ForumGarden

With the rise of the SNP, and the possibility they may hold the balance of power after the election, how can the Union remain viable ?

Bruv;1477935 wrote: With the rise of the SNP, and the possibility they may hold the balance of power after the election, how can the Union remain viable ?


You need to ask camron and milliband that. Clearly they had no intention of keeping their vow - took cameron only a day to go back on his word I thought it would take a week. How did they think scots would react also all the rather petty negative campaigning is doing little for the union cause rather it's making many yes voters re-think the way they voted. Also the rather nasty attacks on nicola sturgeon do them little credit not least because they still seem to think it's alex salmond calling the tune

The point about the union is that it is a union od NATIONS. Something cameron et al doesn't seem to be able to grasp and seems surprised we don't want to touch our forelocks any more.

Seems we're not the only ones



The snp have accepted the referendum result and have stated they will work with westminster parties on a case by case basis. If the union falls apart it will be bnecause of the actions and attitude of cameron and milliband not the snp. It's possible the libdems will be wiped out in scotland and labour get a hell of a fright.

Another referendum is not on the agenda it depends what happens next whether there is demand for one and having been lied to once too often I suspect a yes vote is entirely possible if there is.

Nicola Sturgeon promises English voters: ‘SNP will not be a destructive force outside Scotland’ | Politics | The National

Earlier this year, following on from a story in The National, Sturgeon said that the SNP would support a proposal to “restore the NHS in England to a fully public, publicly-accountable serviceand reverse the 2012 Health and Social Care Act. The proposal was the idea of professor of public health Allyson Pollock, who told this newspaper that SNP influence in a hung parliament could “save the NHS in England and Wales. Any changes to the budget of the NHS in England and Wales also has a direct effect on the budget of the NHS in Scotland.


Meanwhile, Prime Minister David Cameron warned that Scotland would dominate the agenda in a Labour-SNP coalition: “Frankly, this is a group of people that wouldn’t care about what happened in the rest of the country. The rest of the UK – England, Wales, Northern Ireland – wouldn’t get a look-in, that’s the prospect we face if we don’t get a Conservative majority government.


What really frightens the tories and labour is the snp are a centre left party and that's why labour voters are joining them. There care no tories left in scotland tht's why cameron doesn't give a **** and has nothing to lose by not engaging in rational discussion preferring inane comments like the above aimed at english voters who hopefully are not fooled.

I believe the REAL balance of power is going to be UKIP. I don't think anyone has any doubts the the Lib Dems are finished, and the SNP's only real hold is likely to be in Scotland (not that the Scottish seats are to be undervalued, of course), but UKIP's ever increasing rise in support cannot be ignored, and this support is Nationwide. The question is who will they ally themselves with, despite their saying that they will not consider any such coalition deal. After all, when a politician say they definitely won't do something, you can interpret that as meaning they definitely will.

I just can't see how a nationalist party can be elected to power in a part of the union, in theory this can happen in Scotland Wales and N Ireland, with their own local priorities, but then make decisions involving the whole of the country.

Bruv;1477950 wrote: I just can't see how a nationalist party can be elected to power in a part of the union, in theory this can happen in Scotland Wales and N Ireland, with their own local priorities, but then make decisions involving the whole of the country.


UKIP and the tories are perceived as basically english national parties, - or maybe more parties of london and the south east they make it perfectly clear they don't care what effect their policies have on scotland or wales or indeed on the north of england. The nationalist parties are gaining support out of frustration with westminster and people are looking for a better alternative and neither the tories or labour are offering it. Certainly ukip are very much seen in that light and they are very hostile to the idea that scotland or wales are entitled to have a say in the running of their own country they rather don't get we are a union of different peoples. Like I said somewhere when the three parties went back on their supposed vow and try to water down the proposals of the smith commission what did they expect?

http://www.thenational.scot/politics/da ... e-out.2217

Cameron promised that a Conservative government would introduce an annual Treasury review under what he called the “Carlisle principle to ensure that the actions of the devolved administration in Edinburgh did not have detrimental impacts on other parts of the UK in areas like air passenger duty, tax rates, university tuition fees or energy policy.

But Sturgeon warned him: “Let me say this to David Cameron – we will oppose any effort to undermine the Scottish Parliament.

Swinnney added: “Last week the Tories abandoned the Smith Commission, this week they are attacking the Scottish Parliament, said Swinney. “When the Scottish Government has balanced the books every year, it is insulting to the parliament to say a UK Government which has run up £1.5 trillion of debt should check our sums.

“This clearly shows why we need a strong team of SNP MPs to speak up for Scotland and to protect the parliament itself.




The snp as a matter of policy have never voted on english only bissues - education and the nhs being the most obvious (you wouldn't have had nhs trust hospitals without scots labour mp's a policy whose party voted against it in the scottishn parliament) but since we are affected by the budget why should they not vote on it? They also would change the barnett formula instead prefrruing we keep the tax revenue raised in scotland instead of subsidising the rest of the country this notion that we receive far more then we pay is actually not true. If we really are such a drain do you think we would still be debating us getting full contol of the finances?

Scotland's Balance Sheet

Or if you prefer something simpler

http://www.thenational.scot/comment/ana ... round.2220

In reality if the union breaks up it will be down to the tories and labour and their actions not the snp. If UKIP end up in coalition with the tories you can kiss goodbye to the union imo. UKIP economic policies would be a disaster for the UK.

I agree that the political elite have lied about this and thousands of other issues for the past five decades at least, but is this the time to let nationalist sentiment threaten the Union, especially in the light of current, potent threats such as

VladdyPu@Russia.tyrant, climate change and terrorist threat ?

Smaug;1477968 wrote: I agree that the political elite have lied about this and thousands of other issues for the past five decades at least, but is this the time to let nationalist sentiment threaten the Union, especially in the light of current, potent threats such as

VladdyPu@Russia.tyrant, climate change and terrorist threat ?


It's not quite as simple as a metter of and as I keep repeating if the union fails now it will becaise of the tories and labour. we had a referndum voted to stay if that sentiment is now changing it's not because of anything the snp are doing.

I still say that we're playing the blame game! Time for both sides to sit down in a civilized manner and try some constructive straight-talking without prejudice or threat (should the SNP veto defence spending,for instance,if in coalition with labour).I for one don't like the thought of being held to ransom like this. If Scotland wants to be independent,that's fine with me,but we should still have a common defence policy,based on a sound,sustainable economy.Without that,we're vunerable,both militarily AND economcially.

Smaug;1477990 wrote: I still say that we're playing the blame game! Time for both sides to sit down in a civilized manner and try some constructive straight-talking without prejudice or threat (should the SNP veto defence spending,for instance,if in coalition with labour).I for one don't like the thought of being held to ransom like this. If Scotland wants to be independent,that's fine with me,but we should still have a common defence policy,based on a sound,sustainable economy.Without that,we're vunerable,both militarily AND economcially.


That's rather what they are putting forward. You've been reading tjha daily mail haven'y you? The tories are desperate that's why they are coming out with this nonsense it's imed at english voters to try an scare vthem away from labour. It's hardly as if they will be in a position to veto anything - the numbers don't add up all the other other parties will have to support any potential government - and if people in scotland are voting for a party that doesn't want to replace trident are you really suggesting they have no right to vote against it? There are plenty of labour and liberal democrat MP's who feel the same way. It's ridivulous that we have aircraft carriers but can't afford to oput planes on them

They will also be unlikely to form a coalition with labour, but have said all along they will support them on a case by case basis anotherv factor is all their support from defecting labour voters would disappear if they did unlike the libdems they actually listen to their core support.

I will state it yet again because you don't seem to get it In reality if the union breaks up it will be down to the tories and labour and their actions not the snp. It seems the toreis and labour want the scots in the union but only of we do what we are tols and fall for the nonsene the political parties are coming out with. Make up your mind, the referendum is over we voted to stay in if all we hear is you have no right to take part in a parliament whose decisions affect you what do you think the effect will be?

It's also an economic argument that's being put forward as an alternative to austerity you should have look at what the policies actually are rather than just read editorials . We no longer have capitalist but rather one where the market rules everything regardless - that is not true capitalism. The tories and ukip make no secret of their iontention to privatis the NHS for them it is an idealogical rather than having anything to do with wht is ctually best.

If the SNP were propping up a minority Labour government, they would be holding the whip hand,and as such, Labour would be forced to aquiesce to SNP demands, under threat of veto! It would probably have been better for Scotland to have voted for independence, rather than be put in a position where Scottish folk are unhappy that promises havn't been honoured, and their concerns ignored.( I don't read the Daily Mail,either! ) I agree that the Tories AND Labour have done much to damage this long-standing Union of ours, and also that we have no jets for our carriers! INSANITY!! Maybe if Scotland were to have another referendum, they would vote for indepedence this time, with the Scots Parliament in Holyrood running things for Scotland. On a personal level, I feel that NO party represents me; I agree with UKIP on a points-based immigration system,similar to Australia, to prevent benefit/health tourism, and the swamping of local communities and jobs markets,but that's about as far as it goes! If I remember correctly,it was the Tories who took us into the European Union without first holding a Plebiscite to determine IF the British actually wanted such a paradigm shift in power!!(As signed in 1992 by John Major;THE MAASTRICT TREATY). This short-circuit in the democratic process was further exacerbated by Tony Blair with the Lisbon Treaty, further tying us to Europe (again without recourse to the people of Britain). Labour also went to war in Iraq AGAINST the express wishes of millions and millions of people(I know, I was a marching protester!),but my point remains. We still need to be united in this land, and take a pride in it, cherish our hard-won freedoms/cultures/traditions and not take our eyes "off the ball". We have previous for this (just before 1914,also just prior to 1939!).Are we, by our uncertainty and discord, actually going to encourage an aggressor to "try his/her luck" (Russia, Argentina)? Europe is frightened of upsetting Russia in case Russia turns off the gas supply to the EU, a classic case of hydraulic despotism if ever there was one! Incidentally, the EU buys about 80% of it's gas from Russia...

You don't remember rightly there was a referendum in 1975 after we joined the eec(which we did inh 1973) it was part of the labour manifesto in 1974 mainly at the instigation of those opposed as they believed it would be a no vote. They were wrong it was the largely wartime generation who voted to join and almost two thirds voted in favour. I mention this because ukip like to ignore that it happened. We were also bankrupt at the time without eec membership we would have become an econnomic backwater. We live in a parliamentary democracy parliament is sovereign and having referenda is not a british tradition.

Back in the days of thatcher it was pointed out that moving away from coal and shifting power poroduction to gas would mean that in twenty years time we would be dependent on foreign imports of gas supplies. Since thatcher would not be in power it was obviously not something that concerned her. Now twehty or more years later guess what we are dependant on foreign gas imports and we import coal as well. neither labour or tory are noted for their long term forward planning.

IF the British actually wanted such a paradigm shift in power!!(As signed in 1992 by John Major;THE MAASTRICT TREATY). This short-circuit in the democratic process was further exacerbated by Tony Blair with the Lisbon Treaty, further tying us to Europe (again without recourse to the people of Britain). Labour also went to war in Iraq AGAINST the express wishes of millions and millions of people(I know, I was a marching protester!),but my point remains.


That is nonsense we have these things called elections where the will of the people is supposd to be made clear. One thing I would really condemn clegg for was his failure to make PR a condition of any coalition. For the last forty years there has not been singl goverbnment that had a majority of the populace suppoorting it. First past the poist means the least unpopular candidate gets in.

The scottish referendum was camerons idea - he was the one who insisted on yer or no the SNP wanted a third option of more devolution - they knew very well they were not certain of getting a vote for independence the panic in labout and tory worthies when they relsied a yes vote might be on the cards was wonderful to see. I reiterate yet again if the union ends it will be because of the actions of the tories and labour party. You know after all the homilies about how are better together for cameron et al to embark on a campaign to stir up hatred between the scots and english is a bit rich. Michael forsyth is right it will damage the union. You talk about voting ukip and see nothing ironic in condemning scottish nationalists? The westminstyer poarties need to grow up and realise scare tactics jsut donl;t work.

Both the Referendums in 1973 / 1975 were to do with the EEC, or Common Market, as it was - a Mutually Beneficial Trade Agreement - something which I am fully in favour of. It made no mention of submitting the UK to being ruled by a Central European Government as a tiny minority, having little of no voice in things. Of having our laws made by representatives of the rest of Europe that would benefit them but not the UK. It made no mention of an Open Door policy. It made no mention of our Welfare System being expected to support all comers from the rest of Europe. All these have been gradually added, over the years, like a cancer. The original notion of a Trade Agreement is sound. Central European Government is not, and the General Public should be permitted the right to decide whether or not they agree. Why are the parties so opposed to a referendum? Simple. Because they know they wouldn't get the answer they want. Governments are, in theory, meant to be voted in to represent the will of the People. Why then, once they're in power, do none of them do what they're meant to do?

FourPart;1478065 wrote: Both the Referendums in 1973 / 1975 were to do with the EEC, or Common Market, as it was - a Mutually Beneficial Trade Agreement - something which I am fully in favour of. It made no mention of submitting the UK to being ruled by a Central European Government as a tiny minority, having little of no voice in things. Of having our laws made by representatives of the rest of Europe that would benefit them but not the UK. It made no mention of an Open Door policy. It made no mention of our Welfare System being expected to support all comers from the rest of Europe. All these have been gradually added, over the years, like a cancer. The original notion of a Trade Agreement is sound. Central European Government is not, and the General Public should be permitted the right to decide whether or not they agree. Why are the parties so opposed to a referendum? Simple. Because they know they wouldn't get the answer they want. Governments are, in theory, meant to be voted in to represent the will of the People. Why then, once they're in power, do none of them do what they're meant to do?


John major was elected with a mandate to sign the maastricht treaty on behalf of the british people. That's the way our parliamentary demoracy works we don't have a referendum every time there is a big decision to be made. When we went in to iraq it was with the support of parliament who had been voted for by the british people. That is the way our parliamentary democracy works. The debate about europe is not being conducted rationally thanks to ukip and the media playing up people's fears.

Don't misunderstand in actual fact I agree with you there is a lot wrong with the first past the post system we can't really hold our politicians to account. In thatchers time more than two thirds of the population voted against her it was the same under tony blair all any mp had to do is get the largest percentage of the vote for a single party in that constituency and that could be as little as 20% and they get the seat effectriuvely disenfranchising most of the electorate. Tony Bliar is a proven liar yet he got elected again and is the most succesful labour leader in history, that is a depressing fact, Most people in this counytry did not vote for him but the labour party trot him out as some kind of super guru.

In scotland the parliament is elected by PR. Labour brought it in because they thought it woujld shut out the snp but in actual fact it has transformed poilitics as people have realised their vote does actually make a difference and we have a more broadly based representative government.( Scots tories think it wonderful as without it thgere would be no tories in the sottish parliament at all but you won't hear them saying that too loudly. )

The first govenments were lib/lab coalition who broke all their promises anddanced to the westminster tune. Rather than business as usual they got a real kicking and the snp getting power and are perceived as having done reasonably well. SNP suppoprt is the result not so much out of a desire for independence as total pissed offness with being run by government we didn't vote for and their policies are left wing something you won't hear from labourt or tory. (it was labour that started preivatising the NHS) A yes vote in a referendum was not looking very likely until cameron started dictating the terms and labour and tories combined to tell us we didn't understand the issues and should stay within the union as we couldn't manage on our own. If you want to piss off a scotsman just tell them they can't do something because they lack the ability.

It takes a major shift in voters to change things for the first time in decades westminst is terrified of what the electorate is going to do because they doinlt klnow. If the union breaks up it won't be because the SNP are some kind of closet terriorist organissation hell bent on destruction

Majority Of Scots Think Union Will Split, Poll

The General Election campaign is increasing the likelihood of a split in the Union, according to a survey for Sky News.

The Sky Data survey indicated more than 40% of Scots believe the campaign makes the prospect of independence more likely.

A majority of Scots (55%) now think that independence is likely in their lifetimes, while half of voters across the UK now think it is likely in their lifetime.

Former Labour Chancellor Alistair Darling said it was "not surprising" because the Conservatives have been "bigging up" the SNP.

"They're playing English nationalism off against Scottish nationalism. If you play fast and loose with constitution there will be consequences," he told Sky News.






Alasdair darling is a pillock but he's right in this. Hope he loses his seat.

GMC, You wrote; "John major was elected with a mandate to sign the maastricht treaty on behalf of the british people. That's the way our parliamentary demoracy works we don't have a referendum every time there is a big decision to be made. When we went in to iraq it was with the support of parliament who had been voted for by the british people. That is the way our parliamentary democracy works. The debate about europe is not being conducted rationally thanks to ukip and the media playing up people's fears." I disagree with this because; John Major signed Maastrict WITHOUT any consultation whatsoever, despite it being the largest transfer of power abroad we'll see in our lifetime, and all without a "by-your-leave"! Scotland has just had a REFERENDUM, something you wanted desperately, you've had a say in your future! What about ours? I, and I suspect many other British people, feel totally disenfranchised! Let s not forget, Parliament is elected to REPRESENT the people who elected it, and on major issues it should at least consult with the electorate (they had no mandate from me, or anyone I know, to transfer huge powers to Europe via Maastricht). Obviously, in time of sudden crisis or war, consulting like this may not be possible, but they(the govt) have had plenty of time and opportunity to fix many things. As regards the Iraq war, I presume you saw the huge crowds of anti-war marchers in almost every city in this country?Almost nobody wanted it, many marched in opposition to it, yet we still went ahead and invaded, didn't we? Bliar stated that there were "weapons of mass destruction, deployable within 45 minutes,capable of being used against this country". We went to war on a false premise!! Democracy? Don't make me laugh! Incidentally, approximately 100'000 Iraqis have lost their lives as a result of US/UK involvement in Iraq so far. One of these days, because of these half-baked buffoons, we will be dragged into something nasty, and that will probably be the end of us!

On your other points, I agree with you entirely,especially on proportional representation, though we no longer have the "rotten boroughs" of yore, our boroughs have been gerrymandered thoroughly over the years! And if you want to make an Englishman blow, do something he hates in his name!!

How can the Union continue with the Scots using PR and us using first past the post for the same election ?

Why has first past the post worked for hundreds of years yet now fails us badly, is it because we are better educated ?

I agree, the voting system is unbalanced, using 2 different methods of vote-counting! As for being better educated, yes we are, but boundaries(electoral) are always being "tweaked" to suit the major parties,thus stagnation/voter apathy/ occurs.

I have always asked that same question about our election procedure, and believed it it wasn't broken don't tamper with it.

But I reckon it is now indisputably clear that the time has come for a change to PR nationwide.

Bruv;1478075 wrote: How can the Union continue with the Scots using PR and us using first past the post for the same election ?

Why has first past the post worked for hundreds of years yet now fails us badly, is it because we are better educated ?


It's PR for elections to the scottish parliament first past the post for westminster. It's made a big difference in scotland people are more politicised as they see the difference in action. Surprised you didn't know that.

Not hundreds of years it was only in 1919 tht all men aged 21 were given the right to vote and women if they were over 30 and owned property. and only since 1929 (I think) that it was extended to women aged 21. We may have a parliamentary democracy but it's been wrested from those grasping power and right now they are shitting themselves because it's no longer just the labour or tory mafia in the game. Those in power in westminster have always tried to hold on to control by any mean possible right now they are trying to frighten people.

I have always asked that same question about our election procedure, and believed it it wasn't broken don't tamper with it.

But I reckon it is now indisputably clear that the time has come for a change to PR nationwide.




Nick clegg blew his chance at making a big difference neither laboiur or tory havea nything to gain from PR rather the contrary that's why they are so opposed to it.

I agree that we can't have a referendum on every decision that has to be made, but when the decision is such a major one, which is as controversial as the EU question is, then regardless of what the party policy may be, it is a major issue that should be put to the people to decide one way or the other.

Even if it it had been the case that we had a referendum to surrender all our National Rights to the control of the EU back in 1973 (which, as I said previously was not the case - we voted for a common trade agreement), then it should be recognised that that was a decision taken more than 2 generations ago. In fact, if we were to have a referendum now, many of those registered to vote would be the Grandchildren - or even Great Grandchildren of those that voted the first time round. Furthermore, those that did vote at the time only had the words of the campaigners to go by. A referendum now would have the advantage of having experienced its effects first hand.

We've given Europe far more than a fair trial. Now is the time to retire the Jury (the public) to return the verdict.

gmc;1478090 wrote: It's PR for elections to the Scottish parliament first past the post for Westminster. It's made a big difference in Scotland people are more politicised as they see the difference in action.

Surprised you didn't know that.


There is loads I don't know.

I am still unsure of the layers of local and national government, how the regions from local councilors up to county councilors and then up further to MEPs work, but I do know they need sorting out so as to invigorate the whole system.

The thing is it'#s not just us that has a problem with the EU. It would be more constructive to stay in the union and ally with those other countries that are unhappy rfather rhan threatening to take away the ball and play by ourselves, especially when the ball isn't opurs. Farage has an illusion of britain that never existed and as major power on the world stage. He's an arsehole with fascist policies. The SNP may be nationalists at least they are not right wing ones.

I think that in staying in the EU, we do ourselves a dis-service. These are some of problems ; we import far more from the EU than export, we lost much trade and goodwill from many of our Commonwealth allies, we pay 60 Billion per annum to belong to this quango and receive 20 billion back in European Social Fund, we have rampant immigration and health tourism, are unable to deport terrorists, we are unable to enforce our borders properly(how many illegal immigrants?), are subject to the whims of Brussels and have a puppet "Euro Parliament" that is utterly at the mercy of the Commission (unelected),who can reject and over-rule the Euro Parliament on any decision it may make (this is known as "the democratic defecit", or was when I was protester), reduced trade with the rest of the world, a weaker Europe because the wealthier countries prop up the poorer ones to the detriment of defence spending, healthcare spending, education, welfare and employment. Apart from that, the EU is OK.

Just imagine what the balance would be without those exports. Take the car industry for instance why have a factory in a ountry outside the EU, toyota, nissan (don't forget the connection with renault), peugeot, ford GMC none of them need to be here if it was cheaper to manufacture in their main markets they would dissapear in a heartbeat. The reduced trade with the rest of the world is a nonsense in what way does the u orvemnt us tradiing with countries outside the eu? We don't have very much that other people want and most of the inustry is owned by foreign com opaies who will have no reason to hang about. UKIP want to privarise the nhs and all that eu legisation they find so terrible relates to health and safety at work which they would prefer to have as a free for all for employers. He has some ose inted notion of returm=ning us to a britain of the 50's and 60's that never existed except in fantasy.

farage is a freeloader playing the system just like the rest of them. If he didn't claim expenses as an mep I would have more respect for him. It's ironic the leader of an anti-imnmigration party is the son of refugees who came here fleeing religious persecution and worse still married a foreigner. He should bugger off back to france here it looks like the fscists are gaining ground as well.

It's ukip policy to undo the devolution of powers to wale and scotland. Do you really think they would get away with that one? End of the union indeed. Good luck to you if ukip get anywherein this election I'll be in socialist sciotland and you can take your trident with you.

gmc;1478130 wrote: Just imagine what the balance would be without those exports. Take the car industry for instance why have a factory in a ountry outside the EU, toyota, nissan (don't forget the connection with renault), peugeot, ford GMC none of them need to be here if it was cheaper to manufacture in their main markets they would dissapear in a heartbeat. The reduced trade with the rest of the world is a nonsense in what way does the u orvemnt us tradiing with countries outside the eu? We don't have very much that other people want and most of the inustry is owned by foreign com opaies who will have no reason to hang about. UKIP want to privarise the nhs and all that eu legisation they find so terrible relates to health and safety at work which they would prefer to have as a free for all for employers. He has some ose inted notion of returm=ning us to a britain of the 50's and 60's that never existed except in fantasy.

farage is a freeloader playing the system just like the rest of them. If he didn't claim expenses as an mep I would have more respect for him. It's ironic the leader of an anti-imnmigration party is the son of refugees who came here fleeing religious persecution and worse still married a foreigner. He should bugger off back to france here it looks like the fscists are gaining ground as well.

It's ukip policy to undo the devolution of powers to wale and scotland. Do you really think they would get away with that one? End of the union indeed. Good luck to you if ukip get anywherein this election I'll be in socialist sciotland and you can take your trident with you.


Ok. the car industry then. One of the few reasons that FOREIGN (Ford, Peugeot etc.) car manufacturers stay on these shores is they get nice,cheap labour in the UK, as do businesses( why pay a Brit £6,7,8 per hour to do a job when you can get an immigrant to do it or less; if this is HELPFUL to our native population, I would hate to see OBSTRUCTIVE!!) and a handy local platform to the EU. Toyota stated years ago that if we joined the Euro (currency), they would "pull the plug" on manufacture here!

Why? Because the Euro is a currency in decline; many countries have quietly been printing their "native" currencies again, then storing this currency against the time that the Euro/EU collapses. What happens to the EU when Portugal, Greece, Spain, Italy cannot re-pay their debts? CRASH!! is what happens. As for "elf n safety", sure ,SENSIBLE health and safety,yes, but the way it's going we'll have to make a work/method statement to drive a car soon, just in case there's an accident! We have literally THOUSANDS of new laws for H + S springing up all the time, dreamed up by pencil-necked geeks justifying their sinecure salaries by dreaming up all sorts of rubbish ( firemen must be TRAINED to operate in ankle- deep water,FFS!!). A couple of years ago, a man drowned in a concrete-bottom ornamental pond no more than 3 feet deep because the fireman who would have gone in to rescue this man was STOPPED from doing so by a senior officer, as he had not been trained to operate in water ankle-deep or deeper! PATHETIC!! I've also heard of police officers abandoning foot-chases of offenders because the pavement they were using ran out, and the officer(s) concerned pursued no further for fear of breaking health and safety rules. Seems to me that health and safety is actually OBSTRUCTING the safety of people in some cases! Again, PATHETIC!! As for outside trading(rest of the World), we have to abide by certain rules and quotas,much like our now defunct fishing fleet, struggling with the plethora of EU catchment rules! Whilst we are on the subject of fishing, we had to pay tens of millions in compensation to Spain a few years back, for not letting their huge factory-size vessels fish right up the Bristol channel! They've fished their own waters into a very precarious state, now they're doing it to ours.... all with the blessing of the EU, who ignored(as usual) our concerns on this, and FINED us for refusing the Spanish for so long! PATHETIC!! As for Britain in the 50s- 60s, it was a better place than now, with an ARMY,NAVY and AIR FORCE worth a damn! What have we now? A weak,potential Labour leader who will roll over to the SNP, who may even SCRAP Trident, and who will almost certainly further emasculate our armed forces to a point that we become easy prey. So I say to you; it takes but ONE to make war, TWO to make a friendship, those without weapons can still be destroyed by them, freedom IS maintained at "sword-point", and anyone losing sight of this is asking for trouble, especially in this day-and-age (would the Nazis have backed off if we'd threatened them with a severe "talking to," or sactions?)I think not!! In fact, without our diverse empire/commonwealth, we would not have survived the Nazi assault(EUROPE was occupied) so where WOULD we have got fuel,food,troops and supplies from,then? This could happen again!

If we removed Trident, what deterrent would Scotland have, in real terms? Not a lot! Good luck in the negotiations with Russia, then. I'm sure that an independent Scotland,if it got into financial difficulty, would be offered a "bailout" by Putin, in exchange for basing rights,probably.

Time to sort this place out. Work together. Respect our traditions. Serve the needs of our country and its many and varied folk, before we end up serving the needs of another!

Smaug;1478132 wrote: Ok. the car industry then. One of the few reasons that FOREIGN (Ford, Peugeot etc.) car manufacturers stay on these shores is they get nice,cheap labour in the UK, as do businesses( why pay a Brit £6,7,8 per hour to do a job when you can get an immigrant to do it or less; if this is HELPFUL to our native population, I would hate to see OBSTRUCTIVE!!) and a handy local platform to the EU. Toyota stated years ago that if we joined the Euro (currency), they would "pull the plug" on manufacture here!

Why? Because the Euro is a currency in decline; many countries have quietly been printing their "native" currencies again, then storing this currency against the time that the Euro/EU collapses. What happens to the EU when Portugal, Greece, Spain, Italy cannot re-pay their debts? CRASH!! is what happens. As for "elf n safety", sure ,SENSIBLE health and safety,yes, but the way it's going we'll have to make a work/method statement to drive a car soon, just in case there's an accident! We have literally THOUSANDS of new laws for H + S springing up all the time, dreamed up by pencil-necked geeks justifying their sinecure salaries by dreaming up all sorts of rubbish ( firemen must be TRAINED to operate in ankle- deep water,FFS!!). A couple of years ago, a man drowned in a concrete-bottom ornamental pond no more than 3 feet deep because the fireman who would have gone in to rescue this man was STOPPED from doing so by a senior officer, as he had not been trained to operate in water ankle-deep or deeper! PATHETIC!! I've also heard of police officers abandoning foot-chases of offenders because the pavement they were using ran out, and the officer(s) concerned pursued no further for fear of breaking health and safety rules. Seems to me that health and safety is actually OBSTRUCTING the safety of people in some cases! Again, PATHETIC!! As for outside trading(rest of the World), we have to abide by certain rules and quotas,much like our now defunct fishing fleet, struggling with the plethora of EU catchment rules! Whilst we are on the subject of fishing, we had to pay tens of millions in compensation to Spain a few years back, for not letting their huge factory-size vessels fish right up the Bristol channel! They've fished their own waters into a very precarious state, now they're doing it to ours.... all with the blessing of the EU, who ignored(as usual) our concerns on this, and FINED us for refusing the Spanish for so long! PATHETIC!! As for Britain in the 50s- 60s, it was a better place than now, with an ARMY,NAVY and AIR FORCE worth a damn! What have we now? A weak,potential Labour leader who will roll over to the SNP, who may even SCRAP Trident, and who will almost certainly further emasculate our armed forces to a point that we become easy prey. So I say to you; it takes but ONE to make war, TWO to make a friendship, those without weapons can still be destroyed by them, freedom IS maintained at "sword-point", and anyone losing sight of this is asking for trouble, especially in this day-and-age (would the Nazis have backed off if we'd threatened them with a severe "talking to," or sactions?)I think not!! In fact, without our diverse empire/commonwealth, we would not have survived the Nazi assault(EUROPE was occupied) so where WOULD we have got fuel,food,troops and supplies from,then? This could happen again!

If we removed Trident, what deterrent would Scotland have, in real terms? Not a lot! Good luck in the negotiations with Russia, then. I'm sure that an independent Scotland,if it got into financial difficulty, would be offered a "bailout" by Putin, in exchange for basing rights,probably.

Time to sort this place out. Work together. Respect our traditions. Serve the needs of our country and its many and varied folk, before we end up serving the needs of another!


The fishig is a sore point in scotlans it was our fisheries that were sold down the river as a bribe so we could get in to the EU, other countries manage to defend their interests our politicians are just not interested enough in doing so not helped any by UKIP MEP's who milk the systen and do nothing for us.

Time to sort this place out. Work together. Respect our traditions. Serve the needs of our country and its many and varied folk, before we end up serving the needs of another!

Bollocks . I'm not taking lectures on british values from the likes of ukip and their fascist camp followers we saw what that kind of patriotiism led to in nazi germany. .

David Cameron pledges 'English income tax' powers after Tory election victory | Daily Mail Online

Cameron really has given up on the union hasn't he?

If we removed Trident, what deterrent would Scotland have, in real terms? Not a lot! Good luck in the negotiations with Russia, then. I'm sure that an independent Scotland,if it got into financial difficulty, would be offered a "bailout" by Putin, in exchange for basing rights,probably.






Depressing really I suspect you really believe that crap.

Roll back time to when we had an Empire................thats what I say, everybody was alright then.

Smaug;1478132 wrote: Good luck in the negotiations with Russia, then. I'm sure that an independent Scotland,if it got into financial difficulty, would be offered a "bailout" by Putin, in exchange for basing rights,probably.


I think Putin's record thus far has demonstrated that he doesn't pay out for anything he wants. He just walks in & takes it, knowing full well that the UN haven't got any teeth to do anything to stop him. If he wanted to use Scotland as a base he'd just move his gunboats in there - and we don't have enough of a Navy left to do anything about it. After all, we have a lot of former Soviet Nationals in this country now, due to the EU Open Door Policy for him to claim that he is only protecting the interests of Russian / Soviet nationals (which has been the claim in Crimea & Ukraine).

FourPart;1478137 wrote: I think Putin's record thus far has demonstrated that he doesn't pay out for anything he wants. He just walks in & takes it, knowing full well that the UN haven't got any teeth to do anything to stop him. If he wanted to use Scotland as a base he'd just move his gunboats in there - and we don't have enough of a Navy left to do anything about it. After all, we have a lot of former Soviet Nationals in this country now, due to the EU Open Door Policy for him to claim that he is only protecting the interests of Russian / Soviet nationals (which has been the claim in Crimea & Ukraine).


Indeed.

gmc;1478135 wrote: The fishig is a sore point in scotlans it was our fisheries that were sold down the river as a bribe so we could get in to the EU, other countries manage to defend their interests our politicians are just not interested enough in doing so not helped any by UKIP MEP's who milk the systen and do nothing for us.

!

Bollocks . I'm not taking lectures on british values from the likes of ukip and their fascist camp followers we saw what that kind of patriotiism led to in nazi germany. .

David Cameron pledges 'English income tax' powers after Tory election victory | Daily Mail Online

Cameron really has given up on the union hasn't he?



Depressing really I suspect you really believe that crap.


Ah, here comes the rabid nationalism now, and you intimate that I'm a fascist? I'm not a UKIP supporter either! How wrong can a man be, especially when he uses stereotypes right, left and centre.

As regards Scottish defence WITHOUT Trident what will you use? You could try using Haggis, I suppose. ( I understand that they are quite aggressive and territorial in the spring. That might deter the Russkies.)

I must also point out that anyone who uses vulgar language during a reasoned debate is mistaking eloquence for profanity, thus leaving reason behind. If this sentiment occurs on a national scale beware! (Germany, 1933-45 is a classic case...)

Smaug;1478139 wrote: Ah, here comes the rabid nationalism now, and you intimate that I'm a fascist? I'm not a UKIP supporter either! How wrong can a man be, especially when he uses stereotypes right, left and centre.

A regards Scottish defence WITHOUT Trident what will you use? You could try using Haggis, I suppose. ( I understand that they are quite aggressive and territorial in the spring. That might deter the Russkies.)

I must also point out that anyone who uses vulgar language during a reasoned debate is mistaking eloquence for profanity, thus leaving reason behind. If this sentiment occurs on a national scale beware! (Germany, 1933-45 is a classic case...)


I've not noticed Nuclear weapons being much of a deterrent ever since 1945. Putin is still openly moving in on countries, despite protestations against the rest of the supposedly 'Free World' He knows damn well no-one's going to use them.

Nuclear weapons didn't stop the wars in Iraq, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Syria, the list goes on & on.

The Nuclear 'Deterrent' is a joke - a very expensive & potentially catastrophic (from accidental detonation) joke.

FourPart;1478141 wrote: I've not noticed Nuclear weapons being much of a deterrent ever since 1945. Putin is still openly moving in on countries, despite protestations against the rest of the supposedly 'Free World' He knows damn well no-one's going to use them.

Nuclear weapons didn't stop the wars in Iraq, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Syria, the list goes on & on.

The Nuclear 'Deterrent' is a joke - a very expensive & potentially catastrophic (from accidental detonation) joke.


The nuclear deterrent really only deters the use of nukes by someone else, due to the MAD concept.

It may have deterred an invasion of Western Europe by the Soviets in the 60s, and may have kept the US from invading China in the 50s.

And, India and Pakistan may not have bombed each other for the same reason.

FourPart;1478141 wrote: I've not noticed Nuclear weapons being much of a deterrent ever since 1945. Putin is still openly moving in on countries, despite protestations against the rest of the supposedly 'Free World' He knows damn well no-one's going to use them.

Nuclear weapons didn't stop the wars in Iraq, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Syria, the list goes on & on.

The Nuclear 'Deterrent' is a joke - a very expensive & potentially catastrophic (from accidental detonation) joke.


I think nuclear weaponry has bought a long, relatively peaceful spell for Europe, namely, reducing the likelihood of conventional war, by RESTRICTING aggressive troop movements and deployments. By reducing the risk of CONVENTIONAL war, we thus reduce the chances of a NUCLEAR, BIOLOGICAL or CHEMICAL war simultaneously. A reasonable exchange for the risk/cost factor involved with their destructive capability and thus, deterrent value. Had it not been for the Atom bomb in WW2, hideous though it was, the Japanese would never have surrendered, at the cost of MILLIONS of extra deaths, theirs and ours. I have seldom seen anything fiercer than a Japanese soldier "on the warpath".

However, I am concerned with how best to deal with Putin. I fear you may be right about Putin and his dis-regard for NATO and the UN. All the more reason for a STRONG conventional force in these islands, regardless of whether we have nukes or not!

Smaug;1478139 wrote: Ah, here comes the rabid nationalism now, and you intimate that I'm a fascist? I'm not a UKIP supporter either! How wrong can a man be, especially when he uses stereotypes right, left and centre.

As regards Scottish defence WITHOUT Trident what will you use? You could try using Haggis, I suppose. ( I understand that they are quite aggressive and territorial in the spring. That might deter the Russkies.)

I must also point out that anyone who uses vulgar language during a reasoned debate is mistaking eloquence for profanity, thus leaving reason behind. If this sentiment occurs on a national scale beware! (Germany, 1933-45 is a classic case...)


Bollocks may be vulgar and I didn't realise you were that sensitive it's bit bit strong perhaps but good old fashioned anglo-saxon word for nonsense, balderdash, gobbledegook etc etc. Rabid nationalism comimng from a ukip supporter? Pleaase. You have intimated you are a ukip supporter certainly so far as coming out the eu is concerned and some of the ubbih sem to come from ukip web sites. Also during the referendum debate we had cameron threatening to put up border controls not let us continue to use the pound, refusing to even contemplate any kind of currency union if we voted yes. It's not the scots that are rabid in this.

As to defence we would remain in nato, nuclear free like the vast majority of nato members. That nato members possess nuclear weapons did nothing to deter putin so the notion out not having them will make any difference is laughable. Russias too busy reclaiming it's old empire anyway. You coukld make case that as a detrrent it worked in the fifties and sixties in preventing a russian invasion of western europe but somehow I can't see russia

What really worried cameron is where would they put them? London dockland seems a good bet or maybe portsmouth or even barrow in furness. What those in favour opf nuclear weapons seem to fail to grasp is that if they are used being invaded by russia or anyone else will be the least of our worries. The US wants us to have them becaue they can no longer have the number that they want so if we're daft enough to add to their fleet it will save their taxpayers dollars. What's the point of a nuclear deterrent if we need to ask someone elses permission to fire them? That and the possibility that the UK' seat on the security council would go, the illusion we are still a world power that people listen to would really go then wouldn't it. We're so skint we can't equip our conventional foces or put planes on our carriers if argentina invaded the falklands there would be nothing we could do about it even if we do have nuclear weapons and don;t hold your breath for america to get involved.

I've never actually noted snp until the last election and voted yes in the referendum havimng listened to the blatant lies, nonsense and fear tactics coming out from the no side. Scots voted to stay in as part of the union now we are being told that we should have no say in the decisions of a westminster parliament evn when it does affetct us - got your info SNP MP's o noy take part when it is an english only issue and that policy will continue but to tell us we houldnl;t be able yo vote on the budget?

Cameron has nothing to lose in scotland, I wll remember the shock on malcolm rifkinds face in 1997 when the tories were left with no MP;'s north of the border in a country where they used to take half the seats. What thatcher started cameron looks set to continue - the break up of the union.

Fair enough, but we still need to clear a couple of things up.

1. I am NOT a UKIP supporter. About the only policy I fully agree on is an end to "open door"immigration, especially without proper checks(criminal?terrorist?) before entrance is approved, and it looks like UKIP are watering that one down already! Also, despite what Farrage says, if in coalition or even opposition, I'm fairly certain that the NHS will end up privatised, in part or in full. With our huge population,living longer lifespans, this is almost inevitable, given the shoddy way this country has been run since the 70s. I loathe the "rich-boy" tories(look up the dictionary definition of tory...most apt!), I also detest the "champagne socialism" of Bliar and Milliband, and as for Nick Clagnut, sellsoul that he is, enough I say!

2. I am not a fascist, communist, separatist or any other "ist"!

3. I agree that Westminster have lied, bullied, cajoled and threatened Scotland for quite a while now.Nothing new there, then. They do it to us in England,too! Most of the MP's, though not all, are in it for themselves. Why would they care if this place went "belly up", they've got an MP's pay package (with expenses and the odd perk...), possibly a directorship or two,and a nice little pension pot brewing! (it's why they're thin on the ground for major issues and debates, so are not available to represent their constituents in the post they were elected to, thus they should be dismissed forthwith). Also,many of the brats in Westminster have no real-world experience.Straight through Uni, then into the "Westminster Bubble", without touching the real world in between! Take Osbourne, he hasn't even run a sweetshop before, let alone an economy!! As the Americans might say, "Houston, we have a problem..."

I would just like to make clear I can actually spell it's my typing that rubbish.

The NHS doesn't need to wend up privatised there is no justificatyion for it except blind political ideology on the part of the tories and the inability of labour and tory to leave it to medical experts rto run . IMO there is something wrong if an nhs manager earns more than a doctor or senior nurse all they are there to do is manage things so they can do their jobs.

NHS more than DOUBLES spending on private beds for mental health patients after slashing hundreds of its own beds - to save money | Daily Mail Online

The fundamental principle of the nhs is that people get treatment and priority according to need it is obscene that those with money get to jump the queue. I would ban nhs hospitals from taking private patients of any kins - let rthem build their own hospitals. Labouir are only banging on about it just now because it has dawned on them people object. We can affiord trident but not healthcare what kind of idiots fall for that one?

I agree that Westminster have lied, bullied, cajoled and threatened Scotland for quite a while now.Nothing new there, then. They do it to us in England,too! Most of the MP's, though not all, are in it for themselves. Why would they care if this place went "belly up", they've got an MP's pay package (with expenses and the odd perk...), possibly a directorship or two,and a nice little pension pot brewing! (it's why they're thin on the ground for major issues and debates, so are not available to represent their constituents in the post they were elected to, thus they should be dismissed forthwith). Also,many of the brats in Westminster have no real-world experience.Straight through Uni, then into the "Westminster Bubble", without touching the real world in between! Take Osbourne, he hasn't even run a sweetshop before, let alone an economy!! As the Americans might say, "Houston, we have a problem..."


I actually agree with you there except they are also using the snp to divert attention away from the real issues because they don't want to discuss them. My pet hate is the sight of them with suits but no ties just to show they are down with the ordinary punter ior the sleeves rolled up becauyse they are working hand waving about carefukly as they have ben taught like demented thunderbird puppets.

Apparently a lot of english seeing the leaders debate liked what nicola sturgeon had to say because most people in the Uk are actually left of centre in their politics - ask them if they believe the nhs should be privatised or if they want ti di away with the weklfarte state altogether and give tax brealks to thiose on high income. Surveys show time after time people would pay higher taxes if it meant the nhs was run properly.

My favourite comment I came across when reading up on the act of union from an ordinary scot in the street was that he was opposed to the notion of union as London was too far away to throw stones at. We need to find some way to throw stones at the bastards. Turnout is so low because it makes bugger all difference.

As I said earlier, the NHS will probably end up privatised, because of the utter mis-management of Westminster! With efficient running, the skills AND quality of British industry as a whole, and likewise the workforce (England,Scotland,Wales,Ireland),also taking into account that the NAT.MINIMUM WAGE has fallen behind over the years (should be £2 higher, approximately), so you would think that, as the Govt. is making (in savings per hour on working folk) £2 PER HOUR, PER WORKER, they would have enough money to fulfill the needs of the country, especially if they collected all the taxes owed by big business (approx.£30 BILLION), as yet unclaimed, stopped sending masses of money in foreign aid, except in cases where the money can be "tracked" to ensure it's being spent where it is needed, for humanitarian reasons. No, It's the poorer folk that get robbed, as usual,both of money, and of options. And they say the Sheriff of Nottingham is dead? His spirit, I think, lives on.....you can find it all over the place in Westminster, without using a "Medium"!

As regards Trident, if you "do away" with that, you MUST have something to replace it with, though not necessarily NUCLEAR; a STRONG CONVENTIONAL FORCE would probably be of more PRACTICAL use (our current troop levels might scare the hell out of a flock of birds, but they won't bother anything much bigger, the way things are going!).

Totally agree on turnout. So little difference overall in stance/policy/jam tomorrow promises, it's no wonder that people feel disenfranchised! Ideal time for the rise of something nasty....or is that Nazi? Joking apart (I hope), you are quite right about making life more uncomfortable for them...the more uncomfortable, the better, for my money!! Let's hope the "solution" is not worse than the "problem," though you WOULD have to go some...."it's always darkest before dawn" springs to mind here....wonder how dark it's going to get?

And I'll excuse your typing , if you'll excuse mine! (terrible keyboard on this Toshiba)

It will be privatised if we stand back and let it.

Promises, promises ... it's deja vow as Gordon Brown intervenes | Politics | The National

Promises, promises ... it's deja vow as Gordon Brown intervenes




Methinks he has completely lost the plot. He's not even an MP any more.

In scotland the debate does not centre around independence and tyhe break up mof the unon it's more a discussion around what kind of society we want to live in - hence the left wing rhetoric of the snp with labour struggling to try and make people forget.

Carolyn Leckie: Time to start billing the billionaires | Comment | The National

Since the last General Election, the wealth of the top 1000 has grown by £212bn. There are now more billionaires in London than in any other city in the world. All this while foodbanks proliferate and payday loan companies flourish.

Gordon Brown, Jim Murphy and Ed Miliband are now trying to assure us that under a Labour Government things will be different. They hope we have short memories and no access to Google.

During Gordon Brown’s 10-year reign as the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the wealth of the richest 1000 multiplied more than three and half times over, from £99bn to £360bn.

Since 1997, the state pension, child benefit and the national minimum wage have all risen by around 80 per cent. During the same period, under the triumvirate of Brown, Darling and Osborne, the wealth of the super-rich soared by a staggering 500 per cent.


The snp would not go in to a coalition with labiur for the simple reason most of their new supporters would throw up their hands in disgust and walk away. Alex salmond was like marmite many scots could not stand him either and his supporting donald trump lost him a lot of credibility. Putting nicola sturgeon in charge was a canny move.

gmc;1478259 wrote: The snp would not go in to a coalition with labiur for the simple reason most of their new supporters would throw up their hands in disgust and walk away. Alex salmond was like marmite many scots could not stand him either and his supporting donald trump lost him a lot of credibility. Putting nicola sturgeon in charge was a canny move.


Despite her having openly made him the offer to do so in the debates, when Miliband refused?

FourPart;1478260 wrote: Despite her having openly made him the offer to do so in the debates, when Miliband refused?


Yes, I remember that, too. As for Moribund, sorry, Miliband, since when did a politician honour a promise? Say one thing, do another! Suddenly, near the election, they try to convince us they're "a man of the people", and offer a few blandishments in the hope of influencing the electorate into voting for them. People will continue to mis-trust politicians whilst this continues, leading to continued voter apathy- a recipe for disaster.

As for privatisation of the NHS, how can we stop it, unless central Govt. spends wisely and within it's means?

FourPart;1478260 wrote: Despite her having openly made him the offer to do so in the debates, when Miliband refused?


OK I realise in using the word coalition I am thinking of the formal arrangement which isn't actually the correct meaning of the word. I'm not putting my point very well. If you watch the debate you will realise she didn't offer to form a formal coalition but to work with him on a case by case basis where their policies were similar and with the other smaller parties to keep out the tories. Big difference from the kind of formal coalition with the snp calling the tune as portrayed by the media. The libdems formed a coalition and went in to government with the tories and in the process sold their soul and lost all their core support. If the snp form a similar coialition with labour they too will lose their support imo.

I reckon that despite all the hype about hte SNP, the REAL balance of power will be held by UKIP. The polls clearly show them as a very strong 3rd place party.

Conservatives take three-point lead over Labour in Guardian/ICM poll | Politics | The Guardian

Ironically, though, I also think it's the SNP that will help Conservatives get in, as each seat they take in Scotland is one less Labour seat, giving Conservatives a gain of 2.

FourPart;1478300 wrote: I reckon that despite all the hype about hte SNP, the REAL balance of power will be held by UKIP. The polls clearly show them as a very strong 3rd place party.

Conservatives take three-point lead over Labour in Guardian/ICM poll | Politics | The Guardian

Ironically, though, I also think it's the SNP that will help Conservatives get in, as each seat they take in Scotland is one less Labour seat, giving Conservatives a gain of 2.


If that happens it really will be the end of the union ukip policy is to do away with the scottish parliament.

I think it's more a case of why should Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland have Assemblies / Parliaments which have the power to govern themselves, without input from the rest of the Union, when the English don't. Where is the logic that the English are not allowed to vote on Scottish / Welsh / Northern Irish issues, whilst they can all vote on English only issues. You can't have one set of rules for some, but not for others whenever it suits you. Otherwise it's like a Hampshire County Councillor getting to vote on Council Tax levels in Yorkshire, but the Yorkshire County Councillor not being allowed to vote on the Hampshire County Council.

As things are, the Scottish are up in arms about the notion of their not being allowed to vote on English only issues, but that doesn't stop them complaining about National Changes, which affect the entire union being made in Westminster.

Perhaps Farage has a point. Either give FULL Devolution to all sectors of the Union (Including England), or NONE. One or the other - not a hotch-potch of regional options.

FourPart;1478380 wrote: I think it's more a case of why should Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland have Assemblies / Parliaments which have the power to govern themselves, without input from the rest of the Union, when the English don't. Where is the logic that the English are not allowed to vote on Scottish / Welsh / Northern Irish issues, whilst they can all vote on English only issues. You can't have one set of rules for some, but not for others whenever it suits you. Otherwise it's like a Hampshire County Councillor getting to vote on Council Tax levels in Yorkshire, but the Yorkshire County Councillor not being allowed to vote on the Hampshire County Council.

As things are, the Scottish are up in arms about the notion of their not being allowed to vote on English only issues, but that doesn't stop them complaining about National Changes, which affect the entire union being made in Westminster.

Perhaps Farage has a point. Either give FULL Devolution to all sectors of the Union (Including England), or NONE. One or the other - not a hotch-potch of regional options.


Where did you read that one? Scottish MP's shouldn't vote on things that don't effect us like like education and in fact snp mp's do not, (labour mp's do though bunch of hypocrites) but the budget does affect us and other national changes also affect us so why should we not vote on that? The bedroom tax for instance has caused real hardship up here are we supposed to just accept it and have no vote on the matter? It would be like saying to then population of london that their opnions and vote don't matter. It affects us we get to vote otherwise there really is no point being in the union. The tories are actually maiking an issue out of something that is not really an issue to distract attention away for the real issues.

We voted to stay in the union to now turn round and say we can't vote on matters that affect us rather gives the lie to us all being in it together. Keep quiet an do a you are told does not work. If england wants independence go for it but don't come bleating to us when it all goes pear shaped for you without the scots and our rsources that have been subsidising you. How will you make up for the shortfall in revenue? Quite frankly if you feel that way about it and scots are such a burden why all the panic when it looked like we might vote yes? Without scotland the united kingdom ceases to exist maybe cameron should remember that and stop being so antagonistic and trying to stir up non-existent conflict.

You should have a look at what the snp actually say rather than what is reported in the daily mail.

I'll say it once gain if the union breaks up it will not be because of the scottish nationalists but because of the tories and ukip trying to tell us to suck it up and labour are a bunch of wankers.

FourPart;1478380 wrote: I think it's more a case of why should Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland have Assemblies / Parliaments which have the power to govern themselves, without input from the rest of the Union, when the English don't. Where is the logic that the English are not allowed to vote on Scottish / Welsh / Northern Irish issues, whilst they can all vote on English only issues. You can't have one set of rules for some, but not for others whenever it suits you. Otherwise it's like a Hampshire County Councillor getting to vote on Council Tax levels in Yorkshire, but the Yorkshire County Councillor not being allowed to vote on the Hampshire County Council.

As things are, the Scottish are up in arms about the notion of their not being allowed to vote on English only issues, but that doesn't stop them complaining about National Changes, which affect the entire union being made in Westminster.

Perhaps Farage has a point. Either give FULL Devolution to all sectors of the Union (Including England), or NONE. One or the other - not a hotch-potch of regional options.


Agree with you there, FourPart. If it's an internal issue for that nation only, such as a Scottish only vote on an issue affecting ONLY Scotland, then no one else should be voting. The same should be so for all the other union nations. Issues that affect the UK as a WHOLE, should be decided by ALL the elected MP's, from ALL the UK Parliaments. A vote should then be taken, and a consensus reached.

gmc;1478385 wrote: Where did you read that one? Scottish MP's shouldn't vote on things that don't effect us like like education and in fact snp mp's do not, (labour mp's do though bunch of hypocrites) but the budget does affect us and other national changes also affect us so why should we not vote on that? The bedroom tax for instance has caused real hardship up here are we supposed to just accept it and have no vote on the matter? It would be like saying to then population of london that their opnions and vote don't matter. It affects us we get to vote otherwise there really is no point being in the union. The tories are actually maiking an issue out of something that is not really an issue to distract attention away for the real issues.
Why are you taking the defensive. It looks like you're agreeing with what I've just said.

If there are to be seperate assemblies (which I have no problem with), then England should have one as well to deal with matter concerning only England. For matters that concern the entire union there should be a different house either made up of all the individual assembly MPs, or voted entirely as different entities. In this way each unit of the Union would have their say both in the running of their own unit, as well as matters that affect the entire Union. As I interpret what Farage was saying (although I admit I could be wrong in my interpretation) he was saying basically the same sort of thing.

The whole case is very much a parallel with the European Union. The UK, as part of the EU might be seen as Scotland (or any of the member units), as a small fish in a big pool. As things are, due to our size we have pretty much no say in the running of the EU. Their reules may suit the bigger member states ideally, but as a densely overpopulated country those rules don't work here, yet we have to abide by the rules they make for us in Brussels & we are getting less & less say in the way things are being run every day.

The way Councils operate is very similar to the Union. The Councils are the Member Units who are governed by their representatives. They determine their regional budgets in the way of Council Tax & Rent, etc. Some councils work better than others, but all are subject the the Central (Union) Government, although the Councillors do not sit in Central Government. Why then, can the Member State Assemblies of the UK operate in a similar fashion?

Bear in mind that the UK was originally established as 3 seperate kingdoms in this way (Wales, not being a Kingdom, but a Principality is not 'technically' a member of the UK for this reason, but that's just semantics) with individual sovereigns working together instead of constantly being at each other's throats & despite having evolved somewhat since then has, on the whole, worked pretty well.

Smaug;1478387 wrote: Agree with you there, FourPart. If it's an internal issue for that nation only, such as a Scottish only vote on an issue affecting ONLY Scotland, then no one else should be voting. The same should be so for all the other union nations. Issues that affect the UK as a WHOLE, should be decided by ALL the elected MP's, from ALL the UK Parliaments. A vote should then be taken, and a consensus reached.


What is it you think happens now? Do you not understand the way devolution works? Would you please stop reading the daily mail.

What is being preoposed now is that cameron wants to exclude scots from voting on issues that DO affect them like the budget.

What you need to understand is that it was a union of different nations, the scottish legal system and education is different from the english and welsh in many ways. The runninmg of it NHS is devolved but the FUNDING of it is not we need to be able to vote on it. Why should we not have a say on defence? The sodding missiles are based up hare are you seriously suggesting we are not entitled to have a say on things like trident? Tell you what remove them and then you can argue that scots should be excluded from the vote. To suggest a party should be excluded from voting on defence because it is opposed to nuclear weapons is undemocratic at the very least.

I'll repeat it again if the union breaks up it will be because of cameron and ukip, if this keeps up the demand for another referendum won't be the non-starter it is at the moment. A second fererendum is NOT part of the snp manifesto.

gmc;1478393 wrote: What is it you think happens now? Do you not understand the way devolution works? Would you please stop reading the daily mail.
Do NOT insult me. I never have anything to do with the Daily Mail. It's a Nazi, pro BNP Rag. Any opinions expressed are purely my own, and anyone who knows me will know full well I am FAR from Right Wing!!

What is being preoposed now is that cameron wants to exclude scots from voting on issues that DO affect them like the budget.

What you need to understand is that it was a union of different nations, the scottish legal system and education is different from the english and welsh in many ways. The runninmg of it NHS is devolved but the FUNDING of it is not we need to be able to vote on it. Why should we not have a say on defence? The sodding missiles are based up hare are you seriously suggesting we are not entitled to have a say on things like trident? Tell you what remove them and then you can argue that scots should be excluded from the vote. To suggest a party should be excluded from voting on defence because it is opposed to nuclear weapons is undemocratic at the very least.

I'll repeat it again if the union breaks up it will be because of cameron and ukip, if this keeps up the demand for another referendum won't be the non-starter it is at the moment. A second fererendum is NOT part of the snp manifesto.


Yet you continue to go onto the defensive about what I have said. Everything you have said is, in effect, agreeing with what I have said. Whatever you like to call it I am in support of independant rule in the form of independant assemblies (including one for England) as well as a Central one made up of all member states for issues that affect ALL (or more than one of) the states. For example. Each state should be expected to pay an equal amount of revenue into the Central Treasury on some level of proportionate level to be mutually agreed. Each state would then be allocated a set budget from the Central Treasury. How the State then chooses to manage the balance, or how to raise additional funding should be left up to them. What is the problem there? It has both the advantages of Autonomy & those of a Union. It will benefit those that run their affairs well, but to the detriment of those that don't.

Posted by four part

Yet you continue to go onto the defensive about what I have said. Everything you have said is, in effect, agreeing with what I have said. Whatever you like to call it I am in support of independant rule in the form of independant assemblies (including one for England) as well as a Central one made up of all member states for issues that affect ALL (or more than one of) the states. For example. Each state should be expected to pay an equal amount of revenue into the Central Treasury on some level of proportionate level to be mutually agreed. Each state would then be allocated a set budget from the Central Treasury. How the State then chooses to manage the balance, or how to raise additional funding should be left up to them. What is the problem there? It has both the advantages of Autonomy & those of a Union. It will benefit those that run their affairs well, but to the detriment of those that don't.


OK did'lt mean to insult you it's just some of the arguments you put seem to come straight out of the daily mail book of politics.

With devolution that is effectively what happens, we get allocated a set budger by central government, the problem is we are still affected by decisions made in westminster such as the austerity cuts (bedroom tax. minimum wage tax rates etc) that mean in effect the scottish government is not in full control of it's finances. Hence the demand for full fiscal autgonomy with us keeping the tax revenue raised in scotland - we pay more in tax than we get back they'd quite happily see an end to the barmnett formula . The snp has actually manged to balance the books which is more than the westminster government has. No one disputes that without north sea oil the UK would have been bankrupt but that money was used to give tax cuts to the rich and pay unemployment benefit to the thousands that have lost their jobs as industries shut down over the eighties. They would have gone anyway but the process did not mneed to be so brutal. There's also issues like the minimum wage currently we all subsidise employers who pay low wages throuygh the welfare system there are many families both in work not earning enough to live on. In germany one of the reasons their economy is in a better state is that the standard of living is higher people have money to spend that in turn generate employment. It's a basic tent of capiltalism that a high earning work force are good for the overall economy but you wouldn't think that to listen to the politicians all we hear is people claiming benfits are scroungers, a few might be but anyone gping to a food bank is not playing the system.

The situation is arguably worse in the uk because of some of the austerity measures bhut itls not a debate that has really taken place until now that is basically the argument being put by the snp in scotland we tend to mske up our own minds and the referendum hads brought home the fact that votes can make a difference. There's every possibility that the snp will be he third largest party in the house in terms of MP's I think the libdems are done for in the UK. They've alienated their core suppoort with a leader who is a professional politician trhat thinks ethics is a county in england. It's the moral poverty of the political class tht people arev fed up with IMO anyway.

The indepenence of scotland is not the mainn issue in scoland rather it ls real left/right political argument about what kind of society we live in do we let the rich get richer and the poor poorer or go for a fairer society. Quite frankkly labiour and the tories do not have a good case The bankers should have been lynched for what they did, steal a loaf of bread and you go to jail crash the economy and you get a knighthood and a bonus. A lot of scots lost their jobs in financial services - it used to be a major employer you can imagine the reaction to seeing them back on top without a hint iof remorse and threatening all sorts of dire consequences if we don't vote the way they want. Independence might become an issue again it deoends what happens next.

Forget all the rhetoric abiout how scary nicola sturgeon is that's not what this is about - but scare tactics have always been a usefiul political ploy. You have to weionder why cameron et al are so set on stirring up anti-scottish sentiment. If england wants o be free of the scots, irish and welsh stop feeling sorry for yourselves an do it