so Caithness won't be any better or worse off than the rest of Scotland all happy independent bankrupts together

[Oddquine]

Well its like this Ducati they will nationalise the post office and prestwick airport give everything away free to everyone then when everyone is stones broke through all the carefree spending and wonderful ideas we will all be equally skint so Caithness won't be any better or worse off than the rest of Scotland all happy independent bankrupts together

[squidge]

Firstly Prestwick Airport has not been nationalised. It has been taken into public ownership. RagnarRocks I am sure that you know the difference.

Secondly, a publicly owned "public service" to deliver mail to Caithness, Sutherland and all the outlying rural areas is vital. If anyone thought that putting postal services into the hands of private companies is a good idea then looking at what happened at Grangemouth over the last few weeks should change your mind. Private companies with the need to pay shareholders have no loyalty to the wider public. Legislation to ensure universal deliveries will only matter as long as the shareholders are happy. If they arent then watch the situation change. Hands out for subsidies from a privatised mail service ( like the railways, like the energy companies) and soon we are subsidising private companies to deliver mail to rural areas to ensure profits go into pockets of shareholders and board members. Maybe even higher subsidies than we were paying to run the damn post as a public sector business. However, this is all speculation because the renationalisation of the post office depends on the SNP securing enough votes to form the first government of an independent Scotland. As Golach has pointed out, that is certainly not a given.

So what would Independence give to Caithness.

It would give the people of Caithness as part of the wider Scottish Electorate, a government which they vote for. This government would be more accountable and representative of the needs and priorities of Caithness. This is simply a numbers issue. Population of Caithness appears is around 27 000 this is 0.04% of the UK Population and 0.5% of the Scottish Population. Thats a huge difference and will make a difference in the voice Caithness has particularly given the opportunities for renewables the county can offer. If you look at rural scotland the population living in rural Scotland makes up around 20% of the Scotland's electorate. Scottish Rural issues will be much more important to an Independent Scotland than they are to the UK. You ignore 20% of your electorate at your peril.

In an independent Scotland money raised in Scotland will be spent on Scottish priorities. This can only benefit Caithness as the county will be more of a priority for an independent Scotland than it is for the UK.

Another area where an Independent Scotland will benefit Caithness is likely to be around public sector jobs.... Look at how the tax services, the DWP have reduced their presence in the county over the last couple of years. Look further back and see the loss of other government offices not only from Caithness but from the Highlands as a whole. As independence does mean new opportunities for taxation systems, welfare systems and other areas of government then there will be opportunities for better placed public sector resources. Caithness will have opportunities to exploit that and create jobs in this sector.

An Independent Scotland with its own voice in Europe will be better placed to represent the views and priorities of Caithness in europe. Scotland's needs and Caithness needs have only ever been represented as part of a wider UK remit and no one I have spoken to in the fishing industry for example, thinks Scotland, never mind Caithness has got the best deal it could have. Scotland's representatives will negotiate for Scotland across every aspect of policy. They will have the best interests of Scotland as the WHOLE of their remit, in a way that the UK cannot. Thats not a criticism - simply an observation.

Private Sector employment will benefit from a more accountable government in an Independent Scotland. As Alex Salmond said on BBC radio this week, Independence would enable the Scottish Government to offer Loan Guarantees as well as grants and cash loans to companies. This flexibility would help struggling companies or those needing investment to grow and it is far far more likely that an Independent Scottish Government would firstly, know where Caithness is lol, and would be prepared to take care of Caithness in a way that the UK government cannot and will not.

Now much of what I said depends on having the right people in office, doing the right sort of work to stand up for Caithness. It all depends on who is in government too. However, many of these things are not about policies.... They are about democracy. A greater voice, a government closer to the electorate, more accountable and more able to respond to the needs of the population than it is now. Fiscal autonomy will allow Scotland to spend its money where its priorities are in a way that doesnt happen today. Im not saying that Independence will create a hugely wealthy Caithness, or some utopia with wonderful public services and full employment. I am saying that rural issues, rural priorities will be better served in an Independent Scotland than they are served either through Westminster or through a hog tied holyrood today.

[ducati]

Firstly Prestwick Airport has not been nationalised. It has been taken into public ownership. RagnarRocks I am sure that you know the difference.

Secondly, a publicly owned "public service" to deliver mail to Caithness, Sutherland and all the outlying rural areas is vital. If anyone thought that putting postal services into the hands of private companies is a good idea then looking at what happened at Grangemouth over the last few weeks should change your mind. Private companies with the need to pay shareholders have no loyalty to the wider public. Legislation to ensure universal deliveries will only matter as long as the shareholders are happy. If they arent then watch the situation change. Hands out for subsidies from a privatised mail service ( like the railways, like the energy companies) and soon we are subsidising private companies to deliver mail to rural areas to ensure profits go into pockets of shareholders and board members. Maybe even higher subsidies than we were paying to run the damn post as a public sector business. However, this is all speculation because the renationalisation of the post office depends on the SNP securing enough votes to form the first government of an independent Scotland. As Golach has pointed out, that is certainly not a given.

So what would Independence give to Caithness.

It would give the people of Caithness as part of the wider Scottish Electorate, a government which they vote for. This government would be more accountable and representative of the needs and priorities of Caithness. This is simply a numbers issue. Population of Caithness appears is around 27 000 this is 0.04% of the UK Population and 0.5% of the Scottish Population. Thats a huge difference and will make a difference in the voice Caithness has particularly given the opportunities for renewables the county can offer. If you look at rural scotland the population living in rural Scotland makes up around 20% of the Scotland's electorate. Scottish Rural issues will be much more important to an Independent Scotland than they are to the UK. You ignore 20% of your electorate at your peril.

In an independent Scotland money raised in Scotland will be spent on Scottish priorities. This can only benefit Caithness as the county will be more of a priority for an independent Scotland than it is for the UK.

Another area where an Independent Scotland will benefit Caithness is likely to be around public sector jobs.... Look at how the tax services, the DWP have reduced their presence in the county over the last couple of years. Look further back and see the loss of other government offices not only from Caithness but from the Highlands as a whole. As independence does mean new opportunities for taxation systems, welfare systems and other areas of government then there will be opportunities for better placed public sector resources. Caithness will have opportunities to exploit that and create jobs in this sector.

An Independent Scotland with its own voice in Europe will be better placed to represent the views and priorities of Caithness in europe. Scotland's needs and Caithness needs have only ever been represented as part of a wider UK remit and no one I have spoken to in the fishing industry for example, thinks Scotland, never mind Caithness has got the best deal it could have. Scotland's representatives will negotiate for Scotland across every aspect of policy. They will have the best interests of Scotland as the WHOLE of their remit, in a way that the UK cannot. Thats not a criticism - simply an observation.

Private Sector employment will benefit from a more accountable government in an Independent Scotland. As Alex Salmond said on BBC radio this week, Independence would enable the Scottish Government to offer Loan Guarantees as well as grants and cash loans to companies. This flexibility would help struggling companies or those needing investment to grow and it is far far more likely that an Independent Scottish Government would firstly, know where Caithness is lol, and would be prepared to take care of Caithness in a way that the UK government cannot and will not.

Now much of what I said depends on having the right people in office, doing the right sort of work to stand up for Caithness. It all depends on who is in government too. However, many of these things are not about policies.... They are about democracy. A greater voice, a government closer to the electorate, more accountable and more able to respond to the needs of the population than it is now. Fiscal autonomy will allow Scotland to spend its money where its priorities are in a way that doesnt happen today. Im not saying that Independence will create a hugely wealthy Caithness, or some utopia with wonderful public services and full employment. I am saying that rural issues, rural priorities will be better served in an Independent Scotland than they are served either through Westminster or through a hog tied holyrood today.

Not excited I'm afraid.

[rob murray]

What will the nats do for Caithness....nought... so same as they've done to date.....meet the new boss ...same as the old boss !

[weezer 316]

Firstly Prestwick Airport has not been nationalised. It has been taken into public ownership. RagnarRocks I am sure that you know the difference.

Secondly, a publicly owned "public service" to deliver mail to Caithness, Sutherland and all the outlying rural areas is vital. If anyone thought that putting postal services into the hands of private companies is a good idea then looking at what happened at Grangemouth over the last few weeks should change your mind. Private companies with the need to pay shareholders have no loyalty to the wider public. Legislation to ensure universal deliveries will only matter as long as the shareholders are happy. If they arent then watch the situation change. Hands out for subsidies from a privatised mail service ( like the railways, like the energy companies) and soon we are subsidising private companies to deliver mail to rural areas to ensure profits go into pockets of shareholders and board members. Maybe even higher subsidies than we were paying to run the damn post as a public sector business. However, this is all speculation because the renationalisation of the post office depends on the SNP securing enough votes to form the first government of an independent Scotland. As Golach has pointed out, that is certainly not a given.

So what would Independence give to Caithness.

It would give the people of Caithness as part of the wider Scottish Electorate, a government which they vote for. This government would be more accountable and representative of the needs and priorities of Caithness. This is simply a numbers issue. Population of Caithness appears is around 27 000 this is 0.04% of the UK Population and 0.5% of the Scottish Population. Thats a huge difference and will make a difference in the voice Caithness has particularly given the opportunities for renewables the county can offer. If you look at rural scotland the population living in rural Scotland makes up around 20% of the Scotland's electorate. Scottish Rural issues will be much more important to an Independent Scotland than they are to the UK. You ignore 20% of your electorate at your peril.

In an independent Scotland money raised in Scotland will be spent on Scottish priorities. This can only benefit Caithness as the county will be more of a priority for an independent Scotland than it is for the UK.

Another area where an Independent Scotland will benefit Caithness is likely to be around public sector jobs.... Look at how the tax services, the DWP have reduced their presence in the county over the last couple of years. Look further back and see the loss of other government offices not only from Caithness but from the Highlands as a whole. As independence does mean new opportunities for taxation systems, welfare systems and other areas of government then there will be opportunities for better placed public sector resources. Caithness will have opportunities to exploit that and create jobs in this sector.

An Independent Scotland with its own voice in Europe will be better placed to represent the views and priorities of Caithness in europe. Scotland's needs and Caithness needs have only ever been represented as part of a wider UK remit and no one I have spoken to in the fishing industry for example, thinks Scotland, never mind Caithness has got the best deal it could have. Scotland's representatives will negotiate for Scotland across every aspect of policy. They will have the best interests of Scotland as the WHOLE of their remit, in a way that the UK cannot. Thats not a criticism - simply an observation.

Private Sector employment will benefit from a more accountable government in an Independent Scotland. As Alex Salmond said on BBC radio this week, Independence would enable the Scottish Government to offer Loan Guarantees as well as grants and cash loans to companies. This flexibility would help struggling companies or those needing investment to grow and it is far far more likely that an Independent Scottish Government would firstly, know where Caithness is lol, and would be prepared to take care of Caithness in a way that the UK government cannot and will not.

Now much of what I said depends on having the right people in office, doing the right sort of work to stand up for Caithness. It all depends on who is in government too. However, many of these things are not about policies.... They are about democracy. A greater voice, a government closer to the electorate, more accountable and more able to respond to the needs of the population than it is now. Fiscal autonomy will allow Scotland to spend its money where its priorities are in a way that doesnt happen today. Im not saying that Independence will create a hugely wealthy Caithness, or some utopia with wonderful public services and full employment. I am saying that rural issues, rural priorities will be better served in an Independent Scotland than they are served either through Westminster or through a hog tied holyrood today.

Wrong again Squidge!

Caithness voted for the lib dems in 2010 remember? We have got a govt we voted for right now in Westminister, or at least in part. And what about 2005/01/ and 1997 when we voted labour? I asusme it was OK then because those north of a line we drew voted for that?

And loan guarentees? What about the £125m westminster just gave grangemouth as opposed to the £9m the Scottish govt did? Why doest Holyrood care as much about grangemouth? Why squidge why? Why are westmminster doing more where in your eyes they should be doing less?

Thirdly, and this is a point all nationalists ignore consistently when it comes to their wee bit of the country, especially from rural areas. Scotland has one of the most centralised populations in the world. You constantly criticize London-centric policies from Westminster (This is a fallacy, infact the opposite is true but thats another argument for another day), how can you square that with the fact Scotland is far more centralized that the UK is? Almost all our population is in a 70 x 45 mile box.

[Oddquine]

What will the nats do for Caithness....nought... so same as they've done to date.....meet the new boss ...same as the old boss !

What has being in the UK done for Caithness long term.....really....bar Dounreay and the nuclear particle pollution....much as they have done for the areas surrounding Faslane? The Uk has had 306 years to give a toss about Caithness/the Highlands(and Islands)....but other than encouraging the importing of sheep and removing people.... have they? Really? The SNP have had a minority Government from 2007 to 2011, and a scraped majority since 2011....so why don't you ask what the Scottish branches of the Unionist parties did for Scotland between 1999 and 2007? That wouldn't be because it would be "not a lot" bar let the UK Government acquire 6000 square miles of Scottish waters, without any consultation, to the extent that you can look from St Andrew's golf course and see "English" waters?

What will the UK do for Caithness in the future? Your guess is as good as mine, but on past UK performance....not a lot...bar put dicey new technology somewhere it isn't going to damage a lot of people if it goes wrong, compared to placing it somewhere in overcrowded England (as in Dounreay and Faslane).....but my guess is as good as yours re the actions of a future Scottish Government after 2016....so given neither of us know what the manifestos of that future Government we choose would be, will be...I'm pretty sure that it will acknowledge that Caithness/The Highlands (and the Island Communities) are an integral part of Scotland, and not to be ignored as a UK periphery to be used and abused for UK benefit......but time will tell......and for those who believe, as I do, that most politicians, whatever their original reasons for becoming politicians, will eventually jump on the political gravy train to improve their positions re income and future post-political employment....I take heart from the fact that 100,000 Scots or more congregating in Edinburgh to protest against anything a Scottish Government proposes/enacts will have a lot more impact on the mindset of politicians in Scotland than the million or so of the whole UK population who protested against the Iraq War.........but still got pulled into it because they were ignored by the politicians.

[wavy davy]

...and for those who believe, as I do, that most politicians, whatever their original reasons for becoming politicians, will eventually jump on the political gravy train to improve their positions re income and future post-political employment....I take heart from the fact that 100,000 Scots or more congregating in Edinburgh to protest against anything a Scottish Government proposes/enacts will have a lot more impact on the mindset of politicians in Scotland than the million or so of the whole UK population who protested against the Iraq War.........but still got pulled into it because they were ignored by the politicians.

Given that you rightly tar all politicians with the same brush, I don't follow your argument.

[squidge]

Wrong again Squidge!

Caithness voted for the lib dems in 2010 remember? We have got a govt we voted for right now in Westminister, or at least in part. And what about 2005/01/ and 1997 when we voted labour? I asusme it was OK then because those north of a line we drew voted for that?

You make a good point about the Lib Dems however I have already shown on this board how the Scottish vote rarely impacts on the result in the General Elections. Having only made a difference in three of the General Elections since WW2. I have also explained that the only chance there have of developing a true system of Proportional Representation is in an Independent Scotland. There is no chance that the Electoral System will change or even be reviewed at Westminster and yet, here in Scotland, the Electoral Reform Society, the Common Weal and many other organisations are exploring the different types of democracy we could have in an Independent Scotland.

And loan guarentees? What about the £125m westminster just gave grangemouth as opposed to the £9m the Scottish govt did? Why doest Holyrood care as much about grangemouth? Why squidge why? Why are westmminster doing more where in your eyes they should be doing less?

The Westminster Government did NOT give Grangemouth £125 million. They gave them a loan guarantee - a pre application approval for a loan guarantee to be absolutely accurate. The only CASH that Grangemouth got was from the Scottish government. The scottish government does not have the authority to offer Loan Guarantees - a facility that many independent countries have - they have very restricted borrowing abilities too. Neither did they have the authority to "nationalise" the facility as was mooted earlier. Energy is a reserved power for Westminster and so this would not have been an option for Alex Salmond. This would change in an Independent Scotland. I am surprised that you seem to think I have criticised Westminster for their actions at Grangemouth - I havent - I am simply relieved that the situation was resolved without the loss of 800 jobs. I think that all those involved in resolving this issue should be commended. I think the union have some serious questions to answer - I cannot understand what they thought they were doing and I have yet to hear from the Scottish Labour Party as Johan Lamont has had nothing to say about the issue and Iain Gray is noticeably silent too. I am glad that Salmond and Swinney were on the ball and reacted quickly and in a robust manner and I was pleased to see that, after I was concerned that there was no mention of the Grangemouth Crisis at PMQs, the Scottish Secretary popped up and supported the Scottish government.

If i have an observation to make it is that which I made in the original post which is that independence would enable the Scottish Government to offer Loan Guarantees as well as grants and cash loans to companies. This flexibility would help struggling companies or those needing investment to grow. If you are suggesting that an Independent Scotland could not afford to have helped Grangemouth - I disagree. Whatever your politics the Scottish Government worked its socks off to save that plant and to find contingency plans in case they werent able to compromise. There was an interesting article in Sunday Herald which outlined the work that they did. You can find it here http://archive.is/Cw6sw

Thirdly, and this is a point all nationalists ignore consistently when it comes to their wee bit of the country, especially from rural areas. Scotland has one of the most centralised populations in the world. You constantly criticize London-centric policies from Westminster (This is a fallacy, infact the opposite is true but thats another argument for another day), how can you square that with the fact Scotland is far more centralized that the UK is? Almost all our population is in a 70 x 45 mile box.

I am not arguing with this point and I am certainly not constantly ignoring it. In fact I think that this supports what I said above and what I have said previously - on several occasions - about there being a greater voice for rural Scotland in an Independent Scotland rather than in Westminster. The proportion of the electorate living in Rural Scotland is almost 20% of the Scottish electorate and only about 7% of the UK electorate. Therefore in an Independent Scotland this group of voters will have a greater say - a bigger voice than it does in the UK as a whole. Ignoring 20% of your electorate is not something any government can afford to do - this gives rural Scotland a louder voice in an Independent Scotland than in Westminster.

[ducati]

Well, I've not seen any convincing argument to suggest Caithness would be any better off under independence. One pointed out that the UK gov. (our UK gov.) Provided the programme that has provided Jobs and economic activity making it poss for everyone to continue to live in Caithness for the last 50 odd years (thanks for that).

It is worth pointing out that if we had been independent 50 odd years ago that, more than likely, wouldn't have happened.

[squidge]

Well, I've not seen any convincing argument to suggest Caithness would be any better off under independence. One pointed out that the UK gov. (our UK gov.) Provided the programme that has provided Jobs and economic activity making it poss for everyone to continue to live in Caithness for the last 50 odd years (thanks for that).

It is worth pointing out that if we had been independent 50 odd years ago that, more than likely, wouldn't have happened.

Scotland has had many benefits from being in the Union. The UK has had many benefits from having Scotland as part of the union. It has served us well for many years but there are many that believe this is no longer the case. Whilst the past can inform and educate it is the future that is important. If we vote No because of what we once were then we are missing the point. We need to look forward and decide what option offers the best chance to meet our own priorities or the hopes we have for our children and grandchildren and make our choice based on that. That is what you are doing Ducati - you have said this again and again and again. You are voting NO because for YOU that is the best vote based on YOUR hopes aspirations and plans for your future. As long as you do that then no one can or should criticise you - but dont vote based on what happened 50 odd years ago - thats as daft as suggesting that people should vote yes because of what happened 700 years ago. History is useful and informative but it is the future that matters.

[Phill]

Its worth bearing in mind that under the SNP, we've seen a centralisation of services that focuses on the cities (max voting numbers). Removing or downgrading rural services and moving / merging them into city locations.
Caithness General - Raigmore as an example. The future will see more services moved down the road and a reduction in patient transport (to up the numbers in the city).

Over the last few years there has been promises of £10K's maybe £100K's of funding for Caithness & Sutherland by the SNP at Edinburgh but this never gets any further North than Inverness.

And an Independent Scotland in the EU, will not be that independent. The EU is run, on the whole, by unelected bureaucrats and whilst technically yes, Indy Scotland would have a 'stronger' voice, but for what?

How many people have had contact or dealings with the local MEP? Who is it?
How many people have had any dealings with the EU commission and understand how it works?

One of the latest proposals by a bunch of unelected loons, is to force each member state to create a body to record and monitor anyone who is 'intolerant'. Simply put, any future 'incomer' comments will find you being monitored by the EU Stasi.
As well as the EU dictating budgetary requirements and taxation.
Independence in the EU is an oxymoron.

[Oddquine]

Given that you rightly tar all politicians with the same brush, I don't follow your argument.

It's down to how many people go ballistic at Government brain-farts and excesses. It's not so much that lots of people demonstrating is going to change politicians' minds because they are demonstrating.....but a big enough percentage of the voting population demonstrating will exercise minds as to their chances of re-election.

To get a decent percentage of angry Scottish voters kicking politicians up the bum would be easier with only having to travel to Edinburgh than having to get much larger UK numbers travelling to London. Not saying that less than 2% of either population would do it, re the 100,000/1 million comparison......but it would take the whole of Scotland's population travelling to London to demonstrate against what was perceived as unfair policy to make anything approaching 10% of the UK population (and would probably be ignored as "just being Scotland" if not supported massively by voters from the rest of the UK (particularly England) as well.....while half a million Scots in Edinburgh would have more of an impact on a Scottish Government.

We just have to think back to the Poll-Tax in Scotland the year ahead of the rest of the UK, which resulted in the reduction of the Tory UK representation from Scotland to a rump....and the fueling of a demand for constitutional change which led to devolution and from there the rise of the SNP. However, despite 700,000 summary warrants in that first year and 1.5 million refusing to pay, out of a population of just over 5 million, it took riots in London, before it's introduction there to get rid of it (and Thatcher)....and if England had liked it......we'd have been stuck with it........while if we had had a Scottish Government then...even if they had introduced something on the same lines....a demonstration in Edinburgh, with an appreciable number of the people being prosecuted/not paying taking part, would have prompted a rethink, imo.