PDA

View Full Version : Scottish Politics Thread



Pages : [1] 2 3

Oresai
12-30-2008, 04:28 AM
source, Scotsman online.



So who owns Scotland?

Date: 30 December 2008
By DAVID MADDOX & JENNY HAWORTH
THE ownership of Scotland is undergoing a revolution as vast swathes of land are bought from wealthy aristocrats by local communities.

An investigation by The Scotsman into who owns Scotland has revealed large areas of the country are now in the hands of the people.

Dozens of areas, from whole islands, to small green spaces, have been bought by community ventures. This week, The Scotsman will reveal the results of an investigation to find the 20 biggest landowners in Scotland, between them responsible for almost a fifth of the country.

It shows aristocrats and government bodies still dominate ownership of the country, but communities and charities are increasing their control.

At No11 is South Uist Estate Ltd, a community venture which owns 93,000 acres of land, including the islands of Benbecula, Eriskay and South Uist.

It is the most successful example so far of Holyrood's Land Reform Act of 2003, described by some as the devolved government's most significant piece of legislation to date.

The act gives community groups first refusal on land which comes up for sale, with the idea that areas would be transferred from the aristocracy and property speculators to people who live and work locally.

Iain Gray, the leader of the Scottish Labour Party, was instrumental in the legislation, and said it had "transformed Scotland".

"Arguably, it was legislation that Scotland had waited 1,000 years for," he said.

"Over the course of time, it will change the face of Scotland. It is fundamental. In many ways, the history of Scotland has been defined by the ownership of the land itself."

He added that giving communities the rights to ownership brings "profound" change.

"It springs from the fundamental principle that the people who live and depend on the land will have their own best interests at heart in the ways it is used, so that they are far less likely to use it in a way that would be damaging."

The Isle of Eigg was one of the first areas to be bought by a community trust, in 1997. Already, the Isle of Eigg Heritage Trust has made huge advances, and has even set up a company providing mains electricity to islands for the first time in its history.

Mr Gray said: "They pulled together. They had a series of owners who had failed the community for different reasons and the legislation gave them the opportunity to take control of the land themselves.

"It has made a big difference to their lives and the sense of control over how they live."

So far, about 1 per cent of the 19 million acres of land in Scotland has passed into the control of local communities, ranging from small areas of forest, to large islands. However, Mr Gray said he believed the laws would see far more land pass into the hands of the people.

"I think what we have seen is just the start, but it is difficult to predict how far it will go. Obviously, the right to community purchase does depend on a willing seller."

Alasdair Allan, the Nationalist MSP for the Western Isles, said that putting the land into the control of the people was helping to rejuvenate communities.

The majority of the land in his constituency is now under community ownership.

"It has made a big difference," he said. "It gives power to communities to change things. If you have a landlord who's not interested, it's very difficult. It makes a big change to people's self-confidence.

"If you suddenly give them control of the land, they have the opportunity to build new houses, establish new businesses and it encourages them to stay there. It just gives people control over their own lives."

Over the years, notorious landowners have made life miserable for their tenants. The island of Gigha, a 3,400-acre island off Kintyre, was bought by a community trust in 2001, putting their destiny in their own hands for the first time. It was once owned by disgraced lord Malcolm Potier who was convicted of trying to recruit a hitman to murder the mother of his child and her boyfriend.

Parts of Rasaay, near Skye, were owned by Sussex-based laird Dr John Green, who visited the island only once.

Meanwhile, after decades of problems with absentee landlords, the Isle of Eigg was bought in 1997 by the Isle of Eigg Heritage Trust. The island's population has thrived since it went into community ownership and, earlier this year, a mains electricity grid was built, powered entirely from renewable sources. It meant that the island was served by mains electricity for the first time.

More than 17,000 acres of the Knoydart Estate, which makes up much of the Knoydart peninsula in Lochaber, on the west coast of Scotland, was bought by the community in 1999.

In June 2005, the community of Assynt bought 44,400 acres in a landmark buyout of the Glencanisp and Drumrunie Estates in Sutherland, in the north-west Highlands. The land, which includes magnificent mountains such as Suilven and Canisp, was bought from the Vestey family under the provisions of the 2003 Scottish Land Reform Act.

And residents on the Isle of Rum are preparing to take over control of their island early next year. Michael Russell, the environment minister, has announced the Scottish Government is ready to transfer the land and assets worth around £250,000 to the community from Scottish Natural Heritage.

The transfer of the community hall, village shop and tearoom, campsite and surrounding land to the Isle of Rum Community Trust will take place after February, providing there is a positive vote from the community early next month.

BACKGROUND

THE Scotsman carried out its investigation to reveal who owns Scotland, and how this has changed in recent years.

With the help of historian Andy Wightman, we identified the 20 biggest landowners in the country. Mr Wightman wrote Who Owns Scotland in 2000, based on research covering 51 per cent of the country, through the help of Land Registers Scotland. He is updating his work to cover 75 per cent of the country.

Over the past eight years, the top 20 has changed, partly due to the death of some property giants such as Edmund Vestey, whose vast wealth was based on the family meat business.

Before he died, he sold off about half of his 84,000 acres to a community ownership group, talking his family out of the top 20.

16 Scottish Natural Heritage – 84,000 acres

SCOTTISH Natural Heritage (SNH) is a quango set up under the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act 1991 to manage and protect vast tracks of land and wildlife across the country.

Following devolution it became directly responsible to the Scottish Government. As well as being responsible for environmental protection, SNH also has an economic role. Around 93,000 jobs are dependent on it and it has generated an estimated £2 billion for the Scottish economy, mainly through tourism.

SNH's biggest responsibility is for Scotland's 71 National Nature Reserves (NNRs) which cover 328,650 acres. These were set up in 1949 along with the National Parks in England and Wales to protect the environment wildlife and heritage of the areas and they can be found from Hermaness at the tip of Shetland in the north to Caerlaverock, Dumfriesshire, in the south.

SNH owns only some of them outright; others are leased and some run through agreements with landowners. SNH owns nearly 100 per cent of the land on 17, more than 50 per cent on six, and less than 50 per cent on 11.

A full list of reserves owned and managed by SNH is on www.snh.org.uk.

17 Fleming family – 80,000 acres

THE bulk of the Fleming family's property is the spectacular Black Mount Estate in Argyll and Bute, known for skiing, climbing and picturesque walks.

The most famous member of the family is Ian Fleming, the creator of James Bond, but the family's fortune was based on its private bank – Robert Fleming & Co, which was sold to the Chase Manhattan Bank in 2000.

Several branches of the family were involved with the bank, but its patriarch for many years was Robin Fleming, who was down as the official owner of the Scottish estate.

Ian Fleming was not the only successful writer in the family. There is a monument on the estate in memory of Peter Fleming, the travel writer and brother of Ian.

The estate hit the headlines in March 2008 when a mystery skeleton was found in the Auch Forest, near Bridge of Orchy. It was noticed by forestry workers creating a scenic path.

The estate is also known for falling on one of Britain's best-loved long-distance walks, the West Highland Way, which runs from Milngavie to Fort William.

The Fleming family has used the area's natural assets to turn its estate into an attraction for lovers of outdoor pursuits.

18 Charles Pearson – 77,000 acres

THE Hon Charles Pearson owns the Dunecht Estates, spread over thousands of acres in Aberdeenshire and Kincardineshire, and managed from Dunecht village.

He runs the shoots on the Cowdray Estate in Sussex, where he spends much of his time, living at Shotters Farm, Lickfold, near Petworth.

The aristocrat has hit the headlines for infuriating animal rights campaigners for allegedly allowing snaring on his estates, and he was named as the UK's most cruel landlord by the National Anti-Snaring Campaign (NASC).

The NASC has alleged that on Dunecht there is a "ruthless persecution of foxes" with a "keepers sweep competition for killing the most in a day". Police were called in after a badger was allegedly found dead in a snare on the Dunecht estate.

Snaring has been a more fiercely fought issue in Scotland than south of the Border, partly because landowners with large shooting estates, such as Mr Pearson, dominate the landscape more than they do in England, and practices on Dunecht Estates have been used to back a ban.

However, campaigners in Scotland have so far not succeeded. The SNP has caused anger among campaigners by not supporting a complete ban, although Mike Russell, the environment minister, has instituted some strict regulations.

19 Lord Margadale – 73,000 acres

THE current Baron Margadale is Alastair Morrison, who inherited the family estates in 2003. He owns tracts of property in England, too, but his main estate north of the Border is one of Scotland's jewels – the island of Islay, where some of the most renowned whisky is distilled.

In 1853 the family bought the island, including Islay House, built in 1677 and one of the most impressive aristocratic piles in Scotland. It became a holiday home for the Morrison family and a visiting place for almost every prime minister until Harold Wilson.

The family sold the house in 1985 and it is now owned by Tom Friedrich, a former US fighter pilot, but Lord Margadale still owns the island.

The first Lord Margadale was John Morrison, chairman of the 1922 Committee and a member of the Magic Circle which ensured Alec Douglas-Home became leader of the Conservative Party and prime minister, succeeding Harold Macmillan in 1963, instead of Rab Butler, who had been expected to take over.

The machinations led to the Tories reforming and allowing MPs to elect their leader, rather than one simply being appointed by the Queen. There were suspicions that the first Lord Margadale was elevated to the House of Lords out of gratitude from Douglas-Home.

20 Tycoon Mr X – 71,000 acres

TOURISTS going to the famous Queen's View beauty spot in Glen Avon, Moray, where Queen Victoria used to look down on her Royal estate, now see land owned by the Andras Conglomerate based in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

In reality, the conglomerate is a front for a mysterious and reclusive Malaysian-based businessman, who has never been identified, but is known in his estates as Mr Salleh.

The estate is the largest part of the 70,000 acres of land he now owns in Scotland and is well known still for its shooting parties. The businessman bought the 40,000-acre Glenavon estate, once owned by the Wills family, for £6 million in 1995 and has increased his holding since.

The second secretive businessman's estate is the 30,000-acre Braulen estate around Glen Strathfarrar in the North-west Highlands in Inverness-shire.

This slightly smaller estate was the scene of a legal battle over land access. The businessman took Scottish Natural Heritage to court to prevent the agency sending in nature conservation inspectors on parts of the land it is responsible for.

Mr Salleh is said to visit his estates from Malaysia two or three times a year.

British and Proud
02-08-2009, 05:11 PM
Here's my latest blog post (http://unrepentantbritishnationalist.blogspot.com/2009/02/break-up-of-united-kingdom-another.html), minus the pictures:

The Break Up of the United Kingdom - Another Labour Legacy?


The Labour government provided the vehicle for Scots Nationalists to accomplish their objective, of full independence, by establishing a devolved government in Holyrood. Consequently there is a very real possibility that Scotland could secede from the Union. Some predicted this a long time ago - indeed Wikipedia maintains that 'When Labour won the 1997 General Election, Powell told his wife that the electorate had voted to break up the United Kingdom' - however I didn't believe it was a genuine possibility until the start of the economic slump.

When people are actually impoverished by the current regime they are tempted by radical solutions. People will generally be less likely to gamble on significant change when they are reasonably affluent and able to watch their soaps on a big TV, enjoy takeaway food, go boozing and shopping and spend a fortnight in Spain each year. Once their quality of life begins to seriously diminish, however, their attitude will change and they will be more likely to seek alternatives to the status quo. The press are already frantic about the possibility the BNP will take advantage of the government's ineptitude south of the border, however in Scotland it is the pseudo-nationalist SNP who will benefit from discontented voters. The proof being the loss of the East Glasgow parliamentary seat to the SNP last year, a seat which Labour had held for the previous 86 years. Here are the results in full:


John Mason, SNP - 11,277
Margaret Curran, Labour - 10,912
Davena Rankin, Conservative - 1,639
Ian Robertson, Lib Dem - 915
Frances Curran, Scottish Socialist Party - 555
Tricia McLeish, Solidarity - 512
Dr Eileen Duke, Scottish Greens - 232
Chris Creighton, Independent - 67
Hamish Howitt, Freedom 4 Choice - 65

Clearly the SNP were the only party to challenge Labour, and this is the case in many constituencies in Scotland. In Holyrood, the 'nationalists' are currently the largest party and together with the Lib Dems and the Greens actually form the government. It is only the fact they currently don't have an overall majority that prevents them from holding a referendum on independence.

Now, assuming that the economic slump worsens over the next couple of years, thus fuelling further resentment towards Nu Labour, the SNP may well form a majority government in Holyrood. This, coupled with a Conservative victory at the next general election, may be enough to convince the Scottish electorate to support independence, especially if the SNP evoke memories of Thatcher, the Poll Tax and remind the Scottish public just how much they despise the Tories.

Nu Labour's legacy may well be the destruction of Britain as a political entity. Devolution has opened a can of worms, the West Lothian Question has stirred the English, spawning parties such as The English Democrats. The following passage comes from their website:


The fact is there is no political party putting the interests of England first. All three major parties are “unionist” in outlook. This means that they see themselves representing the interests of all three nations in the UK, irrespective of whether policies that support Wales and Scotland disadvantage England. England has over 55 million people, we need our own distinct voice, no unionist party will put England first – we will.



Above: An example of how anti-Scottish sentiment has grown thanks to Nu Labour

Simon Heffer has recently written about the predominance of Scots in government at Westminster, in a rather abrasive article entitled 'Scots have brought Britain to its knees', in which he writes the following:


Some of my dear readers have observed – indeed, are observing with creeping ferocity – that the English have been the victims of a plot by Scots to destroy the auld enemy. I prefer to think it is a cock-up. The little berk who is the only Tory MP in Scotland (and therefore shadow Scottish secretary – it's lucky for him a sheep didn't get elected too), David Mundell, has demanded that English retailers be forced to accept Scottish banknotes. What a good idea: let's see if we can drive a few more small businesses out of existence. After all, the way RBS is going, its notes will soon be worth less than the paper they are printed on.

The sooner the bunch of Scots who govern us are booted into history the better. I don't say that the English would be any better, but at least we would be paying for our own mistakes rather than someone else's. Never has the case for English independence from the Scots been so overwhelming. Sadly, I suspect that in the present state of penury England will be saddled with them for another 302 years of high-end welfarism at least.

In another article entitled 'The Union of England and Scotland is over' he likens the Union to the demise of the Empire:


Back in the 1950s, in the two or three years before Suez, there was a strong constituency in the Tory party that blathered on about the need to maintain the British Empire: the Suez Group was the main focus of this. They were absurd, because the empire had ceased to exist in 1947 when India went. Once the jewel in the crown was lost, the rest of the structure would fall apart inevitably. So it is now with some in the Labour Party. The Union is over, morally at least. When Scotland voted for devolution in 1997 the Union fell into a coma. When Alex Salmond's SNP administration was elected in May the last rites were read, and the final process of sundering got under way. All that remains is for the Scots, in a referendum, to vote to stick the coffin in the grave, with the Union flag still on it, and pile on the earth.

The dissolution of the Union could potentially have disastrous effects. What will happen to our veto at the UN Security Council and our membership of the G8? What would happen to Northern Ireland and Wales? Would the government use the opportunity to implement constitutional reforms, for example abolishing the House of Lords? Would we each be more dependent on the EU? Will this really benefit Scotland now that most of the North Sea Oil reserves have been exhausted?

Personally, I can't see any benefits to be had from the break up of the Union. United we stand, divided we fall!

Æmeric
02-08-2009, 07:31 PM
What will happen to our veto at the UN Security Council and our membership of the G8?

I would assume England as the successor state to Britain would keep the UN seat, though I think the UN is way overrated & would prefer the US to leave the UN & kick the UN out of New York. Would England still be among the top 8 economic powers without Scotland? It would seem likely it would.

What would happen to Northern Ireland and Wales?
What happens to Northern Ireland will be decided by demographics. As for Wales it has been part of England since 1536 & ruled by England for a few hundred years before that. It might fun to spit at the English but if independence was a real possibility, I think most would turn it down.

Would the government use the opportunity to implement constitutional reforms, for example abolishing the House of Lords?
What government? A Labour government would be less likely without the Scottish vote. 1997 was the first time since 1945 the Labour Party won a majority of English seats. Most Labour governments have been dependent on their Scottish constituents. I think England would have a much more moderate, less socialistic goverment without Scotland.

Would we each be more dependent on the EU?
Why should it? IO was under the impression that the UK paid more into the EU then it got back in benefits/subsidies.

Will this really benefit Scotland now that most of the North Sea Oil reserves have been exhausted? That should be Scotland's concern.


Great Britain is not, nor has it ever been, a union of Scotland & England. It was England with Scotland annexed to it. The institutions of Great Britain were that of England. Scotland sent MPs to the Parliament at Westminster, Scottish peers elect representative peers to the Britiah House of Lords, English peers never had to because the British Parliament was the English Parliament. British monarchs take their regnal number according to how many same-named sovereigns preceded them on the English throne, e.g. Elizabeth II when there was never a regnant Queen Elizabeth in Scotland. I don't think much would change for England if Scotland left, in fact it might be better if the English didn't have to pander to a minority (the Scots) by suppressing their own nationalism in the name of union.

British and Proud
02-08-2009, 08:15 PM
What will happen to our veto at the UN Security Council and our membership of the G8?

I would assume England as the successor state to Britain would keep the UN seat, though I think the UN is way overrated & would prefer the US to leave the UN & kick the UN out of New York. Would England still be among the top 8 economic powers without Scotland? It would seem likely it would.

What would happen to Northern Ireland and Wales?
What happens to Northern Ireland will be decided by demographics. As for Wales it has been part of England since 1536 & ruled by England for a few hundred years before that. It might fun to spit at the English but if independence was a real possibility, I think most would turn it down.

Would the government use the opportunity to implement constitutional reforms, for example abolishing the House of Lords?
What government? A Labour government would be less likely without the Scottish vote. 1997 was the first time since 1945 the Labour Party won a majority of English seats. Most Labour governments have been dependent on their Scottish constituents. I think England would have a much more moderate, less socialistic goverment without Scotland.

Would we each be more dependent on the EU?
Why should it? IO was under the impression that the UK paid more into the EU then it got back in benefits/subsidies.

Will this really benefit Scotland now that most of the North Sea Oil reserves have been exhausted? That should be Scotland's concern.


Great Britain is not, nor has it ever been, a union of Scotland & England. It was England with Scotland annexed to it. The institutions of Great Britain were that of England. Scotland sent MPs to the Parliament at Westminster, Scottish peers elect representative peers to the Britiah House of Lords, English peers never had to because the British Parliament was the English Parliament. British monarchs take their regnal number according to how many same-named sovereigns preceded them on the English throne, e.g. Elizabeth II when there was never a regnant Queen Elizabeth in Scotland. I don't think much would change for England if Scotland left, in fact it might be better if the English didn't have to pander to a minority (the Scots) by suppressing their own nationalism in the name of union.

An intelligent reply, thanks! I get the impression you favour the break up of the union, however, or at least are unperturbed by it. Perhaps due to my mixed ancestry I am strongly opposed to it and feel that, if it would not adversely effect England, then it certainly would the other three nations.

stormlord
02-08-2009, 09:00 PM
if it would not adversely effect England, then it certainly would the other three nations.

That's the point, I think most English people are tired of being spat at for shouldering the burden of carrying the other home nations. It's bad enough having to subsidise Scotland's pathetic economy (more people employed proportionally by the state than Cuba) but having constant Scottish hostility, and Scottish MP's using their votes to undermine English democracy just adds insult to injury.

I used to be very pro-union but frankly we should just accept that it's over, and it would probably be better for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in the long run if they're forced to operate in a world where their socialist government spending has to be supported with their taxes alone, rather than siphoned from English workers.

Birka
02-08-2009, 09:21 PM
I imagine someday our children will be having this conversation about whether the old America should separate from the North American Union. The US contributes so much compared to former Mexico and former Canada. Other than a very small elite class in Mexico, the majority of the people are on welfare or part of the Unionist Civilian Security Force, started by the first president of Noramexicana, B. Obama.

Beorn
04-16-2009, 08:47 PM
Scotland is stronger because it is part of the United Kingdom

Today will see the first meeting of the UK cabinet in Scotland (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/scotland) since 1921, and the first ever to be held in my home city of Glasgow.
I asked the prime minister to bring my cabinet colleagues here to Scotland for one very good reason: to concentrate our focus on the effects of the economic downturn in Scotland and listen to the concerns of Scots from a wide range of our society.
It's important to do so, particularly at this point in Scotland's political history.

We have now had two years of an SNP (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/snp)-led minority government at the Scottish parliament and that time has in part been characterised by a long series of flashpoints and a fractious relationship between Scotland's two governments – the UK Labour (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/labour) government and the SNP Scottish government.
That is due to a binary opposition in our respective beliefs on the future of Scotland.

On the one hand, I believe – as do the majority of Scotland's population – that we continue to be better off as an equal part the United Kingdom, which offers us strength in good times and security in bad times.
Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland are all stronger because we are all part of the United Kingdom.
We are in this economic crisis together and we can only get out of it together.

I have never believed in the case for breaking up Britain and, at times like these, it makes even less sense.
That comes partly from my own patriotism and love of my country, but also from the clear facts.
The models of similar sized economies which the current Scottish government has repeatedly held up as the paragons of an independent future are not referred to much these days.
Whatever happened to that arc of prosperity we used to hear so much about?

I want to see Scotland and the whole of the UK succeed. In my time as secretary of state for Scotland, my main aim has been to work with anyone, anywhere in the interests of Scotland.
In doing so, I have tried to temper the often simplistic and self-interested politics of the past in favour of a more constructive voice. I believe we have come a long way towards that goal, but there is much left to be done.

Many Guardian readers from outside Scotland may only be aware of Scottish politics (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/scotland) through the sort of combative stories which reach the media – the high-profile disputes over funding, the claims over North Sea oil, the SNP obsession with separation.
There is far more to Scotland, its politics and its national life than that.
We are also fast approaching the 10th anniversary of devolution, a system which continues to work well for the UK and the devolved administrations.
That decade has seen a huge amount of change across our nation and globally, and the Commission on Scottish Devolution, headed by Sir Kenneth Calman, has been tasked with looking at the settlement in detail.
It will offer its final report later this year, and we await those findings with interest.

There is one somewhat subdued fact which exists in the Scottish political landscape, partly due to devolution itself, to the presence of a Scottish parliament: it is that the UK government has an evolving and hugely relevant part to play in Scottish life. That is the nature of devolution and the reservation of certain powers to Westminster.
Things are set this way for very good reasons. A common welfare system across the UK; international relations on behalf of our sovereign state; the defence of our country and the economic benefits it brings to Scotland; our shared values and culture – these are just a few examples of where our union melds together in our favour and in all of our interests.
That is why the cabinet meeting in Glasgow today is important.
My cabinet colleagues and I both represent and work for Scotland as part of the UK, from the prime minister through welfare, employment, defence, business and industry, the economy, culture and energy among other things.

It is our chance to speak to Scotland and to listen to it further. Our future success depends on this kind of communication coupled with action.
I am greatly looking forward to hearing what Guardian readers have to say on these and other issues.
Do you value the union? What does Scotland – and Scotland's future – mean to you?
Do you share the view that we are stronger together and weaker apart?
You know what I think – now let me know what you think, and I'll be back later to respond.

(http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/jimmurphy)Jim Murphy (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/jimmurphy) is the secretary of state for ScotlandSource (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2009/apr/16/jim-murphy-scotland-independence)

Beorn
07-20-2009, 01:42 PM
SCOTLAND should receive an additional £300 million from the UK government as a result of the investment in the London Olympics, a senior parliamentarian said yesterday.

Lord Richard, a former Labour leader of the House of Lords, said the public money being spent regenerating the area around the Olympic park in the East End of London should be considered English expenditure – with knock-on benefits for Scotland.

Unnder the Barnett formula used by the UK Treasury to allocate almost £49 billion of funding each year, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland see their resources rise or fall in proportion to additional sums spent in England. But there has been no "Barnett consequential" for the three nations because all expenditure on the London Olympics has been classed as benefiting the UK as a whole.

Unveiling a House of Lords committee report calling for the 30-year-old Barnett formula to be scrapped, Lord Richard

accepted that, while the "spectacle" of the Olympics would benefit Britain as a whole, "the regeneration of the East End is the regeneration of the East End". He added: "I also think that some parts of it (the Olympics expenditure] would be very difficult to justify in UK terms."

This contrasted with the Crossrail high-speed train line being proposed to link Heathrow with central London and Canary Wharf, which was classed as English expenditure and resulted in a £500m "consequential" for Scotland.

The committee said the Barnett formula, named after Joel Barnett, who devised it while Labour chief secretary to the Treasury in the 1970s, should be scrapped because it was not based on need but the population of each country.

It said that Scotland and England had both received more than their fair share under the formula, while Wales and Northern Ireland had lost out.

It had been a "short-term fix" that had remained in use simply because it was easy to administer, and no government was willing to spend time introducing a new system.

However, Lord Richard was unable to provide a figure for the amount of money Scotland had received that was not justified in terms of need.
The report called for the establishment of a UK Funding Commission, akin to a system used in Australia, to ensure the allocation of funds between nations was done impartially and to remove any threat that the Treasury could manipulate payouts for political reasons.

The commission would also carry out a detailed analysis of need for each nation, based on social statistics.

Lord Richard acknowledged that the Barnett formula was likely to be scrapped if the proposals of the Calman Commission, to allow the Scottish Parliament to raise half the level of income tax, were adopted.

The Treasury said it would respond to the report at a later date.

Source (http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/latestnews/39pay-scotland-an-extra.5468774.jp)

Beorn
07-26-2009, 11:17 AM
IMMIGRANTS who want to become British citizens will stand a better chance if they opt to live in Scotland, under radical reforms to be unveiled by the Home Office this summer.
A new "points-based" test for citizenship will credit applicants if they have set up home in parts of the country in need of increased population.

Scotland has been singled out by the Home Office as a place where points could be earned, because its own population is likely to fall over the long term.

The move, contained in a draft consultation to be released in the next few weeks, means prospective British citizens already settled in the UK may flock north of the Border to ensure they have enough points to be successful.

The new points-based system will also reward applicants who can show they have attributes required by the country, but will penalise them for failing to disregard British values.

Writing in Scotland on Sunday today, Scottish Secretary Jim Murphy confirms that "having lived and worked in Scotland is proposed as one way to earn points".

He adds: "Our need for a growing population is ranked along with the need to recruit to shortage occupations."

The new system of "earned citizenship" is borrowed from Australia, where immigrants must gain points over a number of years before being granted full citizen status.

Under the new Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill, applicants will undertake a probationary period before being granted citizenship, meaning it could take up to eight years to complete the process.

Currently, foreigners can apply for British citizenship purely on the grounds that they are settled in the country. Last year, around a quarter of a million people passed the citizenship test which applicants must take.

Ministers say the new rules will allow them to have more control over the number of people gaining citizenship, but will also allow them to be more flexible about the threshold, depending on the needs of the country.

The Home Office draft paper declares: "Attributes for which points could be awarded might include earning potential, special artistic, scientific or literary merit, qualifications, shortage occupation, English (above existing requirements); and having lived and worked in a part of the UK in need of increased population, eg Scotland."

Source (http://news.scotsman.com/scotland/Immigrants-urged-to-live-in.5494243.jp)

It's a step in the right direction, but I can't help but think it's merely the government sneaking around the fact that England is now full. Time to fill up Scotland.

Loki
07-26-2009, 11:21 AM
Time to fill up Scotland.

Indeed! We should grant the feverishly Labour-voting masses in Scotland their wishes. No need to deny them their dues.

Graham
07-26-2009, 10:17 PM
The population rise has been ok over the last few years, there's been a steady rise in Imigration recently from eastern Europe, dinnae mind that. it's ok apart from maybe pollokshields and sighthill I think. Dinnae want it filled up though as Wat Tyler says, the central belts already packed up.

Germanicus
07-26-2009, 10:30 PM
Typical Labour back door immigration, right direction but wrong so bloody wrong.
The whole idea is madness, are we the only ones who can see it? do we need the extra taxation from them that bad? because thats what this immigration is all about.:mad:


As a sub note, they will find the cheaper community charge more satisfactory up there.
From what i hear they pay £47 a month, whereas i pay £134

Obviously they want to match Germany's population and become a powerhouse economy at the expense of the masses who own the country.................us.

Vargtand
07-26-2009, 10:33 PM
Wish it was true for Swedish immigrants too :(

Kempenzoon
07-27-2009, 07:16 AM
So what is this? A modern version of Prima Nocta? "If the Scots won't obey us Englisc, let's breed em out."

Freomæg
07-27-2009, 07:27 AM
Even as an Englishman, I find this saddening. Scotland is not my country, but I had hope for it to remain "Scottish" and nicely spacious. I'd rather see immigrants concentrated in London (even though I live on the wider outskirts) so that at least the rest of Britain might remain predominantly British.

Beorn
07-27-2009, 11:21 AM
So what is this? A modern version of Prima Nocta? "If the Scots won't obey us Englisc, let's breed em out."

The English never enforced that. Whilst it was enforceable, the English lords or Scottish lords never saw fit to enact it upon their people.

You'll only find that nonsense in Mel Gibson films and other anti-English diatribes. :rolleyes:

Groenewolf
07-27-2009, 12:02 PM
They probaly think that it will help them intergrate better or such thinking. Wich of course it will not. And this seems a bit weird :


penalise them for failing to disregard British values

This reads like you will be punished if you uphold British values.

Freomæg
07-27-2009, 12:34 PM
This reads like you will be punished if you uphold British values.
Well spotted. A Freudian slip perhaps?

Æmeric
07-27-2009, 12:46 PM
It's about spreading diversity. Some areas are too White, it needs to be altered by immigration. That was the reason the US State Department resettled refugees like the Hmong & Somalis in places like Minnesota or Lewiston, Maine.

Beorn
08-16-2009, 01:54 AM
Chinese writer and social critic Yu Jie once wrote: “Promoting nationalism requires an 'enemy' to be identified.” Prof Ainslie Embree has similarly observed: “Perhaps every nationalism needs an enemy.” For Scottish nationalism, England has traditionally filled that particular purpose.

The 1320 Declaration of Arbroath defined Scottish independence as the absence of “English rule”. Olive Checkland wrote of 19th Century Scotland that “inevitably Scottish nationalism assumed an anti-English aspect,” explaining one important aspect of nationalism as “an assertion of difference from a dominant people”. George Orwell observed in 1945 that Celtic nationalisms “are alike in their anti-English orientation”. And more recently, Dietmar Böhnke wrote of Scots nationalism being strengthened by “the image of the Scottish nation fighting as one man against bad odds and opposing an external enemy, which are the English ‘colonisers’, the ‘Auld Enemy’”.

It is from the perception of the English as “a dominant people” that anti-Englishness arises. There is no anti-Welsh or anti-Ulster element within Scots nationalism. Only the English, for reasons of population, culture and/or attitude, are thought of as colonisers or an ‘enemy’.

But is anti-Englishness now largely a historical artefact? Has modern nationalism outgrown the “England expects...” rhetoric of the 1970s, which in attributing viciously anti-Scottish and exploitative motives to the English ‘other’ betrayed its own underlying prejudices and motives?

Yes and no. It is the case that, in Alex Salmond’s words, the SNP took a “conscious decision” to “project” independence in an “inclusive way”. A notable milestone in that regard was his plea in a 1998 conference speech for party members no longer to “blame the English”. Another significant moment was Winnie Ewing’s attempt, at the 2003 Bannockburn rally, to effect a paradigm shift. Actually, she told the party faithful, “the enemies of Scotland are not the English”. In the new, civic SNP the unionist parties were to be the “traitors” and the target for nationalistic enmity.

Yet even amongst senior nationalists, the attempts to purge the public anti-Englishness which has sullied the SNP’s reputation haven’t always been effective. Former SNP leader Gordon Wilson claimed in 2003 that Britain is a “state run by England for the benefit of England,” and SNP veteran Ian Hamilton declared only last year that “Scotland has suffered under English government”.

So anti-Englishness is very much alive and kicking. Prof Miller’s and Dr Hussain’s 2006 study found that some 46 percent of nationalists have a “negative” view of English people. Nationalism, they confirmed (http://www.devolution.ac.uk/pdfdata/Briefing%2024%20-%20Hussain-Miller.pdf), makes people “more Anglophobic” — at “street level” if not among the SNP leadership.

It’s a serious issue. Anti- (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/antienglish-taunts-drive-family-over-the-border-1071347.html)English (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/north_east/5139054.stm) violence (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-391763/Boy-7-attacked-Scotland-wearing-England-shirt.html) is thankfully rare, but for every loose-lipped councillor who accidentally (http://articles.latimes.com/2007/may/02/world/fg-scotland2?pg=1) tells a newspaper reporter that he thinks the English are “bloody arrogant”, there must be numerous others who would never dream of damaging the party by speaking their minds.

Sometimes the civic mantra is so firmly rooted that one has to read carefully between the lines to discern the underlying attitude. Take, for example, Alex Salmond’s reaction (http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2009/08/09/first-minister-alex-salmond-leaps-into-haggis-origins-argument-78057-21584625/) to the earth-shattering news (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8180791.stm) that haggis may first have been eaten in England and only later popularised by Scots.

“I don’t mind the English claiming haggis as their own, as long as they leave us our country. But haggis is our institution and we will defend it to the last. This haggis grab is akin to a land grab and it’s a sign of its culinary success now as a swanky dish.” [my bold]Why would Salmond associate a rather trivial piece of culinary history with a “land grab” and an unwarranted political threat by “the English” on “our country”? Would he have reacted so peculiarly had haggis happened to have originated in Wales or Ireland? The answer is obvious.

Such divisive comments also risk intensifying anti-English sentiment. Not that he’ll lose any sleep over that; in 2006 Alex Salmond actually expressed approval of cross-border resentment.
“In England, people quite rightly resent Scottish Labour MPs bossing them about on English domestic legislation.” [my bold]Imagine the outcry if that had been the other way around: an approval of Scottish resentment of English “bossing”. But Salmond is smart; he would never damage the party by speaking his mind!

Source (http://www.scottishunionist.com/2009/08/suppressed-anti-englishness.html)

Murphy
10-25-2009, 02:38 PM
What are your opinions on Scottish independence?

Regards,
Eóin.

Edit: The poll options seem a little politically immature, but it's a alzy day. Maybe someone else will come along with more accurate options.

Beorn
10-25-2009, 02:47 PM
What are your opinions on Scottish independence?


It can't come soon enough.

I do look towards the wholesale benefits independence would give to Scotland, but generally my interest and fervour in Scottish independence is mainly manifested in the belief that this will kick start the breakdown of the Union, thus giving England the chance to finally be free and regain the parliament it lost in 1707. It would go some way to wrangling free of the EU too.

Birka
10-25-2009, 03:23 PM
We did it, come on in, the water is fine.

RoyBatty
10-25-2009, 03:55 PM
The sooner Scotland gets its independence the better. (Independence being meaningless in any case since it'll be a slave to the EU).

Monolith
10-25-2009, 04:23 PM
Well, if the Scots want their independence, they have my unconditional support. ;)

Murphy
10-25-2009, 04:31 PM
I am pretty much indifferent towards Scottish independence. Alot of people in Northern Ireland seem to think an independent Scotland will lead to a united Ireland, but this is pure foolishness. A united Ireland will never happen without the Protestant people of the North coming to terms with the idea and accepting it. An independent Scotland will only put the fear of God into them and they will dig deeper.

I also don't really feel comfortable placing Ireland's future in the hands of men who think wearing a skirt is manly :p.

Regards,
Eóin.

Eldritch
10-25-2009, 04:35 PM
Do I want to stick my nose into the England/Scotland/Ireland/Wales relations? I'd rather do the Riverdance on the Angolan countryside. :D

Gooding
10-25-2009, 04:47 PM
I advocate putting the House of Stuart back on the throne of Scotland, set the head of the clan upon the Stone of Scone at Glamis. By the way, returning the West Coast of Scotland and the Western Isles to the Clan Donald as tributaries of the House of Stuart might not be such a poor idea. Of course, this would have to include complete autonomy without E.U. interference, which probably would never happen.

Liffrea
10-25-2009, 05:19 PM
Scottish independence? Yeah right, I admire Salmon he’s a shrewd politician, the only time he’ll go for independence is if he can’t brow beat Westminster anymore.

Anyway that will be an “independent Scotland in the EU”. Well the Scots would have to renegotiate their membership again (all true Scots nationalists would have to hope their economy bottoms out), if they are taken back in Scotland will be in the same boat as Ireland post Lisbon.

Personally I see no good reason to end the UK, plenty of reasons to reform it. But if the Scots want to trust Salmon with their future then it’s no business of mine is it.

Germanicus
10-25-2009, 06:05 PM
Scottish independence, i am all for it.
If the majority of Scotish people living in Scotland voted they want independence they should have the responsibility of governing theirselves.
That responsibility of course would be to pay for the first time in their lives a higher taxation for the people that are in work, but you must remember that only 35% of people living in Scotland pay any tax.
The average Scot is not so dumb as to not notice this fact, that is why the majority of Scottish voters will never vote for a breakaway independent Scotland.

Treffie
10-26-2009, 01:16 AM
I advocate putting the House of Stuart back on the throne of Scotland, set the head of the clan upon the Stone of Scone at Glamis. By the way, returning the West Coast of Scotland and the Western Isles to the Clan Donald as tributaries of the House of Stuart might not be such a poor idea. Of course, this would have to include complete autonomy without E.U. interference, which probably would never happen.

With or without the EU, I have a feeling that this will never happen :p

Gooding
10-26-2009, 01:24 AM
With or without the EU, I have a feeling that this will never happen :p

Probably not, but fantasies can be healthy, sometimes.:D Seriously, though, restoring the Stuarts to the throne and letting Scotland evolve from there might not be such a bad idea ( although restoring the McDonalds to a measure of the power they once enjoyed might irritate the Campbells..:P).

Comte Arnau
10-26-2009, 01:37 AM
If that's the will of a majority of Scottish people, I support it. If within the EU, that would set such a nice precedent... :)

At least their national football team is officially recognized internationally.

Gooding
10-26-2009, 01:38 AM
It is interesting to conjecture how the Celtic clan system would've evolved in Scotland without outside interference, especially with the technology we enjoy today. Would involvement with the E.U. even have been strictly necessary, or could Scotland have retained a neutral status, along similar lines with Sweden or Switzerland? Either way, the Scottish people know what's best for their country and will doubtless vote accordingly.

Barreldriver
10-26-2009, 02:09 AM
I am indifferent as Scotland should be independent, but what all goes to Scotland? Would the old Dal Riada regions be independent from the Yr Hen Ogledd regions, and what about Pictavia, or the Orcadians, or the other Germanic Scots?

Loxias
10-26-2009, 06:51 AM
I don't know enough to have an opinion, tbh.

Lysander
10-27-2009, 05:31 PM
No.
Then more powerful states are free to divide et impera. I'm a strong supporter of regionalism, move as much power as possible to the regions, not only Scotland but to even smaller parts of Scotland. Let every community rule itself.
On top of that we need a powerful central state that is able to guard the nation's interests and keep the infrastructure and what not working.
What exactly does Scotland hope to gain from independence? As far as I know the SNP are liberal idiots anyway and borders aren't as rock solid nowadays as they were anyway.
Scotland has much more to gain from close partnership with England under the union flag, though as I said I support home rule.

Allenson
10-27-2009, 06:09 PM
I am indifferent as Scotland should be independent, but what all goes to Scotland? Would the old Dal Riada regions be independent from the Yr Hen Ogledd regions, and what about Pictavia, or the Orcadians, or the other Germanic Scots?

Prob'ly not, bro. Don't over-think things. ;)

Anyway, if the Scots want independence, do be it, if not, so be that too. That's really between them and the English. :coffee:

Germanicus
10-27-2009, 10:06 PM
Everybody who is not British and who has never visited Britain will have no idea.
This point i will make will make it easier for not Brit's, so here go's, Scotland cannot afford to rule herself, sorry but it is pure mathamatics, there is not enough tax payers in Scotland to pay for their independence.
The reality is this, if by some magic the SNP did manage to gain power, all ties with the British Goverments purse strings would stop.
Local goverment spending would not be enough for essential services.
The Scots pay £34 a month community charge, and it's been capped for the last 4 years that i know of, whereas i pay £135 living in England.
Now for the easier bit to understand, England would see the biggest Scottish exodus since Bonnie Prince Charlie brought his Army south.
Scot's would leave Scotland because they cannot afford to live there on their own finacial budget.
30% of Scots pay any income tax= Disaster

Liffrea
10-27-2009, 11:27 PM
It would be sad if the argument for independence was reduced solely to material gain, sad but probably inevitable because only a few men ever stand to gain by overthrowing a system, the rest of us carry on living as before, sometimes the yoke is less, often it’s more.

At least this abstract ideal of “freedom” isn’t likely to be bought with blood, how many men have died for abstract ideas…..

SwordoftheVistula
10-28-2009, 04:46 AM
Scotland cannot afford to rule herself, sorry but it is pure mathamatics, there is not enough tax payers in Scotland to pay for their independence.
The reality is this, if by some magic the SNP did manage to gain power, all ties with the British Goverments purse strings would stop.
Local goverment spending would not be enough for essential services.
The Scots pay £34 a month community charge, and it's been capped for the last 4 years that i know of, whereas i pay £135 living in England...30% of Scots pay any income tax= Disaster

If that's the case, then it would be the best thing to ever happen to either side. If Scotland is this bad off, then it would quickly move to 'eastern bloc' style conditions with a similar result of the system collapsing and being replaced with a more sustainable one.



No.
Then more powerful states are free to divide et impera. I'm a strong supporter of regionalism, move as much power as possible to the regions, not only Scotland but to even smaller parts of Scotland. Let every community rule itself.
On top of that we need a powerful central state that is able to guard the nation's interests and keep the infrastructure and what not working.
What exactly does Scotland hope to gain from independence? As far as I know the SNP are liberal idiots anyway and borders aren't as rock solid nowadays as they were anyway.
Scotland has much more to gain from close partnership with England under the union flag, though as I said I support home rule.

Assuming both remain under EU/NATO this should ease the transition. An EU-style system might work for the UK, a common currency and no border restrictions but otherwise independent.



England would see the biggest Scottish exodus since Bonnie Prince Charlie brought his Army south.
Scot's would leave Scotland because they cannot afford to live there on their own finacial budget.

Maybe open borders not such a good idea at first...but then they would be vastly better than most of the other economic migrants. Or they can all just be advised to join the military like in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Graham
10-28-2009, 03:47 PM
Everybody who is not British and who has never visited Britain will have no idea.
This point i will make will make it easier for not Brit's, so here go's, Scotland cannot afford to rule herself, sorry but it is pure mathamatics, there is not enough tax payers in Scotland to pay for their independence.
The reality is this, if by some magic the SNP did manage to gain power, all ties with the British Goverments purse strings would stop.
Local goverment spending would not be enough for essential services.
The Scots pay £34 a month community charge, and it's been capped for the last 4 years that i know of, whereas i pay £135 living in England.

30% of Scots pay any income tax= Disaster

Well you could say being apart of Britain has caused that problem in the first place. :p We need more responsibility for what we do in the scottish parliament.


Now for the easier bit to understand, England would see the biggest Scottish exodus since Bonnie Prince Charlie brought his Army south.
Scot's would leave Scotland because they cannot afford to live there on their own finacial budget.

That's a problem we've had for decades.

http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/files/documents/reports/j9853a/j9853a-g004.gif

Treffie
10-29-2009, 10:50 AM
Everybody who is not British and who has never visited Britain will have no idea.
This point i will make will make it easier for not Brit's, so here go's, Scotland cannot afford to rule herself, sorry but it is pure mathamatics, there is not enough tax payers in Scotland to pay for their independence.
The reality is this, if by some magic the SNP did manage to gain power, all ties with the British Goverments purse strings would stop.
Local goverment spending would not be enough for essential services.
The Scots pay £34 a month community charge, and it's been capped for the last 4 years that i know of,

Since when? This local government website explains the charges for Glasgow. According to this, they pay between £89.00 and £267.75 per month.

http://www.glasgow.gov.uk/en/Residents/YourHome/CouncilTax/Charges/


Scotland cannot afford to rule herself, sorry but it is pure mathamatics, there is not enough tax payers in Scotland to pay for their independence.

Why not? Slovenia and Slovakia are doing quite nicely.

Liffrea
10-29-2009, 05:16 PM
The problem I see is if the Scots bugger off that lumbers us Saxons with the Welsh……:D:p

On a serious note, though, what would become of Anglo-Wales, could Wales go it alone and do the Welsh want to?

Allenson
10-29-2009, 06:52 PM
Anyway, if the Scots want independence, do be it, if not, so be that too. That's really between them and the English. :coffee:

Oh yeah, it's between them, the English AND the Welsh.

Sorry Arawn. :cool:

Treffie
10-29-2009, 06:56 PM
Oh yeah, it's between them, the English AND the Welsh.

Sorry Arawn. :cool:

Oh yeah, the Welsh were here first. Sorry Liffrea! :D

Germanicus
10-29-2009, 11:45 PM
Since when? This local government website explains the charges for Glasgow. According to this, they pay between £89.00 and £267.75 per month.


"Coughs loudly" The figures are just a projection of what the goverment would like to see Scots pay, as i posted, only 30% of Scots pay income tax.
Let's put some idea of the scale of Goverment for Scotland,
Healthcare, policeforce,electricity, gas, groceries, road maintenance, community charge, free housing , for 70% of population, and that's just off the top of my head.
The people that want independance in Scotland have not thought this through properly.

Treffie
10-30-2009, 08:40 AM
"Coughs loudly" The figures are just a projection of what the goverment would like to see Scots pay, as i posted, only 30% of Scots pay income tax.
Let's put some idea of the scale of Goverment for Scotland,
Healthcare, policeforce,electricity, gas, groceries, road maintenance, community charge, free housing , for 70% of population, and that's just off the top of my head.
The people that want independance in Scotland have not thought this through properly.

Source? :)

You also stated that Scots pay £34 per month in council tax. The Glagsow Local Authority website stated otherwise, obviously there will be regional variations.


Posted by Liffrea
On a serious note, though, what would become of Anglo-Wales, could Wales go it alone and do the Welsh want to?

Personally, I'm indfferent to it and am quite happy with the degree of autonomy that we have. One benefit I can see from independence is that it would give us a greater identity that the Scots and the Irish already have.

Trog
11-05-2009, 10:14 AM
"Coughs loudly" The figures are just a projection of what the goverment would like to see Scots pay, as i posted, only 30% of Scots pay income tax.


Yeah, you really need to provide a source that states only 30% of the Scottish population pay tax. The number of people out of work in Scotland is around 140,000. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7841915.stm). Unemployment in Scotland is also lower than the UK average. UK average is 6.1%, Scotland's unemployment is 5.2%. Over 75% of the people of working age in Scotland are in employment.


You already made an error by claiming we pay only £34 council tax. Do I need to scan my bills to prove you're very wrong? Council tax is not even across the country, it goes in bands A-H and depends on your area and the cost of your property.


Let's put some idea of the scale of Goverment for Scotland,
Healthcare, policeforce,electricity, gas, groceries, road maintenance, community charge, free housing , for 70% of population, and that's just off the top of my head.
The people that want independance in Scotland have not thought this through properly.

Electricity and gas? With the exception of the winter fuel payments for the elderly, most people have to pay their own, it's not government-funded. And lol@ groceries? Do you think Scotland lives off food stamps or something? Free housing? A lot of Scots actually own their properties.

You know, I had to check your details to see what country you were from, because given the errors you've made, I assumed you were not from the UK.

It only reflects the fact that people in England seem to think all Scots do is live off the English and get a cushy life as a result. I'm still laughing my head off at the idea you think we get our groceries paid for.

Now excuse me whilst I head out to Sainsbury and bill the British tax payer from my groceries :lol00002::dielaughing:

chap
11-05-2009, 10:42 AM
"Coughs loudly" The figures are just a projection of what the goverment would like to see Scots pay, as i posted, only 30% of Scots pay income tax.
Let's put some idea of the scale of Goverment for Scotland,
Healthcare, policeforce,electricity, gas, groceries, road maintenance, community charge, free housing , for 70% of population, and that's just off the top of my head.
The people that want independance in Scotland have not thought this through properly.

Why is an independent Scotland non-viable? Ireland has a similar population size, no? If the Scots must reign in state spending, to "cut their cloth accordingly" then so be it. But it's silly to think Scotland cannot be independent. Liechtenstein's population is one thousandth the size of the USA's, yet it is financially stable and the later is not.

One of Scotland's problems is how deeply entrenched the Labour Party is in the political fabric.

My opinion is that the truth on Scotland's finances may lie somewhere between what is stated by the little Englanders and the Scots who bang on about oil.

Germanicus
11-06-2009, 10:59 PM
Why is an independent Scotland non-viable? Ireland has a similar population size, no? If the Scots must reign in state spending, to "cut their cloth accordingly" then so be it. But it's silly to think Scotland cannot be independent. Liechtenstein's population is one thousandth the size of the USA's, yet it is financially stable and the later is not.

One of Scotland's problems is how deeply entrenched the Labour Party is in the political fabric.

My opinion is that the truth on Scotland's finances may lie somewhere between what is stated by the little Englanders and the Scots who bang on about oil.

Liechtenstein's has'nt got 70% of the population with a begging bowl in their hands, sat on their arses watching day time TV all day, get real please.:)

Trog
11-06-2009, 11:24 PM
Liechtenstein's has'nt got 70% of the population with a begging bowl in their hands, sat on their arses watching day time TV all day, get real please.:)

Um, neither the fuck do we.

chap
11-06-2009, 11:24 PM
Liechtenstein's has'nt got 70% of the population with a begging bowl in their hands, sat on their arses watching day time TV all day, get real please.:)

That's very insulting to the Scots. I am the first to crack jokes on stereotypes, but you sound like you're half serious there. The problem of welfare dependency in Scotland is shared with England and Wales.

Percentage of working age population claiming Jobseeker's Allowance:

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/lm-interactive/images/JSA-LA-High-Map.gif

You did not address my point. How is the Irish Republic capable of sustaining itself yet an independent Scotland could not?

Germanicus
11-06-2009, 11:31 PM
I am serious, 30% of the population pay any tax.
Like in my previous post's, the math's do not add up for a Scottish goverment to handle it's own economy.
Remember, Mrs Germanicus is half Scottish and we visit her family regularly, her family members agree with me, it's foolhardy to breakaway from the collective.:coffee:

Treffie
11-06-2009, 11:34 PM
I am serious, 30% of the population pay any tax.
Like in my previous post's, the math's do not add up for a Scottish goverment to handle it's own economy.
Remember, Mrs Germanicus is half Scottish and we visit her family regularly, her family members agree with me, it's foolhardy to breakaway from the collective.:coffee:

But where's your source, Germanicus? Without any evidence, your argument is completely pointless. :)

chap
11-06-2009, 11:40 PM
I am serious, 30% of the population pay any tax.
Like in my previous post's, the math's do not add up for a Scottish goverment to handle it's own economy.
Remember, Mrs Germanicus is half Scottish and we visit her family regularly, her family members agree with me, it's foolhardy to breakaway from the collective.:coffee:

I fail to see your point; supposing the economic powerhouses of Sunderland, Whitby and Chorley (and so on) were divorced from the fat tax receipts of London, would they carry on as before or adapt their ways and spending accordingly?

Ireland was a basket case in the 1980s, twenty years later the average Irish citizen was wealthier than his English cousin. My hunch is Ireland would have been worse off as part of the UK, in the long run. Less vibrant, less competitive.

Germanicus
11-06-2009, 11:43 PM
The figures from HMG Customs and Exise suggest that there around 200,000 people in Scotland paying income tax on the higher marginal rate in 2009/10.

At the basic marginal rate of income tax it is over 2m in 2009/10.

However, within these figures one has to consider the number of people employed by HMG. Are these people really paying income tax, or is HMG giving with one hand and taking with the other? HMG makes no net tax gain by employing government employees, so including them in these figures is misleading statistically.

I'm afraid I cannot give you the figures excluding government sponsored employment, as the government chooses not to disclose such figures.

I think that the figure of 164,000 sounds way off though. Perhaps 164,000 people in Scotland pay income tax at the highest marginal rate AND are NOT government sponsored employees.

Trog
11-07-2009, 12:19 AM
I already addressed your erroneous claims in page 3 of this subject, and I provided sources.

This is like me saying that Scots oil reserves are supporting the entire British economy and pays for the whole education and healthcare of every person in England and Scotland gets nothing in return. How do I know? Well, HMRC, not Custom & Excise, who incidentally, have no say in the taxation of the country or who gets what, list it in their 2008/09 budget reports. See how it's done?

Now I need to get to bed now as well, tomorrow Im going out shopping for my family who are coming to visit from Ireland and I will be able to feed them at the expense of the English tax payer, since according to you, wackjob that you are, you will so kindly pick up the tab for me.

Paleo
11-14-2009, 03:14 PM
Nothing suppressed about it, i tell english folk their bastards all the time.

Graham
11-14-2009, 04:50 PM
Nothing suppressed about it, i tell english folk their bastards all the time.

sassenachs get tae fuck, I kid I kid. But anyway scottishunionist.com good for a laugh

Beorn
01-11-2010, 12:51 AM
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00649/saltire_649643a.jpg



Scotland is now the most affluent country in the UK, according to a study which reveals that a decade of devolution has produced higher wages and less poverty and unemployment than in England.
The report, by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, suggests the so-called north-south divide, which previously characterised Scotland as the poorer relation, has been reversed. Scotland has fewer families living below the breadline, more people in work and higher levels of income than Wales, Northern Ireland and most English regions.
The changes have prompted renewed calls for an end to the preferential funding formula which gives Scots 20% higher public spending than those south of the border.
Despite Labour’s pledge to halve the level of child poverty across Britain by the end of this year, the report shows the proportion of children in low-income households in England fell from 25.2% in 1999, when it was the lowest in the UK, to only 22.1% in 2008.

Over the same period, child poverty in Scotland fell from 28.2% to 19.6%.
The proportion of Scots and English as a whole in poverty was the same (24%) in 1999 but fell by only one point in England compared with five in Scotland. The highest levels of poverty are now found in the West Midlands, where 21% of people live below the breadline, a one-point rise in the past decade.
Since 1999 Scotland went from having the second-highest number of pensioners on low income in all 12 of the UK’s nations and regions to having the second lowest. England, which suffered from less unemployment than Scotland before devolution, now has proportionately more, with Scotland’s larger public sector accounting for more state-supported posts. Low pay is also less of a problem in Scotland than almost all of the 12 nations and regions of the UK.
Jim McCormick, the report’s author, said that while the improvements reflected wider economic trends and policies reserved to Westminster rather than the effectiveness of devolution, they would have been helped by Scotland’s higher share of spending.
Peter Bone, the Conservative MP for Wellingborough, said the Barnett formula, which has traditionally given Scotland a more generous share of UK public spending, based on perceived greater need, should be scrapped.
“Everyone pays the same taxes so public expenditure should be on a fair basis,” he said. “Scotland has done very well, so it shouldn’t be subsidised. There is a danger to the union if extremists in England start saying, why is Scotland getting all this money? The Barnett formula needs to be looked at again."
Mark Wallace, campaign director of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, described the 30-year-old formula, which gives Scots £1,567 more per head, as “outdated and inappropriate”.
He added: “There have long been serious problems with the heavy subsidies paid to Scotland but there has been a political paralysis, which means that the issue is not something the parties at Westminster have wanted to face up to.

Source (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article6982519.ece)


Hey, wait a minute! So Labour get voted in with all those Scottish MPs and the big sweaty himself at No 10, and the English bite bullets and jump through hoops, whilst all the time financing Scotland and every other "Celtic nation" in the British Isles and their claims for frreeeeedooom, and now we get lumbered with more poverty, child poverty, and even moving ahead of Scotland for low income pensioners.

Great! Well at least Scotland still win hands down on the weak hearted, fat bastards front.

That we don't want.

Did anyone else spot a few nasty things slipping into the article?


Since 1999 Scotland went from having the second-highest number of pensioners on low income in all 12 of the UK’s nations and regions to having the second lowest.Come again? Since when do regions count in national surveys?

The next one is a real fucking peach.


There is a danger to the union if extremists in England start saying, why is Scotland getting all this money? Huh? Extremists? So all English nationalists are extremists? Now I know we English have a reputation for being, as one of you fat, oversized, inbred wastes of an egg once said: "The Englishman is a rabid nationalist. They are perhaps the most nationalist people in the world", but extremism is one thing we have not lowered ourselves to, Mr Peter Bone, Conservative MP born in England, but yet every other "nationalist" in the UK has.

Perhaps you need to read this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_National_Liberation_Army), Mr. Bonehead and remember who exactly you are supposed to be.

Extremists indeed. If the English ever became extreme the rest of the UK would tremble with fear.

Beorn
01-23-2010, 01:03 PM
SCOTLAND has suffered the highest levels of poor health in the UK in the years since devolution despite seeing the greatest level of National Health Service spending, a new report has revealed.

The Nuffield Trust found Scotland spent the most per head on health, as well as having the highest number of hospital doctors, GPs and nurses per person in the United Kingdom.

But it also found the health of Scots was worse than elsewhere in the UK and the productivity of Scotland's doctors and nurses the lowest of the four NHS divisions.

The report, which analysed performance before and after devolution, with the latest figures from 2006-7, said: "In 2006, Scotland had the highest levels of poor health, the highest rates of expenditure, the highest rates of hospital doctors, GPs and nurses, and yet the lowest rates of inpatient admissions and crude productivity for hospital doctors and nurses."

The trust found Scotland "appears to perform less well than anywhere else on almost every measure examined" and noted "striking and puzzling" differences between the NHS in Scotland and its adjacent NHS region in the north-east of England, despite them being of similar size and with similar characteristics.

The report says that in 2006 – the last available set of figures to the researchers on the launch of their study – expenditure per 100,000 people in Scotland was £180 million.

That paid for 250 hospital doctors, 1,100 nurses, 730 non-clinical staff and 81 GPs performing 89,300 outpatient appointments, 7,600 day cases, and 13,500 inpatient admissions.

In the English region, meanwhile, expenditure of £170m paid for 180 hospital doctors, 740 nurses, 420 non-clinical staff and 71 GPs performing 105,000 outpatient attendances, 10,500 day cases and 20,700 inpatient admissions.

In a study of the productivity of staff, the authors found a hospital doctor in Scotland cared for 357 outpatients, 30 day cases and 54 inpatients. Their equivalent in the north-east saw 584 outpatients, 58 day cases and 115 inpatients. A nurse in Scotland cared for 70 outpatients, seven day cases and 12 inpatients but their English counterparts saw 142 outpatients, 14 day cases and 27 inpatients.

According to the report, the findings raised "troubling features" about governance and accountability following devolution, including the fact that, despite the UK taxpayer funding health services across the UK, only the English health boards were held to account by the Treasury.

A Scottish Government spokeswoman said there had been "significant improvements" since 2006-7 in areas such as cancer treatment, and waiting times for in and out patients.

She also claimed the measure of doctor productivity failed to take into account the complexity or severity of cases before treatment, nor the quality of outcomes.

"These measures also only cover a narrow range of hospital procedures and do not reflect the shift in the balance of care from the acute sector into the community in Scotland," she said.

"Even with a significantly more peripheral and sparse population than the rest of the UK – which affects the numbers of medical staff and facilities needed – the latest information shows £1,986 was spent per person in Scotland in 2008-9, less than in London and marginally less than the north-east of England."

Dr Hamish Meldrum, chairman of council at the British Medical Association, said: "Measuring the performance of any health system, and achieving meaningful comparisons with others, is always difficult.

"While 'productivity' is important, it is by no means the only measure of how well the NHS is performing."

Labour's health spokeswoman Jackie Baillie added: "Scotland has the unenviable record of having some of the highest levels of poor health across the UK. It is therefore not surprising that we spend more to address the consequences of that poor health."

Source (http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/Register.aspx?ReturnURL=http%3A%2F%2Fthescotsman.s cotsman.com%2Fscotland%2FScotland-sick-man-of-the.5995899.jp)

Trog
01-23-2010, 03:55 PM
Scotland is actually the 'sick man of Europe', not just the UK. We have higher rates of cancer, obesity, heart disease and alcohol dependencies. I'm not exactly sure how, as nurses, we're considered to be less productive than other NHS staff, when we're dealing with such levels of sickness in our population, most of it related to lifestyle.

I would prefer to see the numbers broken down.

Germanicus
01-23-2010, 05:10 PM
Scotland is actually the 'sick man of Europe', not just the UK. We have higher rates of cancer, obesity, heart disease and alcohol dependencies. I'm not exactly sure how, as nurses, we're considered to be less productive than other NHS staff, when we're dealing with such levels of sickness in our population, most of it related to lifestyle.

I would prefer to see the numbers broken down.

I read somewhere that New zealanders of Scottish descent have a higher rate of cancer, it was proposed that the rocks in scotland are radioactive and that the genes are affected through generations.

Trog
01-23-2010, 08:05 PM
I think you English need to worry more about the darkies rather than us Scots, who, incidentally, have had to put up with being mistaken as you arrogant limeys everytime we set foot abroad, only for the reception to completely change from frosty to one of admiration and love once people from the rest of the world realise we're not English after all - thank heavens for that.

There- all in one sentence too.

Beorn
01-23-2010, 08:11 PM
I think you English need to worry more about the darkies rather than us Scots

Scots people are the Niggers of Europe. Both live comfortably off of the success of the Anglosphere.

:swl

Trog
01-23-2010, 08:21 PM
Are you kiddin me? We're both due reparations for your theft, rape and murder over the years. No one likes the English.

Beorn
01-23-2010, 08:32 PM
Are you kiddin me? We're both due reparations for your theft, rape and murder over the years.

How many times did the Scots invade England or raid over the borders? I imagine every event was remarked for its sedate and pleasant atmosphere I suppose?


No one likes the English.

That's twice you've said that tonight and twice you'll get the response that Titans do not care for the opinions of ants. :)

Wulfhere
01-23-2010, 11:54 PM
The Scots appear to want their cake and eat it (and who wouldn't?). They can claim to be oppressed by the English, yet live off the English taxpayer. Oh well - the time will come when the English say enough is enough.

Eldritch
01-24-2010, 06:43 PM
I read somewhere that New zealanders of Scottish descent have a higher rate of cancer, it was proposed that the rocks in scotland are radioactive and that the genes are affected through generations.

Is this the case in all types of cancer, I wonder?

Gooding
01-24-2010, 06:48 PM
I read somewhere that New zealanders of Scottish descent have a higher rate of cancer, it was proposed that the rocks in scotland are radioactive and that the genes are affected through generations.

That is of particular interest to me, Germanicus. My grandfather McDonald was of partially Scottish heritage and he died of bone cancer at age 63. I'm pretty sure that phenotypes mean little in a medical sense, but as I resemble him to such a degree, I silently wonder during more reflective times of the day whether or not I am on borrowed time as well.

Murphy
01-24-2010, 07:33 PM
I didn't read the article, because it's long and I am lazy, but you cannot blame the fine men and women of the NHS in Scotland for the fact that the Scots as a people are lazy fat fucks who like cheap alcohol and deep-fried Mars Bars.

Regards,
The Papist.

Loki
12-18-2010, 06:00 PM
English students face £6,500 tuition fees at Scottish universities (http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/dec/16/english-students-tuition-fees-scottish-universities)

Scottish ministers fear that tuition fee rises in England will increase the number of 'fee refugees' to Scotland

English students could be charged as much as £6,500 a year to attend a Scottish university under plans outlined by the Scottish National party today.

Scottish ministers fear that measures in London to allow English universities to charge students up to £9,000 a year will dramatically increase the number of "fee refugees".

Under the Edinburgh plans, Scottish students and students from other EU countries would still have all their tuition fees paid by the state. But English students could be charged more, in part in an attempt to address a deepening funding gap at Scottish universities.

These measures will only be introduced if the SNP regains power in May's elections, when higher education funding is likely to be a contentious issues.

Scottish university principals believe the English funding deal will increase competition for the best students and academics, further eroding the status of the "ancient" institutions such as Edinburgh, St Andrews, Glasgow and Aberdeen, and weakening their position internationally.

The devolved government has cut the direct funding of universities by £67m next year with further reductions to come, forcing many to sack teaching staff and drop courses, after its spending was cut by the UK Treasury.

About 22,500 English students currently study at Scottish universities and pay annual fees of £1,820, or £2,895 for medicine. There are 11,895 Scottish students at English colleges.

Labour in Scotland came out tonight in favour of graduates paying a fee or contribution after they find work, making common cause with the Tories, the umbrella body Universities Scotland, and the Scottish government's own council of economic advisers.

Mike Russell, the Scottish education secretary, said his government believed access to higher education should be based solely on "the ability to learn, not the ability to pay". He said that "was at the very heart of what I believe and what the SNP believes".

Russell's green paper on higher education funding set out six options, which he said would be costed before the election.

It also suggested that to cut costs universities may have to merge or share administration staff, offer "private" education to those who can pay, look for more donations, and drop courses which are duplicated by other universities.

Lawyers from the Matrix Chambers in London have warned that charging students in England up to £9,000 a year was contrary to human rights law because it discriminated against students from poorer backgrounds.

Loki
12-18-2010, 06:01 PM
In my view, this basically amounts to racism. And it's completely unfair. English taxpayers fund Scottish education so they can have it for free ... yet they charge students just because they are English, and for no other reason.

Treffie
12-18-2010, 06:39 PM
In my view, this basically amounts to racism. And it's completely unfair. English taxpayers fund Scottish education so they can have it for free ... yet they charge students just because they are English, and for no other reason.

I've only just learned that it's EU law that Scotland must charge the same for EU students from outside Britain as they do for their own. :confused:

Graham
12-18-2010, 06:42 PM
Same with the Welsh and Norn. Irish having to pay here too. The students from other EU countries would pay for it, if it wasn't for some EU laws.

There's been talks about bringin in fees etc. But there's an election next year so you wont hear so much bad news till after.:D




16 December 2010 Last updated at 18:04 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-12013392



At-a-glance: Scottish University funding proposals



The Scottish government has set out plans for the future of university funding, amid budget cuts as a result of the public spending squeeze.


Education Secretary Mike Russell has outlined six options in a Green Paper, with the aim of making a final decision next year.


The only proposal off the table at this stage is the re-introduction of up-front tuition fees.


Here is a look at what has been put forward.


State retains primary responsibility for funding

Funding for Scotland's university sector is taking a £67m hit in the year ahead, as part of a cut of about £1bn in the 2011-12 Scottish budget.


This option would see the Scottish government continue as the main funder of the sector, but closing the gap would mean having to take the cash from other budgets, and protecting the higher education budget, which is already done in the NHS.


That would also mean the government continuing as the primary funder of EU students and students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland - although the home nations would pay fees directly to Scottish universities.


The Scottish government believes strongly in the state as the main higher education funder - but going with this option would mean tough cuts elsewhere.


State retains primary responsibility for funding, but with a form of graduate contribution

This option would see the government try to close the funding gap by raising extra cash through graduate contributions.


The SNP isn't happy about going down this route, but economic circumstances may leave them with no choice.


The thinking behind the move is that a degree benefits both the holder, in terms of their level of education and potential future earnings, and the economy and wider society.


Under a graduate tax high-earning graduates would contribute more, helping pay for others.


However, the Scottish government does not currently have the powers to bring in a graduate "tax" and, ministers say it might be 2041 before the measure produced a solid income to fund higher education.


The alternative would see graduates pay a variable amount, depending on their eventual earnings, with a maximum limit to avoid the highest earners making disproportionate contributions.


The concern here is that, if funds are channelled into increasing levels of student support, as the National Union of Students has called for, then universities are not funded on a comparative basis.


Other forms of contribution could include a one-off payment, either made in full on graduation, or added to student loan debt.


However, this option is not unlike the old graduate endowment - which supported poorer students - scrapped in Scotland in 2008.


The fee could be standard, or vary by course or university.

Increasing income from students coming to Scotland from other parts of the UK

Fees in England are rising as high as £9,000 and the concern is that Scottish universities are seen as a cheap option for so-called "fee refugees", potentially meaning less opportunity for Scots students to study at home.


The same concerns have been expressed about EU students, who see that fees in England are going up and regard Scotland as a cheaper alternative.


One option would be to set fees for non-Scottish students on a par with England, meaning an annual charge of £4,500 for a four-year degree in Scotland.


Or, given that two thirds of incoming UK students go to "ancient universities" whose English competitors are likely to set their fees at the highest level, the paper asks if the fee be set at about £6,500.


Other options, such as allowing universities to set their own fees, have been floated or distribution of extra income more widely across the higher education sector.

Increase donations and "philanthropic giving"

While Scottish universities already benefit from donors, a more widespread culture of philanthropic giving should be considered, says the Green Paper.
One way forward would be a matched-funding scheme, already in operation in England, where donations are matched on a ratio basis, linked to the track records of individual universities.


Those with a strong record receive funding on a 1:1 basis, while institutions with less experience could receive up to £3 for every £1 donated.


An alternative could take the form of a specific funding drive, and a more collaborative approach by universities in this area.


Increase investment from Scottish businesses in higher education

Business benefits from higher education - firms get their pick of highly-skilled graduates, while taking advantage of academic knowledge.


Businesses argue they already contribute to higher education by paying tax.


Other options to increase income here include in research and development and more support from business for students while they are at university, through, for example, scholarships.


And universities could charge employers to provide a graduate recruitment service.

Make more efficiency savings in the sector

The Scottish government says universities already do a great job in this area - making £44m of efficiency savings in 2009-10.


But pressure on public finances means more cash has to be saved.
Options may include pension reform, more efficient use of building space and sharing facilities.

Loki
12-18-2010, 06:46 PM
Same with the Welsh and Norn. Irish having to pay here too.

Yeah I know, but the vast majority is from England. If it was only Welsh and NI the Scots wouldn't have bothered. But they want English money to pay for their Scottish students.

Well, English students should just boycott Scottish universities then. Why go study in a country where people are racist against you?

Treffie
12-18-2010, 06:53 PM
Yeah I know, but the vast majority is from England. If it was only Welsh and NI the Scots wouldn't have bothered. But they want English money to pay for their Scottish students.

Well, English students should just boycott Scottish universities then. Why go study in a country where people are racist against you?

So the Scots are being racist towards the Welsh and N Irish too?

Loki
12-18-2010, 06:59 PM
So the Scots are being racist towards the Welsh and N Irish too?

I think you missed my point. Do you really think the Scots would have implemented this measure for "the rest of the UK" if it wasn't for the English? How many Northern Irish and Welsh students are there in Scotland anyway? No, this is solely aimed at the English.

Grumpy Cat
12-18-2010, 07:06 PM
That's how much I paid a year for tuition. Not saying that it isn't wrong or being like an American. :p I thought it was ridiculous when I paid it too.

6 years with only Christmas off (school all week, worked weekends, holidays, and summers) really sucked.

Well, the "American" comment was tongue in cheek. I remember when I was 14 and working at a coffee shop, I had a customer from Belgium (I assume post-secondary education is free there?) ask why someone so young was working. I told her it was because I'm saving up for university. She laughed and told me that when she gets home, she was going to tell her lazy teenage grandson who refused to get a job that kids in Canada have to work to pay for school. :lol:

Graham
12-18-2010, 07:15 PM
I think you missed my point. Do you really think the Scots would have implemented this measure for "the rest of the UK" if it wasn't for the English? How many Northern Irish and Welsh students are there in Scotland anyway? No, this is solely aimed at the English.
I don't go to Uni, But my brother goes to Dundee Uni. Went to the student union up there. The place was really swanky and the alcohol cheap as anything, are we paying for this also??? Grrr:mad: :p

There was a Norn Irish game on, fucking loads of them there! Didn't see any Welsh, never see any welsh people. There all hiding away.

Albion
01-19-2011, 09:14 PM
I'd like to see the Scottish Parliament attempt to break up some of these estates and return vast areas to crofters and bring the national parks and forests there under Scottish government ownership (Not UK!).

Albion
01-19-2011, 09:32 PM
Some me :D would argue that this would be their only positive legacy.

Albion
01-19-2011, 09:40 PM
So what is this? A modern version of Prima Nocta? "If the Scots won't obey us Englisc, let's breed em out."

You idiot, the UK government is Scottish, the English just do what they're told, we don't ask for the immigrants. :rolleyes2:


It's a step in the right direction, but I can't help but think it's merely the government sneaking around the fact that England is now full. Time to fill up Scotland.

Yes, I hard before about some MP proposing spreading immigrants to the South West because it was "too white"! :mad:

Albion
01-19-2011, 09:43 PM
I believe Glasgow had a bid for the Olympics as well, if they won it would we hear England making such demands???
And what about Wales and NI, don't they deserve some money too, whilst we're at it why not just give all the failed bid countries a few million to say sorry for us winning the bid??? :rolleyes2: Ridiculous.

Albion
01-19-2011, 09:59 PM
I think its climate, this affects the rest of the UK as well but more so Scotland.

A colder, wetter climate which is often overcast prompts people to stay indoors, thus they develop bad habits such as sitting in front of the TV and eating comfort foods to pass the boredom. Its not exclusive to Scotland but they probably suffer more from it because of climate and geography.
Its a shame with all those landscapes that people aren't more active but unfortunately the bulk of the Scottish population lives in the Central Belt which isn't really an attractive prospect to get out and walk through.

In New Zealand the situation is probably similar, the predominantly Scottish areas are in the colder south around Otago which has a climate nearing that of Scotland's anyway - same process repeats itself.

Albion
01-19-2011, 10:06 PM
Nothing suppressed about it, i tell english folk their bastards all the time.

Grammar! "I", "they're / they are"! - I'm dyslexic apparently but can still see something as obvious as that.

Oh and for the record the English think just as much of you, we think you're fuddy-duddy wankers who try and act as if they have an air of nobleness about them and think you need to get of your soap box.

Its a joke people! :p I like you funny Scots really, the world would be a lot less entertaining without you :thumb001:

Graham
03-24-2011, 04:27 AM
George Osborne raids North Sea to fuel flagging UK recovery

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/news/George-Osborne-raids-North-Sea.6739392.jp?articlepage=4
Published Date: 24 March 2011
By DAVID MADDOX
POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT

George Osborne has launched a £10 billion tax raid on Scotland's North Sea oil industry in a surprise move to keep down fuel prices and kick start the economy.

In a Budget which the Chancellor said would "put fuel into the tank of the British economy", Mr Osborne said the tax increase allowed him to cancel next month's planned 4p rise in fuel duty and cut a further 1p from pump prices immediately.

The move prompted dire warnings from the North Sea oil and gas industry over the impact of jobs and investment in the north of Scotland.

The tax grab was also condemned by one senior coalition MP last night as "economically disastrous", while SNP First Minister Alex Salmond said it left Scotland "short-changed".

The tax increase, which means between 62 per cent and 81 per cent of profits will now be taken by the government, will be reversed at the next Budget only if the price of a barrel of oil drops to $75 for at least three months. It led Lib Dem Scottish Secretary Michael Moore to boast that the coalition had "shot the SNP's fox" with its election campaign to introduce a fuel stabiliser.

Mr Osborne's new fuel stabiliser was part of a package of measures which the Chancellor trumpeted as being a "Budget for growth" and which included a 2p reduction in corporation tax.

As the Chancellor, who sounded hoarse just ten minutes into his 56-minute speech and sipped from a glass of water throughout, delivered his second Budget to the House, the traditional red book was joined by a new green one containing a series of measures to boost growth in the economy.

He was forced to admit that the independent Office of Budget Responsibility had downgraded growth expectations for this year from 2.1 per cent to 1.7 per cent.

Scotland also receives an extra £112 million in Barnett consequentials, funding to spend how it wishes to the equivalent value of schemes that only apply in England, such as money to boost housing and create enterprise zones.

Mr Osborne also said he would clamp down on £1 billion of tax avoidance in a move designed to please his Lib Dem coalition partners, who made it a key pledge in the last election.

He also introduced a series of green measures which clamped down on carbon-based fuel, including gas, and he unveiled details of a new Green Investment Bank which will be given £3bn and be lending money by 2015.

At the end, a triumphant Mr Osborne said: "We want the words 'made in Britain', 'created in Britain', 'invented in Britain' to drive this nation forward."

However, there was little or no mention of increases in VAT which have already taken place and the rise in other taxes, including National Insurance contributions.

Mr Osborne confirmed only that his intention in the long term was to simplify the tax system by combining personal NI contributions with income tax.

But Labour leader Ed Miliband, who had laughed throughout the Chancellor's speech, likened Mr Osborne to Derek Trotter, the wheeler-dealer known as Del Boy in the comedy Only Fools And Horses.

The Labour leader said: "The Chancellor has cut (fuel] duty by 1p, but he's whacked up VAT on fuel by 3p. Families won't be fooled – it's Del Boy economics."

He told MPs the government should be ashamed of breaking promises on tax credits, worsening the cost-of-living crisis. And he mocked the rise in income tax personal allowance, claiming last year's Budget rise in VAT from 17.5 per cent to 20 per cent cost families £450 annually.

Mr Miliband added: "Now the Chancellor has got the nerve to expect them to be grateful when he gives them a fraction of their own money back."
But the main fallout came over the raid on Scotland's oil duties, which appeared to fuel political rows ahead of the Holyrood elections.

Mr Osborne also announced he would look at giving Northern Ireland control over its corporation tax rates, something he has refused to do for Scotland.

There was outrage from the oil and gas sector. Malcolm Webb, Oil & Gas UK's chief executive, said: "In its first Budget nine months ago, the government recognised the importance of a 'stable' UK oil and gas tax regime which provided 'certainty for investors'.

"Given that assurance, the industry is shocked to now be hit by a tax increase that raises the tax rate to at least 62 per cent, with some of the most mature, and therefore vulnerable, fields now paying up to 81 per cent."

He added: "Importantly, it will also most likely increase this country's dependence on imported oil and gas and thus diminish its energy security."

Ian Bell, director of Optimus (Aberdeen), the oil and gas engineering consultancy, said: "The only part of the economy that was certain to deliver more jobs in 2011 was the offshore oil and gas industry. Every chief executive operating assets in the North Sea is going to put on hold any non-sanctioned project until they can establish how this will impact their profitability."

But the fuel tax move was welcomed by motoring organisations, who said it would provide some relief. RAC motoring strategist Adrian Tink said: "Let's hope this is the start of an outbreak of common sense – cutting fuel duty is the right thing to do and is something we have campaigned for."

Last night, Lib Dem West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine MP Sir Robert Smith described the North Sea raid as "economically disastrous".

Labour Aberdeen South MP Dame Anne Begg branded the fuel tax cut "a rabbit out of the hat", and said Aberdeen relied on the industry for its economy. She pointed out that the oil industry was being hit by ten times the taxation as the banks responsible for the economic crash.
"It appears huge amounts of money are going to come out of the North Sea," said Dame Anne.

She said Mr Osborne's "guesstimates" relied on predicting oil prices – and although the oilfields had big reserves, they were difficult to extract.

"The one thing the offshore oil and gas industry needs is stability" she added.

The SNP made it clear that the use of Scotland's resources to pay for the Budget would become a central election issue in the coming days and weeks.

Mr Salmond said: "Can I just point out that in that £4bn increase in oil revenue, if you devoted just half of that in fuel duty in Scotland, you could reduce it (fuel duty] by 50p not 1p.

"So understandably in Scotland we don't feel we are getting more than short-change from the Chancellor."

Mr Moore said the windfall tax would apply to excess profits only when the price of a barrel of oil is high. "The opposition have to ask themselves whether they want people to pay higher fuel prices."

He added that Norway paid 78 per cent, compared with the 62 per cent being asked by the government. Good timing, fuck the torys!:rolleyes:

SwordoftheVistula
03-24-2011, 07:33 AM
This is a strange alternate universe where the left supports oil companies and opposes tax hikes. I may have to move there.

Beorn
03-24-2011, 04:11 PM
Alex Salmond said it left Scotland "short-changed".

What Alex meant to say, of course, was it left the English and Shetlander's short changed, what with us being the majority claimants on the North Sea Oil.

Graham
03-24-2011, 04:19 PM
What Alex meant to say, of course, was it left the English and Shetlander's short changed, what with us being the majority claimants on the North Sea Oil.

Most of the oils Nearer to Aberdeenshire and hundreds of miles away from England.

Beorn
03-24-2011, 04:27 PM
Most of the oils Nearer to Aberdeen and hundreds of miles away from England.

I'm sticking with the 1963 borders myself.

Graham
03-24-2011, 04:51 PM
Don't know what those boundaries were like pre 1963 :confused:

But if it's like this map, Scotland exists past that little border that separates Scotland and England. So if your in Peterhead you can see England in the Horizon!:D Even though Berwick Upon Tweed is alot further away than Peterhead or Aberdeen to those oil Fields.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_mJmwQtPmusk/SK_ggBtZwJI/AAAAAAAACKM/akhXXC8LPz8/s1600/oil_map.jpg



Shetland is Scotland, it's only a wee Island of 22,210 people. Most of the Shetlanders will have ancestry to the main land. Fucking vikings had to mess things up lol.

Albion
04-26-2011, 04:45 PM
I think you English need to worry more about the darkies rather than us Scots, who, incidentally, have had to put up with being mistaken as you arrogant limeys everytime we set foot abroad, only for the reception to completely change from frosty to one of admiration and love once people from the rest of the world realise we're not English after all - thank heavens for that.

There- all in one sentence too.


Are you kiddin me? We're both due reparations for your theft, rape and murder over the years. No one likes the English.

I'd rather be the conqueror than the conquered. 1707 - the year Longshanks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_I_of_England) looked down from heathen (or up from hell) and laughed at you.
Unfortunately we got screwed too.

antonio
04-26-2011, 05:04 PM
I would never accept that North Sea companies taxes revert just in Scotland development. It's like Catalonia wealthness keeping for themselves, both scenarios, very politically-correct and, hence, nasty and unfair.

Raikaswinþs
04-26-2011, 05:14 PM
yeah, we all know the country that invented the hooligans, reinvented the nazis and its home to the friendly chaps of the EDL is extremism-free. :thumbs up

It must be the Paki´s fault, since there´s no antecedents of extremism in England WHATSOEVER....oh wait! :cool:

antonio
04-26-2011, 05:18 PM
I personally have nothing against the Scots, but that dont prevent myself from recognizing a childish wave of praise on them (and bashing English) running the world in last decades really stupid and based on nothing but popular modern culture trash. They're like the Kiwis of the North Hemisphere.

Albion
04-26-2011, 05:42 PM
I would never accept that North Sea companies taxes revert just in Scotland development. It's like Catalonia wealthness keeping for themselves, both scenarios, very politically-correct and, hence, nasty and unfair.

Um, what's wrong with that? I'd expect the same for England and our gas and (limited) amounts of oil.

antonio
04-26-2011, 05:50 PM
Um, what's wrong with that? I'd expect the same for England and our gas and (limited) amounts of oil.

Romans extract all the gold from our lands before getting diluted into History...and it's OK. So I think UK as a whole should do the same. Moreover, for what I know, England taking on Scotland kingdom was not a conquest but a crown inheritance.

Albion
04-26-2011, 05:53 PM
Romans extract all the gold from our lands before getting diluted into History...and it's OK. So I think UK as a whole should do the same. Moreover, for what I know, England taking on Scotland kingdom was not a conquest but a crown inheritance.

They did that in Wales too.

Graham
04-26-2011, 05:55 PM
I would never accept that North Sea companies taxes revert just in Scotland development. It's like Catalonia wealthness keeping for themselves, both scenarios, very politically-correct and, hence, nasty and unfair.

The Taxes from Oil go to Westminster and comes back to Scotland through the Barnett Formula, based on the population and total UK revenue. If England makes 10% cuts to it's budget, Scotland's budget also goes down 10%. Works the other way also. Good old Barnett Formula, very simplistic. lol

Graham
04-26-2011, 06:11 PM
They did that in Wales too.

We have a bit of Gold also, although it's not getting mined.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-13130925
19 April 2011 Last updated at 12:51
Scotgold Resources withdraws planning refusal appeal

The firm behind plans to mine for gold in Loch Lomond National Park has withdrawn its appeal against the decision to refuse planning permission.

Scotgold Resources said it would submit a new proposal within the next two months instead of pursuing an appeal.

It comes after the national park turned down an application in August 2010 to mine at Cononish, near Tyndrum.

Scotgold believes the mine could produce 20,000 oz (567kg) of gold and 80,000 oz (2,268kg) of silver annually.

When the firm's original planning application was refused, it had lodged an appeal which was set to be heard in the coming months.

In response to the news, Gordon Watson, the national park's director of planning and rural development, said: "I can confirm that we have had progressive discussions with Scotgold Resources Ltd regarding a revised goldmine proposal at Cononish.

"The withdrawal of the appeal means our officers, rather than prepare for a public inquiry, can continue to provide detailed pre-application advice and prepare for when the second application is received."

Scottish gold is reported to be among the most expensive in the world - 0.035oz (1g) of it can cost more than five times the price of normal gold.

If plans work favourably for the company, it will be the first time the precious metal has been successfully extracted from a Scottish mine for more than 500 years.

antonio
04-26-2011, 06:15 PM
The Taxes from Oil go to Westminster and comes back to Scotland through the Barnett Formula, based on the population and total UK revenue. If England makes 10% cuts to it's budget, Scotland's budget also goes down 10%. Works the other way also. Good old Barnett Formula, very simplistic. lol

And what about Devolution? Is it a kind of XVIIIth Scotland parliament agreement before getting disolved, or a modern postcolonial concept? For Spanish eyes it's really curious, here, Aragonese Crown territories (Aragon, Catalonia and Valencia kingdoms) had similar courts (parlaments) also, but, they got disolved after their support on Austrian candidate to Spanish trone, finally defeated by French house of Borbons, so similar circunstances were long unfeasible.

Murphy
04-26-2011, 06:40 PM
Moreover, for what I know, England taking on Scotland kingdom was not a conquest but a crown inheritance.

Actually it was a Scot who inherited the English throne :D.

antonio
04-26-2011, 06:48 PM
Actually it was a Scot who inherited the English throne :D.

Mary Stuard or the one who got his head chopped? :D

Murphy
04-26-2011, 06:56 PM
Mary Stuard or the one who got his head chopped? :D

James VI, King of Scots.

poiuytrewq0987
04-26-2011, 07:01 PM
We have a bit of Gold also, although it's not getting mined.

On the next flight to Glasgow to become rich!

Murphy
04-26-2011, 07:02 PM
On the next flight to Glasgow to become rich!

You'll be in my back yard Slav-nigger. Watch your back :P!

Graham
04-27-2011, 10:14 PM
And what about Devolution? Is it a kind of XVIIIth Scotland parliament agreement before getting disolved, or a modern postcolonial concept? For Spanish eyes it's really curious, here, Aragonese Crown territories (Aragon, Catalonia and Valencia kingdoms) had similar courts (parlaments) also, but, they got disolved after their support on Austrian candidate to Spanish trone, finally defeated by French house of Borbons, so similar circunstances were long unfeasible.

To put it short here :D.
------------------



James VI King of Scots 1603 also became King of England and Ireland when he inherited the English and Irish crown and thereby united the Crown of the Kingdom of Scotland with the crown of the Kingdoms of England and Ireland (each country remained legally separate, with their own Parliaments, judiciary, and laws, though each was ruled by James). James VI & I continued to reign in all three kingdoms until his death in 1625, but based himself in England (the largest of the three realms) from 1603.


Scotland lost it's parliament in 1707 under the Act of Union. In 1979 we had our first vote to bring back parliament. It was voted in favour, But we still never got our Parliament back due to the turnout.

Scottish devolution referendum of 1997, 1,775,045 (74.3%) voted in favour of the Parliament coming back. 1,512,889 (63.5%) also voted for tax-varying powers. In 1999 devolution came to Scotland.

Scotland's Legal and education system has always remained distinct from the rest of United Kingdom.

Graham
04-27-2011, 10:30 PM
Scotland's Legal and education system has always remained distinct from the rest of United Kingdom.

Would like to add, the fucking EU should stay away from our Legal system. It's becoming less distinct.

The Lawspeaker
05-07-2011, 11:40 PM
Opinion: the time for the independence referendum is now

The Caledonian Mercury is politically neutral. The Caledonian Mercury does not endorse any viewpoint over another. The Caledonian Mercury is a forum to celebrate all the voices of Scotland.

The Caledonian Mercury does not have a position Scottish independence.
But I do.

I support Scottish independence. And I want to write about it – as an individual journalist, not as Editor of The Caledonian Mercury – because there are so few pro-independence voices in the media. Those of us who believe the Scottish people are capable of governing themselves have a duty to speak up. Indeed, the anti-independence attacks have started already.

Alex Salmond has called for an end to “fearmongering, negativity and scaremongering” and insults to the intelligence of the people of Scotland.

Aye, guid luck wi’ that, Eck.

The SNP should force through the independence referendum right now. Momentum is a precious thing. When it’s with you, you can move mountains. When it’s gone, it’s gone for ever.

Right now, the Unionists are in complete disarray. They are down. Kick them. Kick them now, kick them hard. Do not give them time to regroup. There is a “perfect storm” for independence: an SNP overall majority, cut-mad Tories running wild down south, disgust with Westminster corruption, despair at the City-focused UK economy and a desire to try a different way.
But storms pass.

The more the SNP waits, the more time there is for the no doubt well-funded “No” campaign, the Unionist parties and the media to drip poison in the electorate’s ear: “We’ll be like Iceland”; “We’ll be kicked out of the EU”; and the current favourite: “People who voted SNP didn’t realise the SNP supports independence.”

The people of Scotland have spoken. And they have said they no longer want our country to be a dark, craven, backward appendix ruled by “business as usual” politics. To be sure, it is “business as usual” that will kill the SNP. Let the ghost of 1997 (http://politics.caledonianmercury.com/2011/05/06/welcome-to-scotland%E2%80%99s-1997/) guide Alex Salmond’s footsteps. After you have won people’s hearts, you must not squander their affections.

It’s time to deliver independence: that’s what SNP government is for.
The secret to success for independence will lie not in an appeal to Nationalism. I speak here as one of Scotland’s army of ex-Labour voters.
Despite the impending “No” campaign propaganda about “divorce” and “separation”, the change to full nationhood is a comparatively modest affair. An administrative tweaking of the Scottish parliament’s powers so that we can bring local solutions to bear on local problems that are peculiar to our corner of the British Isles.

It is not a dramatic wrench but an evolution from devolution. It is only sensible that the solutions to our Scottish problems of poverty, health, crime and alcohol be determined here, on the ground, in Scotland.

There will be no Tartan Curtain at Berwick. There will be no passport required to go shopping at the Metrocentre. The United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland will remain Scotland’s biggest trading partner, our strongest ally and our closest friend.

I love England. I’m proud to share the British Isles with it. I love the music of Elgar, the writing of Orwell, the buzz of London – one of the great cities of the world. And I will still be able to access all that after independence.
The independent Scotland I want to see owes little to Braveheart, Bannockburn, Mary, Charlie and Bob. The Scotland of the future needs to follow in the footsteps of David Hume, James Watt, Thomas Carlyle, James Young Simpson and Keir Hardie. It must be a Scotland that builds on our intellectual heritage and our spirit of entrepreneurial invention. We must celebrate excellence in education, declare war on poor health and fight the evils of poverty with the renewed vigour of a self-confident, self-governing people. And we must welcome all those who seek to live here.

Scots built the British Empire, for good or ill. Scots built the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Scots invented much of the modern world. Scots are different from the rest of the United Kingdom as we have proved at election after election. And Scots can manage our own affairs, using the resources that God gave this wonderful, wild country.

But let us not tarry. The naysayers will gnaw at our doubt-ridden souls like a Lovecraftian horror. And every second we waste allows the old fears and doubts to be paraded in front of us.

We have a choice: we can be a lost, timorous enclave of wannabes, bleating about the 1978 World Cup and looking for handouts from an institution 400 miles away. Or we can roll up our sleeves and sort ourselves out.
Starting now.

Now that I have got that of my chest, let me reiterate that The Caledonian Mercury has no political stance and will celebrate all voices in the coming debate. The Caledonian Mercury might have had an easier ride had it been a cheerleader for the SNP. But it is neutral because the independent Scotland I want deserves independent journalism: fierce, critical, intelligent.


Source: The Caledonian Mercury (http://politics.caledonianmercury.com/2011/05/06/opinion-the-time-for-the-independence-referendum-is-now/) (6 May 2011)

Wulfhere
05-07-2011, 11:47 PM
We should make them take Northern Ireland too. It's a lot closer to Scotland, and the Protestants there are of Scottish descent. Why should we be lumbered with it?

Efim45
05-08-2011, 12:04 AM
If Scotland becomes independent, will it stop all immigration?

Óttar
05-08-2011, 12:20 AM
They'll have to alter the flag.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/Flag_of_United_Kingdom_of_England_and_Northern_Ire land.svg/430px-Flag_of_United_Kingdom_of_England_and_Northern_Ire land.svg.png

+

http://www.worldstatesmen.org/gb-w-col.gif

:confused:

Comte Arnau
05-08-2011, 12:34 AM
Come on Scotland, set the path, do not disappoint. Our nationalist President here votes individually for independence while he says that his party must keep on being stupidly ambiguous. :rolleyes:

Murphy
05-08-2011, 12:51 AM
I am watching things closely to see how they effect Ireland. The worse possible outcome for us would be an independent "Ulster".

Wyn
05-08-2011, 12:57 AM
I am watching things closely to see how they effect Ireland. The worse possible outcome for us would be an independent "Ulster".

Won't happen. Or if it did, would exist only for a brief time.

Comte Arnau
05-08-2011, 01:01 AM
Maybe the Third Way for the Ulster would be, once Scotland is independent, to join Scotland? :D

Wyn
05-08-2011, 01:05 AM
Maybe the Third Way for the Ulster would be

You mean Northern Ireland. Half of Ulster's total area is in the Republic of Ireland.


once Scotland is independent, to join Scotland? :D

Would make Scotland's secession from the UK pointless.

Comte Arnau
05-08-2011, 01:09 AM
Would make Scotland's secession from the UK pointless.

Really? How so?

Wyn
05-08-2011, 01:14 AM
Really? How so?

If Scotland seeks independence then entering into a union with another former part of the UK completely undermines the idea of independence. In short, it wouldn't actually have independence - it would be part of another, smaller union.

Beorn
05-08-2011, 01:17 AM
Scotland is all 'Freeeeeeeeeeeeeedooom!', but then will be all like 'EU Freeeeeeeeeeeeeedooom"'

All hail Scottish politics.

TBH, I don't believe the Scots would vote for independence anyway. A gravy-train is best when well known.

Osweo
05-08-2011, 01:18 AM
You mean Northern Ireland. Half of Ulster's total area is in the Republic of Ireland.
Mediaeval 'Ulster' is here in blue;
http://dejiny-irska.navajo.cz/dejiny-irska-8.gif
;)

Ibericus
05-08-2011, 01:23 AM
No country is independent today.

Wyn
05-08-2011, 01:24 AM
Mediaeval 'Ulster' is here in blue;
http://dejiny-irska.navajo.cz/dejiny-irska-8.gif
;)

That is medieval Ulster, yes. However, the 9-county definition of Ulster is the one that has been accepted/in use for hundreds of years now, while the modern/loyalistic 6-county definition has not and is rarely used by anyone outside of unionist politics. In fact, I more often (in real life and in print) hear/see NI unionists use the term 'Northern Ireland' than 'Ulster.' It is quite associated with loyalists.

Comte Arnau
05-08-2011, 01:27 AM
No country is totally independent today, that's true. But without independence, you simply don't exist. Or you exist under the name and look of your brother.

Ibericus
05-08-2011, 01:54 AM
No country is totally independent today, that's true. But without independence, you simply don't exist. Or you exist under the name and look of your brother.
Catalonia, has always existed under other names, what a shame that Catalonia existed under Aragón...right ? :(

Wulfhere
05-08-2011, 10:13 AM
That is medieval Ulster, yes. However, the 9-county definition of Ulster is the one that has been accepted/in use for hundreds of years now, while the modern/loyalistic 6-county definition has not and is rarely used by anyone outside of unionist politics. In fact, I more often (in real life and in print) hear/see NI unionists use the term 'Northern Ireland' than 'Ulster.' It is quite associated with loyalists.

To call Northern Ireland "Ulster" is no worse that the Republic of Ireland calling itself "Ireland".

Albion
05-08-2011, 11:33 AM
We should make them take Northern Ireland too. It's a lot closer to Scotland, and the Protestants there are of Scottish descent. Why should we be lumbered with it?

Yeah, the Irish Nationalists are basically Anti-English, they see English and British as one and the same.
The Irish probably wouldn't care so much about Scotland taking Northern Ireland, its not about religion, its about the Irish not wanting to be under English control.


Scots built the British Empire, for good or ill. Scots built the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Scots invented much of the modern world. Scots are different from the rest of the United Kingdom as we have proved at election after election. And Scots can manage our own affairs, using the resources that God gave this wonderful, wild country.

Okay, simply forget about the huge input from the English and Irish why don't you?

When you look at it the Scots were important, but the English no less.
The majority of settlers in the colonies were English followed by Scots and then Irish
it was an English Empire in the first places
both great Scots and English helped form it (a perfect example is Cook, he was even Anglo-Scottish)
the Scots, Irish and lesser so English helped fight for it
The Royal Navy was in a large part English and Cornish, with a lot of people in the early days from the West Country.
The Irish often instigated the rebellions in it such as in Canada and Australia, helping shape the colonies.
The Welsh and Cornish also settled the empire and shaped the mining aspects of it.


Really, its as if that comment is designed to be provocative. Of course the Scottish played an important part, but I'll be damned if the massive English and Irish contribution to the Empire will be forgotten for the sake of Scottish ego.

And Scots didn't build the US, I'd say it was more the Irish. But even that traitor Washington's great granddad was born in Essex, England, the Scots were some of the most loyal people to Canada but even there the English settled on a huge scale in Ontario and BC with many Scots on the East coast and Nova Scotia (New Scotland).

Yes, that really offended me.

Wulfhere
05-08-2011, 11:42 AM
Scotland and Northern Ireland are huge millstones around our necks. We should jettison them immediately, whether they want to go or not. Then we should expel all their nationals. And then we should veto their membership of the EU, just to drive home the point that they are simply trying to exchange one gravy train for another.

Loki
05-08-2011, 11:48 AM
Would Scotland survive economically on its own, without English subsidy? At the very least free education for Scot students will have to go.

The Lawspeaker
05-08-2011, 11:50 AM
I am against Scotland's independence but I think that the entire Union should be reformed. "Whitehall" should be nothing but a federal parliament for matters that concern the United Kingdom as a whole (defence, foreign policies, mediation, a high court) and the rest should become part of the constituent countries. All the existing traditions that are in use in Whitehall now could be taken over by an English parliament and preserved.

When it comes to the Bank of England-- that could be placed under English parliamentary control whereas the Scots and the Welsh get their own national banks and together with the English they can create what would effectively be a Stirling Zone: the Pound Sterling will have a Scots Pound, an English Pound and a Welsh Pound and all currencies can be used in the other constituent country in the same way as I can use my German Euro's or Italian Euro's to pay here.

Ulster should be gotten rid off, united with Ireland for all I care while the Union should make the symbolic gesture of adding some seats to the new Whitehall where Ireland can take it's place if it would choose so.

But that's just my two pence.

Wulfhere
05-08-2011, 11:52 AM
Would Scotland survive economically on its own, without English subsidy? At the very least free education for Scot students will have to go.

As Alex Salmond said a few years ago, it would become part of the "Arc of Prosperity", which also includes Iceland and Ireland. :D

Albion
05-08-2011, 12:03 PM
Would Scotland survive economically on its own, without English subsidy? At the very least free education for Scot students will have to go.

Who cares. I'm English and want what's best for England, Scotland can go it alone.
And yes, they'd do fine, at the worst they'd be a new Portugal and at the best a new Norway.
Money isn't everything and with a declining economy the cost of living would come down to more appropriate levels whilst exports go up and expat Scots in England would have a lot of money to return back to Scotland with.


Scotland and Northern Ireland are huge millstones around our necks. We should jettison them immediately, whether they want to go or not.

Agreed. No one ever asks the English how they feel about it.


Then we should expel all their nationals.

What!? Now you've lost me, we can't possibly do that since there's so many settled here and the English, Scots and Irish are so inter-related. I don't see what the problem would be with Scots and Irish in an independent England so long as they respected our culture and didn't run for prime minister (Lol).


And then we should veto their membership of the EU, just to drive home the point that they are simply trying to exchange one gravy train for another.

No, leave it to them to decide. Vetoing Scotland's admission whilst we were a member and for no good reason would destroy a lot of international credibility and give anti-English Scots another reason to hate us.

Really, once Scotland is gone we should look out for them and watch their back but there's a line that has to be drawn and across it is manipulation and puppetry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puppet_state). Don't cross it.

Albion
05-08-2011, 12:07 PM
As Alex Salmond said a few years ago, it would become part of the "Arc of Prosperity", which also includes Iceland and Ireland.

Hahaha, oh yeah! I remember that!


I am against Scotland's independence but I think that the entire Union should be reformed. "Whitehall" should be nothing but a federal parliament for matters that concern the United Kingdom as a whole (defence, foreign policies, mediation, a high court) and the rest should become part of the constituent countries. All the existing traditions that are in use in Whitehall now could be taken over by an English parliament and preserved.

When it comes to the Bank of England-- that could be placed under English parliamentary control whereas the Scots and the Welsh get their own national banks and together with the English they can create what would effectively be a Stirling Zone: the Pound Sterling will have a Scots Pound, an English Pound and a Welsh Pound and all currencies can be used in the other constituent country in the same way as I can use my German Euro's or Italian Euro's to pay here.

Ulster should be gotten rid off, united with Ireland for all I care while the Union should make the symbolic gesture of adding some seats to the new Whitehall where Ireland can take it's place if it would choose so.

But that's just my two pence.

Too late. That should have been done years ago instead of a rag-tag union with varying degrees of autonomy and representation for each nation.

The Lawspeaker
05-08-2011, 12:11 PM
Well.. it's still better then full-blown independence for four or five countries (six if Cornwall would go alone as well) on two small islands. What would happen ? Real loss of sovereignty and eternal squabbling. Borders running across a very small island. The concept is ridiculous in itself.

http://www.uk.filo.pl/uk_colour_map.gif

That's where I can't understand a lot of nationalists. "National sovereignty !" Like they would get some in the case of "independence" because with weaker countries going it alone it won't take long before Brussels or the Americans move in and divide the spoils... It's better to work together on several fields and go alone where it is not needed.

Albion
05-08-2011, 12:28 PM
Well.. it's still better then full-blown independence for four or five countries (six if Cornwall would go alone as well) on two small islands. What would happen ? Real loss of sovereignty and eternal squabbling. Borders running across a very small island. The concept is ridiculous in itself.

http://www.uk.filo.pl/uk_colour_map.gif

That's where I can't understand a lot of nationalists. "National sovereignty !" Like they would get some in the case of "independence"... It's better to work together on several fields and go alone where it is not needed.

I've thought of that myself before, I proposed joining Cornwall to Wales in a federation and IOM to Scotland with NI going to Ireland and the Channel Islands to England. That way there'd only be the traditional four main nations of the Isles.

However I've also said before that Cornwall and Wales probably wouldn't go it alone, and besides they don't really hold us back in the same way as Scotland and NI and I wouldn't personally mind England and Wales (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England_and_Wales) remaining in a union as they used to be, but this time with Cornwall represented.
Each nation could have an assembly with the English one being based at Buckingham Palace, the queen go go elsewhere.

Or a federation of the Isles would have been a better idea, but with Ireland and Scotland that just won't work and the Irish nationalists would go berserk.

Zephyr
05-08-2011, 12:36 PM
Independence referendum? so again english people are deprived from voting on their own matters.

I think the referendum should be UK-wise. It would have greater chances of success. Foreigners are a bit wrong when they still think the people of England have Scotland under arrest. It's the other way around.

This union starts with a scottish king (James VI) taking the english crown as James I, am I right? so...

Wyn
05-08-2011, 01:38 PM
To call Northern Ireland "Ulster" is no worse that the Republic of Ireland calling itself "Ireland".

I was going to say "I agree," but then I realised how stupid that would be. Assuming you and I share the same definition of the word 'worse,' the N. Ireland/Ulster situation is actually quite a bit 'worse.'

For one thing, the Republic of Ireland contains more of Ireland than Northern Ireland does Ulster (RoI: c. 4/5 of Ireland, N. Ireland: c. 1/2 of Ulster). So, in the most literal analysis, referring to N. Ireland as 'Ulster' is, in fact, worse.

Secondly, for most of its history, the RoI did claim the six counties currently under British jurisdiction. Explicitly so in Article 2 and Article 3 of the Constitution of Ireland, in which the whole island is referred to as 'national territory.' This was only amended in 1999 in line with the Belfast Agreement following a referendum.

Thus, for most of its history, when the RoI called itself Ireland it was simply acting in accordance with constitutional claims. On the other hand, to my knowledge, the Government of Northern Ireland never called itself the Government of Ulster and never claimed the remaining half of Ulster not within its jurisdiction.

So, overall, I think any objective person would agree that calling N. Ireland 'Ulster' is, in multiple ways, worse than the RoI calling itself 'Ireland.'


We should jettison them immediately, whether they want to go or not.

Quite illegal. (http://www.nio.gov.uk/agreement.pdf)


1. (1) It is hereby declared that Northern Ireland in its entirety remains
part of the United Kingdom and shall not cease to be so without the
consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland voting in a poll
held for the purposes of this section in accordance with Schedule 1.

Comte Arnau
05-08-2011, 03:27 PM
That's where I can't understand a lot of nationalists. "National sovereignty !" Like they would get some in the case of "independence" because with weaker countries going it alone it won't take long before Brussels or the Americans move in and divide the spoils... It's better to work together on several fields and go alone where it is not needed.

You only live with your brother when both of you need to share a flat. But every worthy individual aspires to


Catalonia, has always existed under other names, what a shame that Catalonia existed under Aragón...right ? :(

Catalonia only exists since 1978, don't you know that yet? The thousands of written texts about Catalonia and the Catalans from 1117 until today have to be fake. Experts in the Generalitat creating fake medieval documents every day...

Barreldriver
05-08-2011, 03:29 PM
We should make them take Northern Ireland too. It's a lot closer to Scotland, and the Protestants there are of Scottish descent. Why should we be lumbered with it?

I thought some of the Protestants were also of English descent as well as Scottish?

Ibericus
05-08-2011, 03:32 PM
Catalonia only exists since 1978, don't you know that yet? The thousands of written texts about Catalonia and the Catalans from 1117 until today have to be fake. Experts in the Generalitat creating fake medieval documents every day...
Of course the name Catalonia existed already in the 1117, but never as a political sovereign entitiy.

Albion
05-08-2011, 03:39 PM
I thought some of the Protestants were also of English descent as well as Scottish?

That's correct, its just that the Scottish were predominant.

Barreldriver
05-08-2011, 03:42 PM
[FONT="Georgia"]Well.. it's still better then full-blown independence for four or five countries (six if Cornwall would go alone as well) on two small islands. What would happen ? Real loss of sovereignty and eternal squabbling. Borders running across a very small island. The concept is ridiculous in itself.

Seems like it would reciprocate the aftermath of when Rome pulled out and the Anglo-Saxon feudal kingdoms. :p

Next thing we'll hear about in the news is "Irish raiders crossing the sea pillaging Western England", "Hadrians Wall refortified with nukes!" "The Northern counties break away and reform the Northumbrian kingdom" "Oh noez! Danish Absalon class ships spotted in the Humber estuary!". :D

Comte Arnau
05-08-2011, 03:50 PM
Of course the name Catalonia existed already in the 1117, but never as a political sovereign entitiy.

This depends on what you consider a political sovereign entity. Applying the modern concept of state to political entities before the 18th century is a bit ridiculous. Before the term Crown of Aragon began to be officially used in the 14th century, the common expression was Aragonum et Cathaloniae.

Catalonia with the name of Catalonia, btw, was independent for a short span of time in 1641, so there is a precedent.

Wulfhere
05-08-2011, 04:49 PM
I thought some of the Protestants were also of English descent as well as Scottish?

They're called Scotch-Irish.

Murphy
05-08-2011, 05:21 PM
Scots built the British Empire, for good or ill. Scots built the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Scots invented much of the modern world. Scots are different from the rest of the United Kingdom as we have proved at election after election. And Scots can manage our own affairs, using the resources that God gave this wonderful, wild country.

And Irishmen bled for it..

The Lawspeaker
05-08-2011, 05:30 PM
And Irishmen bled for it..
The cynic would say: everyone made it's contribution...

Comte Arnau
05-10-2011, 01:23 PM
The Catalan Secret of Salmond's Success

Source: The Financial Times

http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/4778/scotcat.jpg

It would be premature to tear up the map of the United Kingdom. After the nationalists’ storming of the Edinburgh parliament it would be just as unwise to assume the future of Scotland’s 300-year-old union with England is secure.

The election victory of Alex Salmond’s Scottish Nationalist Party was the latest chapter in the story of a remarkable rise. Mr Salmond, once stranded on the political fringe, has turned the SNP into the party of the Scottish establishment. Nationalism is now as fashionable among business leaders, entrepreneurs and well-heeled professionals as it has always been attractive to those Scots who nurse history’s grudges.

The SNP’s success rests on the offer of independence without secession – the luxury of self-rule without the consequences of separation. The Scots, Mr Salmond’s persuasive patter intimates, can run their affairs without jeopardising the benefits that flow from the union.

A lesser politician would have tripped over the contradictions long ago. But Mr Salmond is a big beast in a British political landscape where sightings of such creatures are distinctly rare. He has intelligence, wit and an easy way with words.

He has also had a role model in Jordi Pujol, the father of Catalan nationalism and the master of its ambiguity. Mr Pujol governed for 23 years as Catalonia’s leader after the establishment of its parliament in 1980. His formula was a demand for independence that always avoided a complete rupture with Madrid.

Mr Salmond has been a diligent pupil. As head of a minority SNP government, he allowed the separation issue to drift into the political subconscious. Self-rule was Scotland’s destiny, but its genial first minister would not force the pace.

The break-up of the union was scarcely mentioned during the latest campaign. Instead, the SNP manifesto coupled a promise to wrench more economic powers from the Westminster parliament with the traditional array of (dubious) pledges to transform public services.

The scale of Mr Salmond’s success can be measured against the intent of Tony Blair’s government when it set up the parliament in 1999. The design elevated one aim above all others: a complex electoral system would guarantee that nationalists could never secure a majority.

That is precisely what the SNP has now done in winning 69 of the 129 seats. Mr Salmond’s marriage of strategic insight to everyman charm has taken the SNP from angry opposition to political hegemony within the space of a decade.

Success brings its own dilemmas. Mr Salmond has long played the role of underdog against the collective might of pro-union Labour, Tories and Liberal Democrats. You could say the voters have called his bluff. A SNP majority has upturned the careful equilibrium that postponed any decision on separation.

Mr Pujol held the threat of a plebiscite as a gun to the head of the Spanish government. Mr Salmond is now committed to pulling the trigger. Oddly enough, that may well reduce his leverage with David Cameron’s government in London. The SNP leader has seen the danger and postponed the referendum until the end of his new five-year term. Between now and then, he wants to win from Mr Cameron more control over taxation and borrowing.

It should be said that some in England would happily wave goodbye to the union. An enduring myth has it that Scotland’s only contribution has been to suck subsidy from its richer neighbour. In the mindset of little England, the European Union has done the same. Why not leave Europe and watch Scotland depart at the same time?

Unionists north and south of the border console themselves with polling evidence that says while Scots are happy to put nationalists into office in Edinburgh, more than two-thirds oppose separation. A referendum would thus deflate the nationalist bubble.

Maybe. The SNP will find governing with a majority harder than it imagined. The nationalists have lost the excuse of a powerful opposition to duck decisions. Mr Salmond’s expansive and expensive campaign pledges on public services sit uneasily with a period of unavoidable fiscal austerity.

Complacency, though, would be foolish. It misses a fundamental change in the nature of Scottish nationalism. Mr Salmond has replaced the politics of anti-English grievance with an electoral pitch that, by and large, substitutes opportunity for resentment.

Scotland has already grown accustomed to making its own choices on health, education and welfare. Its economy is recovering. Sure, the banks fell victim to the crash, but the rest of its financial services industry is thriving.

The SNP is also blessed by its opponents. Labour looks to be a party trapped in the past. The Tories have been largely irrelevant north of the border since Margaret Thatcher’s day. The Liberal Democrats now wear the millstone of Nick Clegg’s coalition deal with Mr Cameron.

Mr Salmond has thus found admirers on right and left, among affluent professionals in Edinburgh and the working classes of Glasgow as well as the rural communities of the Highlands. He presents himself as a chum of the Windsors, and promises to keep the Queen as head of state after independence.

He would probably lose a referendum tomorrow; but if the blame for austerity can be hung around England’s neck, who knows what might happen in 2015? Mr Salmond is a politician who changes the weather. There are not many of those about.

poiuytrewq0987
06-21-2011, 02:07 AM
Are they going to hold a referendum on independence anytime soon or what? :coffee:

Albion
06-21-2011, 09:10 AM
Are they going to hold a referendum on independence anytime soon or what? :coffee:

No, they're full of shit.

Graham
06-21-2011, 01:19 PM
Are they going to hold a referendum on independence anytime soon or what? :coffee:
It was always said that the referendum was going to take place in the second half of the five-year term of the SNP.

The economy comes first. It's said that 50,000 public sector jobs are to go by 2015. 80,000 fewer jobs in the sector than in 2008. 100 000 private sector jobs are to come in over the same period of time. Unemployment is lower in Scotland than in England just now, things are looking brighter

It's all about timing. The ryder cup, commonwealth games and the 700 year battle of bannockburn anniversary takes place in 2014. We should have the vote then.

gandalf
06-21-2011, 01:41 PM
" The problem with Scotland is that it is full of Scots " ...

Where does it come from ?

Graham
06-21-2011, 01:43 PM
" The problem with Scotland is that it is full of Scots " ...

Where does it come from ?

Braveheart :D lol, the battle of bannockburn was the part at the very end with Robert the Bruce.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bannockburn

supergiovane
06-21-2011, 02:15 PM
what does the constitutional law say?

Albion
06-23-2011, 10:00 AM
what does the constitutional law say?

We don't have a written constitution, England did have the Magna Carta but with the Act of Union no written constitution for the UK was ever created. Instead the constitution is made up of a lot of old laws and acts, many of which have been forgotten.

But I saw Cameron on TV yesterday, he said that he's against Scottish independence when the question of a referendum there came up, but he subtly said that Westminister wouldn't stand in the way of a Scottish vote for independence in similar words to them.

Graham
09-04-2011, 12:42 AM
Scots Tory seeks split with London in party revival

Published Date: 04 September 2011
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/news/Scots-Tory-seeks-split-with.6830547.jp?articlepage=2
By Tom Peterkin
Scottish Political Editor

TORY leadership favourite Murdo Fraser is to launch a bid to scrap the current Scottish Conservative party and transform it into a distinct Scottish identity that is free from London control.


The contest for the party leadership is to take a dramatic twist tomorrow with Fraser seeking a mandate to replace the party north of the Border with an alternative bearing a new name in the hope that a radical new approach will attract new members and voters.

Fraser, currently deputy leader, believes that the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party brand is now so toxic that it cannot be revived in its current form and will argue that the best way to fight the SNP is to rebrand it as a new progressive tax-lowering party that is separate from David Cameron's Westminster Tories.

When he launches his leadership campaign, Fraser will ask Scottish Conservative members to vote for him on the understanding that he will engineer a split from Cameron and take members with him to form a "new" centre-right party. It is a bold gamble that he hopes will change the political landscape in Scotland after years of Conservative decline, but it also risks dividing the party in London and Scotland.

Traditionalists such as the Defence Secretary Liam Fox believe that a united party north and south of the Border is the best way to defend the Union from the SNP threat.

Fraser, however, has already secured the support of leading Scottish Tory MSPs like Liz Smith, former presiding officer Alex Fergusson, Alex Johnstone, Gavin Brown and the MEP Struan Stevenson.

Fraser believes that a purely Scottish centre right party will attract new supporters from the business community and voters. His vision is for a party that embraces devolution and decentralisation and he will argue that the best way of securing the Union is by creating a party that is comfortable with transferring more powers to the Scottish Parliament - short of full fiscal freedom.

His plan has been discussed with senior London Conservatives, close to Cameron, who are sympathetic to the idea that something truly radical has to be done to break the centre-left consensus that has seen the SNP and Labour dominate Scottish politics.

Tomorrow, Fraser will say: "If I am elected as leader of the party, I will turn it into a new and stronger party for Scotland. A new party. A winning party with new supporters from all walks of life.

"A new belief in devolution. A new approach to policy-making. A new name. But most importantly, a new positive message about the benefits of staying in and strengthening our United Kingdom. A new party. A new Unionism. A new dawn."


Although it will regard itself as an autonomous Scottish party, it will form an alliance with the Conservative Party for Westminster elections that will see Scottish MPs sit on the Tory benches.

Membership of Fraser's party would not prevent his MPs from becoming ministers in a Conservative administration.

If Fraser wins the contest, the UK Conservative Party will cease organising north of the Border to give the new party a chance to establish itself.

To succeed he must defeat the more traditionalist candidate Jackson Carlaw, who last week indicated that he would take a different approach to devolution, claiming that supporters of transferring more powers to Edinburgh were "appeasing" nationalism.

Also waiting in the wings is Ruth Davidson, the 32-year-old new MSP, who is also expected to launch her campaign tomorrow and who is thought to be Cameron's favoured choice.

Last night, Davidson had a dig at Fraser saying: "We need a leader who won't run away from the Union or gamble its future on risky theories like fiscal autonomy or federalism. A leader who can be a winner and who can grasp this chance to unite us - one Scottish leader for all the party. Someone who is Scottish, Conservative and Unionist."

If Fraser wins the most support from the Scottish Conservatives' 10,000-strong membership, he believes that he can attract new voters and funders to the new party. Independence from London will give the party the freedom to create its own policy platform.

Unlike the current arrangement, the Scottish party will have its own policies on areas that are currently reserved to Westminster.

One area being looked at by Fraser is Scotland's membership of the Common Fisheries Policy, which he believes has been disastrous for the Scottish fishing industry.

Under his plans, the Tories would fight under the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party banner for the last time at next year's local elections.

The new party would be in place to fight the General Election in 2015 and the Scottish Election the following year.

Assuming Fraser wins the leadership contest, the name will be chosen by consultation with members. The only name that has been ruled out is "The Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party".

Arrow Cross
09-04-2011, 03:28 AM
A step in the right direction, but do you think this will bring any substantial change?

"Centre-right" kosher konservatives in modern Europe stem from the same political roots as "social democratic" and "liberal" blight-spreaders. The difference is only in name, so that the sheeple will get to think they're actually "choosing".

Fortis in Arduis
09-04-2011, 03:45 AM
A step in the right direction, but do you think this will bring any substantial change?

"Centre-right" kosher konservatives in modern Europe stem from the same political roots as "social democratic" and "liberal" blight-spreaders. The difference is only in name, so that the sheeple will get to think they're actually "choosing".

Hmm, not quite in this case, and certainly not in the case of Murdo Fraser.

Yes, they fall short of the ideal, but they have always been more right-wing and nationalistic than the English Tories.

No wonder they are choosing to split from the Westminster Cameroons - the weakest, wettest Tory party EVA. :coffee:

Graham
09-04-2011, 12:17 PM
We used to have the Unionist Party between 1910 and 1965, seperate from the Conservatives.

They were then renamed 'Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party and came under the control of the British party( Conservatives) in 1965. Losing some of the Scottishness and the vote to go.

The unionists were a bigger success than maggie thatcher and co. It's the only way to go for them.

People here say the Scots are more conservative but without the capital C. :P

Fortis in Arduis
09-04-2011, 06:12 PM
We used to have the Unionist Party between 1910 and 1965, seperate from the Conservatives.

They were then renamed 'Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party and came under the control of the British party( Conservatives) in 1965. Losing some of the Scottishness and the vote to go.

The unionists were a bigger success than maggie thatcher and co. It's the only way to go for them.

People here say the Scots are more conservative but without the capital C. :P

One small problem though.

Allow me to illustrate:

I have it on good authority that a Zombie Film is being made in Scotland.

The chosen location was Glasgow, parts of which are to be transformed into Philadelphia.

However, the real reason Glasgow was chosen is that there are so many potential extras there who would require so little make-up...

Hi Trog. xxx :eyes

Argyll
09-22-2011, 04:42 PM
Source (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2009/apr/16/jim-murphy-scotland-independence)

Culturally, it has gradually become almost weak. I don't know quite a lot about it's economics that much, save that it has bunches of oil.

Tarja
09-22-2011, 04:45 PM
I'll certainly be voting "no" when it comes to the independence referendum.

Graham
09-22-2011, 06:02 PM
Jim Murphy cares about saving his cushty and well paid job in london. Where he can make money flipping a second home.

The north Brit politicians and lords, only care for their salaries in London being saved.

Anyway this was from a few years back. We have a new numpty secretary of state. Who wonder's about hopelessly with nothing to do.

Argyll
09-22-2011, 07:49 PM
Scottish Independence! :D

Magister Eckhart
09-22-2011, 09:51 PM
If the majority of Scots really oppose independence, then they don't deserve their own nation.

Toute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle mérite.

Graham
09-22-2011, 10:02 PM
If the majority of Scots really oppose independence, then they don't deserve their own nation.

Toute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle mérite.

Most Scots just want to better themselves if in Britain or not. I can guarantee you it won't be a majority either way.

Magister Eckhart
09-22-2011, 10:06 PM
Most Scots just want to better themselves if in Britain or not. I can guarantee you it won't be a majority either way.

I have a romantic attachment to Scottish independence, my chief concern is that an independent Scotland won't be Scotland, but Pakiland.

Wulfhere
09-22-2011, 10:08 PM
Maybe there should be a referendum amongst the English to see if they want to jettison Scotland. The outcome would probably be a very close-run thing, but getting increasingly in favour of doing so all the time. With Northern Ireland, however, there would obviously be a huge, overwhelming majority who want to get rid of it.

Magister Eckhart
09-22-2011, 10:10 PM
Maybe there should be a referendum amongst the English to see if they want to jettison Scotland. The outcome would probably be a very close-run thing, but getting increasingly in favour of doing so all the time. With Northern Ireland, however, there would obviously be a huge, overwhelming majority who want to get rid of it.

I think there should be a referendum to see if England wants to jettison Mercia.

Wulfhere
09-22-2011, 10:12 PM
I think there should be a referendum to see if England wants to jettison Mercia.

Bring it on.

Albion
09-22-2011, 10:15 PM
Aww, not this shit again. God, I'am so fed up of endless articles about bloody Scotland and it's independence. I just don't care any more, I just don't care!

I wish they'd just make up their mind already instead of constantly talking about it, the discussions are the worst part. If I was a Scot I'd feel like my head was about to exploded.

Natter, natter, natter.


I'll certainly be voting "no" when it comes to the independence referendum.

How come?

Wulfhere
09-22-2011, 10:19 PM
Will the English get back the massive bribes they paid to the members of the Scottish parliament to vote for annexation in 1707? With interest, of course. I think we should - after all, we bought it, fair and square.

Graham
09-22-2011, 10:20 PM
I have a romantic attachment to Scottish independence, my chief concern is that an independent Scotland won't be Scotland, but Pakiland.


Can it get any worse than under the Uk's immigration control?

They give refugees houses worth a million pounds. Murderers and potential terrorists can stay here. Tory/Labour in charge until I die.

Rule fucking Britannia!

How do you top that?

Wulfhere
09-22-2011, 10:22 PM
Can it get any worse than under the Uk's immigration control?

They give refugees houses worth a million pounds. Murderers and potential terrorists can stay here. Tory/Labour in charge until I die.

Rule fucking Britania!

How do you top that?

An independent Scotland would have a permanent left-wing government. It would also go a long way to prevent any such future governments in England.

Magister Eckhart
09-22-2011, 10:22 PM
Can it get any worse than under the Uk's immigration control?

They give refugees houses worth a million pounds. Murderers and potential terrorists can stay here. Tory/Labour in charge until I die.

Rule fucking Britania!

How do you top that?

Is the SNP any better, though? What's worse, England ruining Scotland or Scotland ruining Scotland?

Albion
09-22-2011, 10:23 PM
Can it get any worse than under the Uk's immigration control?

They give refugees houses worth a million pounds. Murderers and potential terrorists can stay here. Tory/Labour in charge until I die.

Rule fucking Britania!

How do you top that?

Rule Zimbabwe. It can't be much worse. ;)

Troll's Puzzle
09-22-2011, 10:25 PM
Can it get any worse than under the Uk's immigration control?

They give refugees houses worth a million pounds. Murderers and potential terrorists can stay here. Tory/Labour in charge until I die.

Rule fucking Britannia!

the thing i'd be concerned about, is that currently the majority of immigrants go to England, especially the south, while if Scotland was independant the new Scottish rulers could and would start bringing them there direct. the SNP (they should drop the 'n', and the 's' come to think of it) already say they want to encourage immigration (just not of English people I guess :rolleyes:)

on the other hand, becoming 'independant' might help actual nationalists gain significant ground in England, so...

Albion
09-22-2011, 10:26 PM
An independent Scotland would have a permanent left-wing government. It would also go a long way to prevent any such future governments in England.

I sense a Labour debate... :D


What's worse, England ruining Scotland or Scotland ruining Scotland?

Scotland enables Liebour to gain power, if it wasn't for Scotland then Liebour's support in Northern England and Wales probably wouldn't be enough to form a government.
Hence everything is their fault.

There, I said it. :D ;)

Albion
09-22-2011, 10:29 PM
[QUOTE=Graham;535436]Can it get any worse than under the Uk's immigration control?

They give refugees houses worth a million pounds. Murderers and potential terrorists can stay here. Tory/Labour in charge until I die.

Rule fucking Britannia!

the thing i'd be concerned about, is that currently the majority of immigrants go to England, especially the south, while if Scotland was independant the new Scottish rulers could and would start bringing them there direct. the SNP (they should drop the 'n', and the 's' come to think of it) already say they want to encourage immigration (just not of English people I guess :rolleyes:)

on the other hand, becoming 'independant' might help actual nationalists gain significant ground in England, so...

Agreed. Countries naturally attract immigrants, regions don't. That is why Scotland has so few.
The moment it gets independence though new immigrants will be queuing up, I suspect a lot of Scottish diaspora at first which wouldn't be bad, followed by the third world welfare leeches when they see Scotland's generous welfare system and left wing socialism.

The Scottish left would probably invite immigrants in anyway, there'd still be a nasty remnant of Liebour up there, ready to form a new party or a Scottish version of the old one.

Wulfhere
09-22-2011, 10:32 PM
They already call them "Scottish Asians" up there, rather than the more usual "British Asians" (no one ever calls them "English Asians" in England).

Graham
09-22-2011, 10:39 PM
Is the SNP any better, though? What's worse, England ruining Scotland or Scotland ruining Scotland?

Not really, but the SNP have changed from right to left in he past, they could change back.

The party might even break up after independence.


An independent Scotland would have a permanent left-wing government. It would also go a long way to prevent any such future governments in England.

Wulfhere can I have your magic crystal ball please.

The biggest majority in Scottish politcal history was won by a centre right party in 1955, 50.1% of the vote. The Scots just don't trust the Torys, that's all.

Differen't politics, a differen't scenario.

You do know that immigration is at an all time high, under this government.

People can speculate and try to predict what life will be like after independence(no one knows). But I can see what it's like in the UK now. Fantastic:rolleyes:

Wulfhere
09-22-2011, 10:52 PM
Not really, but the SNP have changed from right to left in he past, they could change back.

The party might even break up after independence.



Wulfhere can I have your magic crystal ball please.

The biggest majority in Scottish politcal history was won by a centre right party in 1955, 50.1% of the vote. The Scots just don't trust the Torys, that's all.

Differen't politics, a differen't scenario.

You do know that immigration is at an all time high, under this government.

People can speculate and try to predict what life will be like after independence(no one knows). But I can see what it's like in the UK now. Fantastic:rolleyes:

One can always indulge in wishful thinking, of course.

Aemma
11-15-2011, 06:44 PM
Vote on separation would require 'single, clear and unambiguous' question, by Randy Boswell, The Ottawa Citizen, November 15, 2011


The British government appears set to embrace the model of Canada's Clarity Act to prevent Scotland's separatist government from seeking independence within the next few years through a murky referendum question.

A flurry of British media reports over the weekend indicated that Westminster officials are now planning to introduce measures through a broader bill on Scottish governance that would require "a single, clear and unambiguous" question in any referendum aimed at splitting Scotland--which encompasses the northern third of the island of Great Britain and about 5.2 million of 62 million British subjects--from the rest of the kingdom.

The issue has moved to the forefront of British politics this year following a decisive, majority election vistory in May for the pro-independence Scottish National Party, led by First Minister Alex Salmond.

He has suggested that Scotland--which has its own legislature in Edinburgh and extensive control over cultural affairs and several other areas of governance--could hold a referendum by 2014.

But opponents of Scottish separation fear that the relatively complex question the SNP is planning to ask in the vote--laying out the options of outright independence, no change, or significantly enhanced powers for Scotland, minus foreign affairs and defence--could lead to widespread confusion and a constitutional crisi in the referendum's aftermath.

Those concerns have reportedly led to new moves by Britain's Conservative-led coalition government to explore the creation of a British version of the Clarity Act to compel a cut-and-dried choice among Scottish citizens about whether to remain part of the British nation or to go it alone.

Continued:


The Independent newspaper reported that "Conservative ministers at Westminster want to stop" Salmond from steering "every part of the referendum process to suit himself. As a result, plans have been discussed for a 'Clarity Act'...modelled on a Canadian law of the same name (to) force the Scottish Nationalists to put just one simple question to the Scottish people."

Opposition politicans are publicly backing the apparent push by British Prime Minister David Cameron's government to assert more control over how any referendum on Scottish independence is conducted.

"The UK government should implement a Clarity Act to establish the minimum levels of clarity to proceedings," Scottish Labour leader contender Tom Harris told The Scotsman newspaper. "The Scottish government has a mandate but it is for a specific question on independence. It has to be fair and transparent, with oversight from the Electoral Commission."

The issues confronting Britain have a familiar ring to Québec MP Stéphane Dion, the former federal Liberal leader who served as Jean Chrétien's minister for intergovernmental affairs and pointman in drafting and championing the Clarity Act in 2000--a direct response to Canada's close brush with Québec independence in the 1995 referendum.

The Clarity Act was created with guidance from a Supreme Court of Canada ruling that upheld the federal government's right to demand--before entering separation negotiations--a clear question in any referendum that could lead to the dismantling of the country.

"I'm well aware that the Clarity Act and the Supreme Court reference on secession are well known around the world," Dion told Postmedia News on Monday, adding that the Canadian legislation is seen as a "civilised way and a fair way to deal with these kinds of difficult issues."

Dion said the Clarity Act has become an influential model in separation debates in Montenegro, Spain and elsewhere. He said he has been consulted in the past by both sides in the Scottish independence debate.

Without commenting on the British situation, Dion said a shared certainty about the implications of any referendum result is crucial "with something as huge as the breakup of a country."

Graham
11-15-2011, 07:04 PM
The most popular choice for Scots is fiscal Autonomy/devolution max. The Torys don't want this either.

The Torys will go to any length to try and influence the referendum, through the house of Lords or whatever. Usually led by that rat Lord Forsyth.

Same old torys. They'll never ever have any success here ever again.

Duckelf
11-16-2011, 05:32 PM
This thread was badly named. This won't be happening since a 32 year old pro-Cameron lesbian has been elected leader of the Scottish Tories instead of Murdo Fraser.

Graham
11-16-2011, 06:44 PM
....Who?

Davidson only got into Parliament, through the Glasgow regional list. She wasn't even top choice for the regional list. :rolleyes:

Cameron's mouth Piece.

So all you have to do, to be Scottish Tory leader, is to say "yes sir...no sir...three bags full sir.." to the London Torys

Murdo Fraser should stick his job and start a new party anyway.

European blood
11-19-2011, 08:12 PM
This thread was badly named. This won't be happening since a 32 year old pro-Cameron lesbian has been elected leader of the Scottish Tories instead of Murdo Fraser.

The new face of the Tories: Lesbian kickboxer, 32, elected as Scottish leader

A young Tory newcomer who was inspired by David Cameron to enter frontline politics has been elected leader of the party in Scotland.

Openly gay Ruth Davidson, 32, only took a seat at the Scottish Parliament at the Holyrood election in May, but has already become the first overall leader in a shake-up of the party north of the border.

She was immediately congratulated by Prime Minister David Cameron.

He said: 'I am delighted to congratulate Ruth on winning this leadership election and look forward to working with her to strengthen the Union and build a better future for Scotland.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2057899/Tories-elect-lesbian-kickboxer-32-new-Scottish-leader--MSP-May.html#ixzz1cvdo13xL

Graham
12-05-2011, 05:24 PM
Document reveals government wants to turn away from London if it wins referendum
Hamish MacDonnell
Edinburgh
Monday 05 December 2011

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bye-bye-england-snp-plans-closer-scandinavian-ties-after-independence-6272337.html

An independent Scotland would shift much of its attention away from the UK to become a member of the Scandinavian circle of countries, with its own army, navy and air force modelled on its Nordic neighbours, according to detailed plans being drawn up by the SNP.

Senior SNP strategists are compiling a "prospectus for independence" which they hope to use to sell the idea of separation to Scots ahead of the referendum in 2014 or 2015.

The document is not due to be published in full for another year but SNP insiders have disclosed key extracts.

They reveal that SNP leaders want an independent Scotland to look north and east in Europe for partnerships, trade and key defence relationships, rather than continuing to focus on western Europe and the Commonwealth, as the UK does now.

Senior Nationalists, including Alex Salmond, have made several trips to Scandinavia over the last couple of years, meeting ministers and officials in an attempt to pave the way for greater co-operation if Scotland becomes independent, particularly on energy. Indeed, initial plans have already been drawn up for an electricity super-grid between Scotland and Norway.

SNP strategists insist that Scotland would continue to be extremely close to the rest of the UK, which would remain its biggest trading partner, but they also believe that Scotland has more in common with its Scandinavian neighbours than the UK does and they are keen to take this relationship to a new level.

The Scandinavian approach is being driven by Angus Robertson, the SNP's defence and foreign affairs spokesman in Westminster. Mr Robertson said recently that Scotland's relationship with its Scandinavian neighbours had suffered because of a southern bias since the Act of Union in 1707.

He declared: "Our neighbours to the north and east have already made a good start and work constructively together. We need to join them and play our part. The UK has opted out of a serious approach. We should not."

As well as being used to sell the idea of an independent Scotland at home, the prospectus for independence will be the basis for negotiations with Westminster if the referendum is won. In those negotiations, Alex Salmond will demand 9 per cent (roughly Scotland's share of the UK population) of all UK assets, including defence hardware.

Under the plans being drawn up there would an independent Scottish navy based at Faslane – currently the base of the UK's Trident submarine fleet – and a Scottish air force based at Lossiemouth and Kinloss in Moray.

SNP strategists also expect an independent Scotland to be given the Royal Regiment of Scotland, whose five regular and two territorial battalions would form the backbone of a new independent army.

The Nationalists who are drawing up the prospectus have been told to make sure it is signed off before 2014, the earliest likely date for the referendum.

Scottish independence: how it would look

Trade

Closer co-operation with Sweden, Denmark and Norway on trade, energy grids and oil and gas exploration.

Defence

An independent Scottish navy based at Faslane. The Clyde facility would be transformed from its current role as the base of the UK's Trident submarine fleet to become the headquarters of the Scottish navy. The navy would be similar to those run by Norway and Denmark, with a small number of frigates, a few corvettes and patrol vessels and possibly a couple of submarines.

An independent Scottish air force based at Lossiemouth and Kinloss in Moray, centred on a squadron of Lockheed Orion P-3 maritime surveillance aircraft. These would have to be bought by the Scottish Government at a cost of £29m each.

An independent Scottish army. SNP strategists expect an independent Scotland to be given the Royal Regiment of Scotland by the Ministry of Defence. The regiment's five regular and two territorial battalions would form the new Scottish army.

Transport

The exploitation of new sea lanes from Asia over the top of Russia, which are being opened up because of global warming, and possibly establishing a major new container port in Fife to rival Rotterdam.

Argyll
12-08-2011, 03:53 PM
This is ridiculous to me. I don't see the merit in gaining closer ties to a country they have nigh next to nothing in common. I'm, unfortunately, starting to lose faith in the SNP. They are part of Britain, so why would they want to lessen contact and ties with the rest of the British countries?

Unurautare
12-08-2011, 03:58 PM
There is already a thread about this... http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=37756

Fortis in Arduis
12-08-2011, 06:13 PM
This is ridiculous to me. I don't see the merit in gaining closer ties to a country they have nigh next to nothing in common. I'm, unfortunately, starting to lose faith in the SNP. They are part of Britain, so why would they want to lessen contact and ties with the rest of the British countries?

Scots tend to be very left, very red, with almost clear class division in political affiliation.

There were some true Scot Nats, a long time ago, and they were distributist in nature; I remember writing about them as a student, but it's hard to glean the truth.

The SNP have sanitised their former far-right leanings from Wikipedia and the history books, but they were not always the soppy centre-left party that they are today. Before WWII, they were rather exciting, and flirted with fascism.

The best party for Scotland has always been the Conservative and Unionist Party, and with them setting up a party separate from the English Cons, the future looks good to me, but it all hangs on England really.

:shrug:

Graham
12-08-2011, 06:56 PM
Scots tend to be very left, very red, with almost clear class division in political affiliation.

Especially the Catholic vote, who have traditionally always voted Labour, that was until the last Election.



There were some true Scot Nats, a long time ago, and they were distributist in nature; I remember writing about them as a student, but it's hard to glean the truth.

The SNP have sanitised their former far-right leanings from Wikipedia and the history books, but they were not always the soppy centre-left party that they are today. Before WWII, they were rather exciting, and flirted with fascism.


The leader of the Scottish National Party from 1960 to 1969. Arthur Donaldson, was actually arrested for six weeks, because MI5 believed him to be a Nazi sympathiser in WW2. The SNP were also more anti-English back then.

Look up the '79 group' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/79_Group). SNP is more of a legacy on that group. It was found during the devolution referendum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_devolution_referendum,_1979) 1979, that the Working class were more likely to back devolution than the middle class. The SNP pushed more to the left in the 1980s.



The best party for Scotland has always been the Conservative and Unionist Party, and with them setting up a party separate from the English Cons, the future looks good to me, but it all hangs on England really.:shrug:

It's not happening. They voted against a split up. Bad move for them. It could put the final nail in the coffin for the UK.

Graham
12-08-2011, 07:48 PM
How Scandinavian is Scotland? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16050269)

8 December 2011 Last updated at 12:06

How Scandinavian is Scotland?
Comments (548)
By Jon Kelly BBC News Magazine
The Scottish government is exploring closer links with Nordic nations in the event of independence, reports have suggested. But just how similar is Scotland to its northern neighbours?

For anyone that found the first article interesting. Although it's the BBC.


Don't know if the mod's may want to merge the thread's. If they can't be arsed, I don't care either. :)

Argyll
12-11-2011, 01:43 AM
For anyone that found the first article interesting. Although it's the BBC.


Don't know if the mod's may want to merge the thread's. If they can't be arsed, I don't care either. :)

That professor in the article sounds like a rampant multiculturalist. He's trying to find any tiny way the Celtic Scots are similar to the Norse.

Graham
12-17-2011, 02:21 PM
17 December 2011 Last updated at 14:56 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-16217972

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/57388000/jpg/_57388833_johann_lamont.jpg
Johann Lamont named new Scottish Labour leader

MSP Johann Lamont has been elected as the new Scottish Labour leader, pledging to "make Labour Scotland's party once again".

The former Scottish minister warned supporters the party must reach out to people, rather than put its own interests first.

Ms Lamont replaces Iain Gray, who decided to quit the job after the SNP's landslide election victory in May.

Meanwhile, MP Anas Sarwar was elected as deputy Scottish Labour leader.

Ms Lamont, who had been seen as a frontrunner in the leadership contest, beat off competition from Eastwood MSP Ken Macintosh and Glasgow South MP Tom Harris.

The role of Scottish Labour leader has now been beefed up, meaning she takes charge of the whole of the party in Scotland.

Previously, the job was limited to leading the Labour MSP group at Holyrood, but the change now effectively distances the party north of the border from Westminster.

Delivering her victory speech in Edinburgh, Ms Lamont, the MSP for Glasgow Pollok, said: "I want to change Scotland, but the only we we can change Scotland is by changing the Scottish Labour Party."

The 54-year-old former teacher said "nothing would be off limits".
She added: "Our one test will be what is in the interest of the people of Scotland, not what's in the interest of ourselves."

"I will reach out to people across Scotland who maybe never thought of themselves to be Labour, maybe not even thought themselves to be political, who share our values, and I'll ask them to join our task.

"And we need to reach back into those communities who used to support us and win back the trust and reassure them that their faith in us will be repaid."
Ms Lamont told her colleagues the public perception of Scottish Labour had been one of "a tired old politics machine which was more about itself than it was about them".

"If anyone has ever deluded ourselves into thinking that Scotland was really a Labour country - last May must have finally shaken us out of that delusion," said the new leader.

She added: "The task now is to make Labour Scotland's party again."

Turning to the SNP government and its planned independence referendum in the second half of the current Scottish parliamentary term, Ms Lamont said: "They should get on with it. Waiting is holding Scotland back.

"They should get on with it - with one question - and let the people's voice be heard."

Mr Sarwar, who represents Glasgow Central, won the deputy leadership job over rivals Iain Davidson, also an MP, and MSP Lewis Macdonald.


http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/57388000/jpg/_57388406_anas_sarwar.jpg


He said: "This process of renewal is for one key purpose: to give the people of Scotland a Labour Party that they can trust, a Labour Party they can believe in, and a Labour Party that can win."

More than 300,000 people were asked to vote in the contest, including party and affiliated trade union members and other organisations.

Under Labour's electoral college system, votes are cast in three sections - one for MPs, MSPs and MEPs, one for party members and one for members of affiliated organisations.

Ms Lamont got 51% of the total vote, winning the biggest share of backers among parliamentarians, unions and affiliates.

But Mr Macintosh, who came second with 40%, got the biggest share of the vote among party members - 17%, compared to 12% for Ms Lamont.
Mr Harris got 7.9% of the total vote.



I don't think the SNP have much to fear. These are they type of numptys that will be defending the break-up of the UK in the near future.

Ken Macintosh was the Labour favourite, but Ed Miliband couldn't even remember his name.

Aces High
12-17-2011, 02:26 PM
Christ what a mauler....and i thought the English labour party had the monopoly un fugly women.

Graham
12-17-2011, 02:54 PM
Politicians in general aren't the best looking people on average.

Der Steinadler
12-17-2011, 03:00 PM
another unfuckable Merkel clone.

pity the man who has to go down on that.

Argyll
12-19-2011, 10:17 PM
Is it me, the picture quality, or does he look non-white?

Graham
01-23-2012, 07:43 PM
Prisoners to work nine to five at Scotland's newest jail
http://news.stv.tv/scotland/west-central/294738-prisoners-to-work-nine-to-five-at-scotlands-newest-jail/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill says Low Moss will ensure serious offenders are punished and tackle overcrowding.

23 January 2012 16:44 GMT
Comment

Kenny MacAskill: Building is designed to ensure 'tough new crackdowns'.

Prisoners at Scotland's newest jail will be expected to work eight hours a day and have power cut to cells in the daytime as part of a stringent rehabilitation regime.

HM Prison Low Moss in East Dunbartonshire is designed to provide accommodation for 700 prisoners while relieving overcrowding across the country's prisons.

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, on a visit to the jail, said: "Our priority for any prison is to punish serious offenders and keep the public safe.

"This new building, and the way it is designed, will allow prison management to impose tough new crackdowns on inmates, such as cutting the power to cells during the day and operating a 9-5 working week."

Low Moss prison, which is due to open in March, will also have a link centre to help prisoners deal with matters such as employment, housing, social work and addiction.

Mr MacAskill said the jail was consistent with the Scottish Government's commitment to reduce the number of short sentences being imposed, which has prompted opposition parties to accuse the SNP of "soft-touch justice".

He said: "In the case of many other prisons, staff have to deal with the constraints of outdated buildings and unsuitable facilities but at HMP Low Moss, the Prison Service has been able to build a prison which meets its needs, puts the necessary constraints on prisoners and provides the space for worthwhile rehabilitation training.

"Overcrowding does remain a problem across the whole prison estate, as it does in almost every other western democracy.

"It is not something we can simply build our way out of and it's, therefore, vital that we find better solutions for low-level criminals who pose low risk."

Scottish Labour justice spokesman Lewis Macdonald said the opening of the new prison would not solve "overcrowding problems overnight".

He added: "Kenny MacAskill has a brass neck heralding the opening of this new prison when it was his SNP Government that has massively delayed the project.

"Scotland's prisons are hugely overcrowded and too many prisoners currently spend their days staring idly at prison walls instead of engaged in meaningful work and rehabilitation."

Good news, could we do this for the rest please? :D

Aces High
01-23-2012, 08:12 PM
I was locked up in a parachute regiment prison for three months which is considered ten times worse than a normal army prison....which is considered ten times worse than a civilian prison.


(The parachute regiment dont really have a prison as such but they keep you locked in jail cells in the guardroom.)

The routine from what i remebr is.

0400. Up and clean the cell,hook the bed to the wall (its on a chain) and make a bed block with the two sheets and blanket (no cushionor mattress)
Sweep out the guardhosue and then shine the cell floor with boot polish.

0500. Dressed in boots,hairy mary shirt,parasmock and helmet with no lining....pick up bergan with wire straps (weighing about 30 lbs) and a long heavy white painted log and go for a five mile run with a couple of NCO's stopping for push ups,squats and crawl (depending on how cuntish the NCO's are.

0630. Wash and get your fork and mug and be marched quicktime over to the cookhouse to eat a baked bean sandwich and swig down a mug of tea marching on the spot and not sitting down.

0700. Bulling boots for the NCO,s on duty to look like mirrors or other such mindnumbing jobs.

0830. Running nearly everywhere they run you to the parade ground to spend a couple of hours picking up fag ends...leaves and small twigs and weeding the grass with your hands.....and indeed pianting the grass green at the corners where people take short cuts and sweeping up unwanted puddles.

1000. Stop for ten mintue tea break....even prisoners get a naafi break as there would be a mutiny otherwise.....then back to work.

1200. Over to cookhouse to gobble down a plate of chips and whatever else you can stuff in....marching on the spot double time.

1300. Straight out for a run again,another five miles with log,tin helmet etc wobbling about on your head and bergan with wire straps cutting into you.....smae routine but only faster and more excercises because someone might be watching the NCO's.

1430. Back and clean up the guard house and surrounding garden...wash windows with cold water and newspaper.....paint the cole white in the boiler house and clean up boiler house.....wash NCO's cars.....and then off tot eh MT paltoon to wash up oil patches and clean the land rovers.....and clean up after those fat slobs.

1700. Get cleaned up a bit and get over to cookhouse to get some scraps off the slopjockeys (in the British army you basically eat leftovers for tea......dont believe that shit in the recruiting posters)

1800. Gymnastics on the assualt course...be it wind rain or shine but without pack and log.

1930. Back and clean up...wash your clothes by hand and put on tracksuit and get ready to clean out the lecture theatre or gym or something.

1000. Back to jail and wait for inspection...if the senior NCO's is ok he lets you make your bed and within seconds you are asleep.

No gangs...rapes....fights...escape attampts....you are so fucking knackered.

Then repeat the day tomorrow...same shit just the length of the sentence differs.............im sure a bit of that would stop people re-offending.

Germanicus
01-26-2012, 09:37 PM
Alex Salmond's 'loaded' question for Scots on breaking away: 'Do you agree your country should be independent?'


Alex Salmond unveiled his plans for a referendum on Scottish independence yesterday – publishing a question which critics said was ‘loaded’ and designed to destroy the Union.
Scotland’s First Minister outlined a timetable which could see an end to the 300-year Union of England and Scotland by 2016.
But his plans immediately caused controversy since they appeared designed to subvert the usual democratic safeguards over referendums – or to spark a row with London which would also boost the Scottish National Party’s chances of a Yes vote.
Mr Salmond said Scottish voters would go to the polls in 2014 – the 700th anniversary of the Scottish victory over the English at the Battle of Bannockburn. They would be asked: ‘Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?’
He said he would allow 16 and 17 year olds to vote, a proposal that contravenes UK election law and is designed to boost support from pro-independence teenagers.
The SNP leader also said that if the Scottish public demands it, he is prepared to sanction a second question on the ballot paper on whether Scotland wants beefed up devolution, known as ‘devo max’.
Most controversially, Mr Salmond attempted to bypass the usual procedure for holding a referendum in which the Electoral Commission, which helps to run the vote, has to sanction the question as fair.
Mr Salmond made clear that he only regards the watchdog’s role as consultative rather than binding, allowing him alone to decide how the question is ultimately phrased.

He told Scottish MPs the question that would be put to voters would be ‘short, straightforward and clear’.
Mr Salmond said: ‘Independence, in essence, is based on a simple idea: the people who care most about Scotland, that is the people who live, work and bring up their families in Scotland, should be the ones taking the decisions about our nation’s future.’


But former Labour Chancellor Alistair Darling said: ‘The question is loaded. He is inviting people to endorse the separation of a successful independent nation. He is not asking if you want to remain part of the United Kingdom, which I would prefer.
‘It is asking for trouble and if he tries to push through unfair wording someone will go to court. It’s typical of Salmond who wants to call the shots on the rules, the conduct, the wording and ultimately what the result means.’
Ministers viewed the wording of the question as unfair and liable to encourage a Yes vote – speculating that Mr Salmond wants to pick a fight.
One Westminster source said: ‘This is all about Salmond turning around and saying: “Look at all those dreadful people in London trying to tell us what to do.”’
A Downing Street official added: ‘Alex Salmond doesn’t have the power to set out the question. These are his proposals and they will feed into our consultation. But he doesn’t have the power to legally set up a referendum.
‘The Electoral Commission should play their usual role in the referendum and that means scrutinising the question. They are officially part of the process. That is mentioned in our own consultation document.’ Scottish Secretary Michael Moore said the Government would block any bid to introduce a devo max question.


‘Any attempt to pass legislation for either an independence or devo max referendum would be outside the existing powers of the Scottish Parliament and liable to legal challenge,’ he said. ‘We have made it clear that we think the Scottish Government would lose such a challenge.’
Mr Salmond also faced ridicule yesterday after admitting that the Bank of England would have to bail out an independent Scotland if it got into financial trouble.
He conceded that the final say on financial policy would be left with the Bank, which would act as lender of last resort if an independent Scotland were to retain the pound.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2091300/Scottish-independence-referendum-Alex-Salmonds-loaded-question-breaking-away.html

European Loyalist
01-26-2012, 09:42 PM
Regarding the voting age, I saw a BBC report the other day asking some teens in a mall if they supported independence, some were for it, a few of them didn't seem to care, and one girl said she thought Scotland was already independent! :mmmm:

Graham
01-27-2012, 07:43 AM
Daily 'fucking' Mail. England's newspaper equivalent of Fox News. There's plenty of better right/centre papers out there. A newspaper for little Englanders.

Under Scots Law 16 and 17 year olds have more responsibilities. Not sure, maybe just leave it as it is and concentrate on getting high turn outs for every election.

European Loyalist
01-27-2012, 08:30 AM
Daily 'fucking' Mail. England's newspaper equivalent of Fox News. There's plenty of better right/centre papers out there. A newspaper for little Englanders.

Under Scots Law 16 and 17 year olds have more responsibilities. Not sure, maybe just leave it as it is and concentrate on getting high turn outs for every election.

The article is a joke. No sane person thinks it's a loaded question.

Anyway as for the youth I'm curious as to how supportive of independence and politically aware they are in general? The BBC report I saw seemed to portray support from that demographic as mixed.

Fortis in Arduis
01-27-2012, 08:43 AM
The article is a joke. No sane person thinks it's a loaded question.

Anyway as for the youth I'm curious as to how supportive of independence and politically aware they are in general? The BBC report I saw seemed to portray support from that demographic as mixed.

It is loaded.

Of course lots of Scots would like to be more independent, yet remain part of the Union.

It has to be made clear that they would lose that.

Graham
01-27-2012, 08:49 AM
The article is a joke. No sane person thinks it's a loaded question.

Anyway as for the youth I'm curious as to how supportive of independence and politically aware they are in general? The BBC report I saw seemed to portray support from that demographic as mixed.

BBC reports should be mixed. They have to be shown as unbiased, as it's public television.
From what I've read in polls, it's the working class, middle aged that are most likely to vote 'yes'.The older generation are more pro British. Apparently young people can be more nationalistic and may vote yes.
Labour and the Lib Dems are trying to get 16/17 years old's to vote in elections anyway.

'Do you agree or disagree that Scotland should be an independent country from the United Kingdom?'.To keep them happier. :p


Btw, I'm liking how sneaky the undemocratic House of Lords are acting. Look at these amendments to the Scotland Bill. The Unionist can't be trusted after what happened in 1979 with the devolution vote.
Scottish devolution referendum, 1979 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_devolution_referendum,_1979)



http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2010-2012/0079/amend/am079-o.htm

After Clause 14
THE EARL OF CAITHNESS
[As an amendment to the second amendment [After Clause 14] printed on sheet HL Bill 79(b) in substitution for the first amendment on sheet HL Bill 79(d)]

Line 8, at end insert—

“(2A) A referendum held under subsection (2) shall be advisory

(2B) If a referendum held under subsection (2) results in a “yes” vote, the Prime Minister shall cause a further referendum, with the same question, to be held throughout the United Kingdom.

(2C) The result of a referendum held under subsection (2B) shall be binding.”

[As an amendment to the second amendment [After Clause 14] printed on sheet HL Bill 79(b)]



Line 8, at end insert—

“(2D) A vote in a referendum held under subsection (2B) of this section which results in Scotland leaving the United Kingdom shall not be binding on the residents of the Orkney Islands or the Shetland Islands unless a majority of the residents of the Orkney Islands and the Shetland Islands who voted in such a referendum voted that Scotland should leave the United Kingdom.”

THE EARL OF CAITHNESS


Insert the following new Clause—

“Amendments to the Island of Rockall Act 1972

(1) The Rockall Act 1972 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 1, after first “shall” insert “for administrative purposes”.

(3) After section 1 insert—

“(1A) Rockall is owned by the United Kingdom and, in the event of Scotland leaving the United Kingdom, it shall be owned by the United Kingdom.”.”

Stars Down To Earth
01-27-2012, 09:09 AM
The BBC isn't exactly unbiased. It's actually not surprising how much crap they sneak past the radar, like all government-owned media outlets usually do. Unbiased public television, my arse.

That's why I often rely on more than one source for my news, so I can see something from many different biased perspectives. :tongue



Btw, I'm liking how sneaky the undemocratic House of Lords are acting. Look at these amendments to the Scotland Bill.
The House of Lords doesn't have reason to exist, even. It's just there for the fat-cats and former ministers who have been kicked upstairs. Giving someone a title like "Lord" or "Baroness" is basically a polite way of telling them to get the fuck out of everyday politics.

I'm not really for democracy (in the modern sense) at all, but even my ideal future society, there wouldn't be any worthless House of Lords.

Graham
01-27-2012, 09:20 AM
I can't believe I just said the BBC is unbiased. what an arsehole I am. Punches self in the face. :eusa_doh:

Germanicus
01-27-2012, 12:56 PM
The BBC isn't exactly unbiased. It's actually not surprising how much crap they sneak past the radar, like all government-owned media outlets usually do. Unbiased public television, my arse.

That's why I often rely on more than one source for my news, so I can see something from many different biased perspectives. :tongue


The House of Lords doesn't have reason to exist, even. It's just there for the fat-cats and former ministers who have been kicked upstairs. Giving someone a title like "Lord" or "Baroness" is basically a polite way of telling them to get the fuck out of everyday politics.

I'm not really for democracy (in the modern sense) at all, but even my ideal future society, there wouldn't be any worthless House of Lords.

Your post shows you have little understanding of how politics works in Westminster, if a bill fails in the house of Lords you will not get it to a vote in the house of commons, which shows that the house of Lords is not subject to lobbying ?

In the coming months i'm sure the 17 year old upcoming voter will be taking notice of the upcoming vote, and the consequence of an independant Scotland?

Germanicus
01-27-2012, 01:04 PM
I can't believe I just said the BBC is unbiased. what an arsehole I am. Punches self in the face. :eusa_doh:

Yes you did! i was quite surprised.:)

Stars Down To Earth
01-27-2012, 01:07 PM
Your post shows you have little understanding of how politics works in Westminster, if a bill fails in the house of Lords you will not get it to a vote in the house of commons
Indeed, making the occasional veto is all they can do. They're quite happy to exercise the little power they have - don't we all do that when we have power over others? :tongue But apart from that, the House of Lords is pretty worthless since almost all the real decisions are ever done in the House of Commons (where you're disqualified from having a seat if you have the title of "Lord", which is the point of giving away those titles to useless people. For example, Nick Clegg was appointed to "Lord President", which is polite code for "sweet fuck all.")

Germanicus
01-27-2012, 01:16 PM
. For example, Nick Clegg was appointed to "Lord President", which is polite code for "sweet fuck all.")

Yes indeed this is where you and i agree on something..he is a minnow in a shark tank.:thumb001:

Graham
01-28-2012, 08:01 AM
In the 1997 Scottish devolution referendum. The question on the paper....

'I agree that there should be a Scottish Parliament'
or
'I do not agree that there should be a Scottish Parliament'

Accepted by all, the Electoral Commission, press and the Unionist parties. Now, would it not be rather hypocritical, to call this similar SNP question loaded?

European Loyalist
01-29-2012, 08:16 PM
It is loaded.

Of course lots of Scots would like to be more independent, yet remain part of the Union.

It has to be made clear that they would lose that.

A loaded question means deceptive in some way or inaccurately describing implications. As wiki says "A loaded question is a question which contains a controversial assumption".

this is a loaded separation question: "Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?"

It doesn't get much clearer than "independent country".

Albion
01-30-2012, 02:48 PM
Alex Salmond has rejected suggestions that voters should be asked in the referendum on Scottish independence if they want to leave the United Kingdom.

The Scottish First Minister said introducing the UK into the question would "confuse the issue" because the country would retain the Queen as head of state after breaking the political union.

Some critics have argued that his preferred question - Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country? - is skewed in favour of securing a positive response.

But Mr Salmond insists it is clear and decisive, and is supported by people including electoral expert Matt Qvortrup of Cranfield University.

Talks between the governments in London and Edinburgh due to take place last week were postponed after Scottish Secretary Michael Moore caught chicken pox. There are several areas of controversy, including whether or not 16 and 17 year-old Scots should be able to vote. The SNP privately believe that giving these teenagers a vote could tip the result in their favour.

Mr Salmond responded to suggestions on the BBC's Andrew Marr Show that voters should be asked if they want to leave the UK instead.

The First Minister said: "It is SNP policy to have the Queen as our head of state.

"That union, that United Kingdom if you like, would be maintained after Scottish political independence.

"I think that's a real stumbling block about putting forward a question of the United Kingdom."

Asked if that meant Scotland could still be regarded as being in the UK after independence, Mr Salmond said: "I don't think it's a very good idea to confuse the issue by talking about united kingdoms when what we're talking about is political independence."

The Scottish and English crowns were united in 1603 by James VI of Scotland. Political union followed in 1707.

Source... (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/01/29/alex-salmond-says-uk-maintained-independence-queen_n_1239859.html)

For fuck sake Salmond! Tell them straight instead of trying to con your way into getting a larger vote!
I support the independence movement but this is just a smoke-screen to get some unionist Scots to vote for independence by tricking them into believing the union will be maintained.
(There are people who would fall for it I'm afraid).

Scotland would presumably retain the queen and be in the Commonwealth but the two kingdoms wouldn't be politically united but would instead share a monarchy. By Salmond's little lie here apparently Australia, New Zealand and Canada are the UK too. Maybe someone needs to let them know. ;)

poiuytrewq0987
01-30-2012, 02:49 PM
No question is loaded if Scots want to be free from London rule.

Nglund
01-30-2012, 09:37 PM
No question is loaded if Scots want to be free from London rule.

Eh?

poiuytrewq0987
01-30-2012, 09:42 PM
Eh?

I think it's high time for the English to accept that a British Yugoslavia will not last forever.

Nglund
01-30-2012, 09:42 PM
I think it's high time for the English to accept that a British Yugoslavia will not last forever.

Here we go again...:rolleyes:

poiuytrewq0987
01-30-2012, 09:43 PM
Here we go again...:rolleyes:

Name me one difference between Great Britain and Yugoslavia.

Nglund
01-30-2012, 09:45 PM
Name me one difference between Great Britain and Yugoslavia.

How exactly are they going to be 'free' from 'London rule'?

ruthenia
01-30-2012, 09:45 PM
Name me one difference between Great Britain and Yugoslavia.


Yugoslavia is a squalid dump

poiuytrewq0987
01-30-2012, 09:50 PM
How exactly are they going to be 'free' from 'London rule'?

Complete and total independence from Great Britain.





Yugoslavia is a squalid dump


Post-war former Yugoslavia, yes... but during its glory days, it wasn't like that. http://www.weightofchains.com/video.html watch the trailer...

The collapse of Yugoslavia happened only because Yugoslavian peoples wanted to live in their own country, not in an extremely close union with neighboring peoples.

Nglund
01-30-2012, 09:54 PM
Complete and total independence from Great Britain.

The problem you see is that Britain is not the communist dictatorship that Yugoslavia was. There will be no violent split if the UK breaks up.

poiuytrewq0987
01-30-2012, 09:55 PM
The problem you see is that Britain is not the communist dictatorship that Yugoslavia was. There will be no violent split if the UK breaks up.

I'm not saying there will be one, but rather it is inevitable for an artificial union like Great Britain to eventually break up. National peoples can get back to living in their country.

foreverblue
01-30-2012, 10:03 PM
at least have a referendum on the issue where everybody can vote. i think the last union between scotland and england was decided by the aristocracy, rich land owners etc.
remember only land owners could vote at one stage

Nglund
01-30-2012, 10:05 PM
I'm not saying there will be one, but rather it is inevitable for an artificial union like Great Britain to eventually break up. National peoples can get back to living in their country.

A Kingdom that lasted for over 400/300 years, quite good for an artificial union eh?
You are right about national peoples inevitably [re]claiming sovereignty. But it doesn't go without saying that the United Kingdom worked pretty well until recently.

foreverblue
01-30-2012, 10:05 PM
I think it's high time for the English to accept that a British Yugoslavia will not last forever.
i understand exactly where your coming from.

russia also has other countries under its dominion too.

foreverblue
01-30-2012, 10:09 PM
A Kingdom that lasted for over 400/300 years, quite good for an artificial union eh?
You are right about national peoples inevitably [re]claiming sovereignty. But it doesn't go without saying that the United Kingdom worked pretty well until recently.

until recently. its quite outdated now, england doesn't need the celtic fringe anymore. england on its own represents are powerful financial european country.
like what is exactly the point of having dominion over other countries in the 21st century.

poiuytrewq0987
01-30-2012, 10:10 PM
A Kingdom that lasted for over 400/300 years, quite good for an artificial union eh?
You are right about national peoples inevitably [re]claiming sovereignty. But it doesn't go without saying that the United Kingdom worked pretty well until recently.

Yes, it worked well only because the common people were forced into the union and it was held together by English military might. Bring back England in the form of a republic unless descendants of Richard the Lionheart are still alive then England could opt for a constitutional monarchy instead. Deport the House of Saxe-Coburg from England.

ruthenia
01-30-2012, 10:11 PM
A Kingdom that lasted for over 400/300 years, quite good for an artificial union eh?
You are right about national peoples inevitably [re]claiming sovereignty. But it doesn't go without saying that the United Kingdom worked pretty well until recently.

So like russian empire to soviet union then. i see no difference.

Nglund
01-30-2012, 10:13 PM
until recently. its quite outdated now, england doesn't need the celtic fringe anymore. england on its own represents are powerful financial european country.
like what is exactly the point of having dominion over other countries in the 21st century.

It is only outdated because no serious role could be found for the Union after losing the empire.

foreverblue
01-30-2012, 10:13 PM
Yes, it worked well only because the common people were forced into the union and it was held together by English military might. Bring back England in the form of a republic unless descendants of Richard the Lionheart are still alive then England could opt for a constitutional monarchy instead. Deport the House of Saxe-Coburg from England.

no let England keep their monarchy. if you agree with it or not. its their decision pure and simple.

poiuytrewq0987
01-30-2012, 10:15 PM
no let England keep their monarchy. if you agree with it or not. its their decision pure and simple.

The monarchy is foreign to England. They've hijacked England for centuries. It's like sending German kings to rule over the Balkans. It didn't work out so well for them. Better to either have a truly English monarchy or deport them back to Germany and establish a Republican government.

foreverblue
01-30-2012, 10:16 PM
It is only outdated because no serious role could be found for the Union after losing the empire.

but has britain really lost an empire.
i disagree. i regard australia as being still firmly under british dominion.

western australia probably the most monarchist state tried to succeed from the federation in the 30's [to become an commonweath country] but was prevented by london.

poiuytrewq0987
01-30-2012, 10:17 PM
It is only outdated because no serious role could be found for the Union after losing the empire.

If I was English, I would tell the Union to fuck off and demand myself an independent England while staying good friends with England's neighbors. Better than be saddled with developing neighbor countries using English taxpayers money.

foreverblue
01-30-2012, 10:18 PM
The monarchy is foreign to England. They've hijacked England for centuries. It's like sending German kings to rule over the Balkans. It didn't work out so well for them. Better to either have a truly English monarchy or deport them back to Germany and establish a Republican government.

a truly english monarchy?

england has built itself on kowtowing to monarchy,aristocracy and upper classes.
they have a house of lords for gods sake

Nglund
01-30-2012, 10:21 PM
but has britain really lost an empire.
i disagree. i regard australia as being still firmly under british dominion.

western australia probably the most monarchist state tried to succeed from the federation in the 30's [to become an commonweath country] but was prevented by london.

We're not in the 30's anymore. Of course the empire's gone. Australia is just as independent as any other sovereign state on the planet nowadays.

foreverblue
01-30-2012, 10:21 PM
If I was English, I would tell the Union to fuck off and demand myself an independent England while staying good friends with England's neighbors. Better than be saddled with developing neighbor countries using English taxpayers money.

just look at the burden on the taxpayer the conflict in northern ireland and the war in the falklands have been.
northern ireland, the falklands and gibraltar are basically vanity posessions. they dont serve any actual purpose to britain strategically or economically

poiuytrewq0987
01-30-2012, 10:22 PM
a truly english monarchy?

england has built itself on kowtowing to monarchy,aristocracy and upper classes.
they have a house of lords for gods sake

I consider the House of Angevins true English... not fake German house that currently presides over the artificial union.

poiuytrewq0987
01-30-2012, 10:23 PM
just look at the burden on the taxpayer the conflict in northern ireland and the war in the falklands have been.
northern ireland, the falklands and gibraltar are basically vanity posessions. they dont serve any actual purpose to britain strategically or economically

Indeed, they are only kept by the Unionists because they daydream for the long gone days of the British Empire.

foreverblue
01-30-2012, 10:25 PM
We're not in the 30's anymore. Of course the empire's gone. Australia is just as independent as any other sovereign state on the planet nowadays.

with the queen on the back of our coins,royal titles preceding our military organization's. these are trivial things , but they speak volumes about Australia's role under Britain.

to be honest britain still owns australia, new zealand and canada hook line and sinker.

a lot of countries are far more independent. the u.s.a , most of south america, and huge chunks of asia

foreverblue
01-30-2012, 10:27 PM
Indeed, they are only kept by the Unionists because they daydream for the long gone days of the British Empire.

no it still exists. read my above post

poiuytrewq0987
01-30-2012, 10:34 PM
no it still exists. read my above post

I disagree because the UK doesn't really have the political will to make Canada, Australia and NZ stay in the Commonwealth. The countries could just choose to leave the Commonwealth tomorrow and the UK won't even be able to do anything about it. Are they going to invade CA, AU and NZ? :D

Nglund
01-30-2012, 10:34 PM
with the queen on the back of our coins,royal titles preceding our military organization's. these are trivial things , but they speak volumes about Australia's role under Britain.

Yes, that's the Mother Country's legacy, you started off as a British Colony: so what?:confused:


to be honest britain still owns australia, new zealand and canada hook line and sinker.

a lot of countries are far more independent. the u.s.a , most of south america, and huge chunks of asia

There are no existing constitutional links between our two governments at present. Britain has no power over Australia whatsoever. Are you having difficulties differentiating Dominion from Commonwealth Realm? Or are you suffering from republican bias?

Albion
01-30-2012, 10:55 PM
Yugoslavia is a squalid dump


A little harsh, Slovenia and Croatia have developed well and Macedonia is quite nice and getting there.


until recently. its quite outdated now, england doesn't need the celtic fringe anymore. england on its own represents are powerful financial european country.
like what is exactly the point of having dominion over other countries in the 21st century.

Bingo. We didn't need them in the first place though, we only needed to secure them to get stability in the islands. That could have been achieved if they'd have been more willing to co-operate as vassal states as was the norm in the rest of Europe, but the Celts wouldn't have it.


western australia probably the most monarchist state tried to succeed from the federation in the 30's [to become an commonweath country] but was prevented by london.

Yeah, a damn shame. Now any mistakes made in Canberra such as distancing the country politically from Britain are replicated across the country.
Tassie and Western Australia should have formed separate nations. Tassie would be a nice place for me to settle. :thumb001:
Western Australia's wealth is taken by the rest of the country whilst Tasmania is the forgotten state and an economic backwater thanks to the Commonwealth of Australia.


If I was English, I would tell the Union to fuck off and demand myself an independent England while staying good friends with England's neighbors. Better than be saddled with developing neighbor countries using English taxpayers money.

Many do, but most don't really care too much about it. I suppose England is comparable to how Serbia was in Yugoslavia - the key player with competition from a jealous state that plays second fiddle (Croatia ~ Scotland).


they have a house of lords for gods sake

I know, It struck me as very medieval the other day when I watched a lords debate with the priests being there and all the rest. ;)
Things rarely change suddenly here, history in England is just one long blur with no sudden beginnings or ends.


We're not in the 30's anymore. Of course the empire's gone. Australia is just as independent as any other sovereign state on the planet nowadays.

Sad but true. I wish the white commonwealth would have remained much closer. Family and cultural ties are close, political aren't - too many career politicians getting in the way, Aussie PMs don't want to seem like they're still ruled from Britain, British PMs don't think about Australia... :(


just look at the burden on the taxpayer the conflict in northern ireland and the war in the falklands have been.
northern ireland, the falklands and gibraltar are basically vanity posessions. they dont serve any actual purpose to britain strategically or economically

The Falklands were a necessary show of might to prove to the world that we weren't some washed up old shipwreck, end of story.
They're also British-populated and were first sighted by an Englishman hence we have the best claim. Argentina should bugger off and they would do if they knew what was good for them. They're practically begging for another arse kicking, hopefully they leave the next invasion attempt until 2015 when the new aircraft carriers should be done.
Before then we have only one real defence, a few nuclear armed submarines off the coast of Falkland which we can fire in an invasion of British territory according to the treaty.


Indeed, they are only kept by the Unionists because they daydream for the long gone days of the British Empire.

Not really. They are kept more out of national pride.

Britain was trying to get the islanders to join Argentina before the war broke out, only stupid Argentina fucked up when it invaded and pissed the British off something rotten.
That is how Argentina screwed up its chances of getting the islands for at least another 50 years. They'll have to wait for that generation to die off so that the population forgets it like they did the Napoleonic wars and Boer war eventually.


to be honest britain still owns australia, new zealand and canada hook line and sinker.

Britain was able to abolish Australia's government up to the 1970s and formerly in Canada and NZ too. Those laws were enacted when Aussies, Kiwis and Canadians still saw themselves as British and loyal to London.
Following the Australian constitutional crisis that all ended and London's ability to abolish the governments came to an end.

Albion
01-30-2012, 10:56 PM
I disagree because the UK doesn't really have the political will to make Canada, Australia and NZ stay in the Commonwealth. The countries could just choose to leave the Commonwealth tomorrow and the UK won't even be able to do anything about it. Are they going to invade CA, AU and NZ? :D


Could do, they wouldn't exactly be very hard to invade. World opinion would be against it though and the USA would probably play world policeman and stop us.

Dr. van Winkle
02-19-2012, 04:08 AM
UK fears losing interest by Scot split

http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/1482/flagofscotlandkdmvb.jpg

British Prime Minister, fearing to lose interests at international level, has once again raised the rhetoric of the dispute over the Scotland’s independence by pledging to fight “head, heart and soul” to prevent the split of the United Kingdom.

David Cameron hold his first meeting with Scottish National Party (SNP) leader Alex Salmond, whose anti-Union party has been long planning for Scotland to be an independent state and leave the Union behind after over 300 years.

Salmond scheduled to hold Scottish independence referendum in autumn 2014, believing that the independence from the UK would be completed by Scottish Parliament’s 2016 election.

But the British government constantly urged Scotland to hold the referendum “sooner than later,” with Cameron dictating condition on the SNP, pressing to conduct the vote by summer 2013. This is because UK government believes that the independence would not receive yes-vote since opinion polls demonstrate fewer support of the split at the moment.

As far as London retains primacy on Scotland’s defence, energy and foreign relations, Cameron used his Scotland speech to warn that the split would damage UK’s status in Europe, within NATO and risk the Britain’s permanent seat on the United Nation Security Council.

However, Salmond stressed that the independence would ensure more prosperity, since it would allow Scotland to take advantage of its oil, gas and other energy resources.

"We have 25 percent of Europe's tidal power potential, 25 percent of its offshore wind potential and 10 percent of its wave power potential -- not bad for a nation with less than 1 percent of Europe's population," Salmond said.

But, Cameron once again repeated London’s view that Scotland would be “safer and richer” if it continued with the UK. "We're stronger, because together we count for more in the world,” he claimed.

Salmond condemned Cameron’s suggestion that declining independence would provide Scotland with greater power and prosperity.

"If the prime minister has an offer to make to the people of Scotland then he should make it now. He should spell it out now so we can have a clear debate and a clear decision on the alternative futures for Scotland.

"This idea of saying 'well, vote No and we'll give you something later' I don't think is going to convince anyone in Scotland and I think the prime minister, as a new tactic just adopted this morning, is on very shaky ground if he believes people in Scotland will be fooled again," Salmond said speaking after his meeting with the UK PM.

SAB/JR/HE