Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Scottish Independence - What say you?

167891012»

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,078 ✭✭✭✭LordSutch


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Devolution is not the same as full-blown independence.

    Correct, but I think the UK is a better place for Scotland being part of it, I also think its better for Scotland to retain the union within the devolved system of government, and better for the UK as a whole if Scotland stays within. It has been said many times that The UK is bigger than the sum of its parts, and I agree with this, and if Scotland votes to leave the UK 'in two years time' then so be it!

    I hope they stay.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,341 ✭✭✭Batsy


    dlofnep wrote: »
    I feel it would be a far more democratic country, where the Scottish people would no longer live under the governance of a political party which has no mandate in Scotland and never receives a mandate from the public there.

    And England would become more democratic should Scotland become independent, because the English people would no longer live under the governance of a political party which has no mandate in England, such as Labour between 2005 and 2010.

    And if Wales and NI go, too, then England would become even more democratic because then it will finally have its own parliament which it should have been given in 1999 when the pampered Celtic nations were given theirs. It is England which is suffering the biggest democratic deficit in the UK, not Scotland.
    Benefits also include Scotland being able to determine it's own foreign policies, and not spend billions on immoral, illogical or illegal wars in the middle-east.

    If you think that an independent Scotland will not get involved in any "illegal" wars in the Middle East or anywhere else then you are being very naive indeed.
    But most importantly - I support it because it would allow the Scottish people alone to determine their own political affairs, instead of having David Cameron and his ilk dictate to Scotland what it can or cannot do.

    David Cameron and his ilk have a right to dictate to Scotland what it can and cannot do because David Cameron is the Prime Minister of Scotland.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,341 ✭✭✭Batsy


    LordSutch wrote: »
    Mud slinging? compared to some of the posts in this thread I wouldn't say I was mud slinging in Post #304, I thought I was quite mild mannered in my thoughts. Anyway, I take your points (which I disagree with), and I still say that two years+ is too long to wait for a referendum that may very well break up the United Kingdom. This massive question will now be hanging over every politician's head for over two years, two years in which we don't know if the UK will still exist (or not)! I'll finish by saying that Salmond is cynically using the sixteen year old vote argument, knowing full well that with their support he may well win the referendum, which will 'if won' break up the UK.

    Time is on Mr Salmond's side, & he's calling all the shots, including voting age . . . .

    No mud slinging intended dlofnep.

    The reason why the SNP are waiting until 2014 to hold the referendum is because they are scared to hold it now, because they fear what the answer may be.

    But they know there'll be waves of patriotism and anti-English racism throughout Scotland in 2014 when they celebrate the 700th anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn. Basically, Salmond and the SNP are going to be taking advantage of anti-English racism in the hope of gettng a referendum to go their way (imagine the outcry if a political party wanted to whip up waves of anti-Scottishness or Islamophobia in order to secure votes in a referendum). Basically, the SNP are cheating.

    As David Maddox wrote at The Scotsman's political blog:
    While Bannockburn is a battle which Scots should take historic pride in, seeing off an invading English army which had numerical superiority, it nevertheless is symbolic of anti-English feeling which are rife with the SNP and nationalist movement as a whole.
    So much for the "positive nationalism" which Mr Salmond claims to espouse.
    It is difficult to escape the feeling that this will be a year long "hate the English" festival in the run-up to a double election in 2015.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,935 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    Batsy wrote: »
    because the English people would no longer live under the governance of a political party which has no mandate in England, such as Labour between 2005 and 2010.

    You are arguing for the dismantling fo the UK as Scotland did not make Labour rule England 2005 -2010. Labour had a majority of 66 with 41 Scottish constituencies voting Labour which could not possibly mean Scotland made Labour win the election

    Those are the facts, I cannot see how you can dispute it


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Batsy wrote: »
    And England would become more democratic should Scotland become independent, because the English people would no longer live under the governance of a political party which has no mandate in England, such as Labour between 2005 and 2010.

    Labour had 286 seats in the 2005 general election in England, Tories had 193 seats and Lib Dems had 47. (Source) So Labour had secured a majority, even without the Scottish vote and had a mandate in England.

    Compare and contrast this to the Tories in the last general election where they secured only one seat in Scotland, and yet govern Scotland. So whilst England returns a Labour majority without the Scottish vote, time and time again - The Tories govern Scotland without any support there.

    But on principle - I would see an English parliament as a positive move forward, making the UK a more democratic system.
    Batsy wrote: »
    And if Wales and NI go, too, then England would become even more democratic because then it will finally have its own parliament which it should have been given in 1999 when the pampered Celtic nations were given theirs. It is England which is suffering the biggest democratic deficit in the UK, not Scotland.

    So - push for English independence or devolution. And stop playing both sides in the thread.
    Batsy wrote: »
    If you think that an independent Scotland will not get involved in any "illegal" wars in the Middle East or anywhere else then you are being very naive indeed.

    They may, or they may not. But at least they will be able to make that decision from within Scotland.
    Batsy wrote: »
    David Cameron and his ilk have a right to dictate to Scotland what it can and cannot do because David Cameron is the Prime Minister of Scotland.

    You're falling all over yourself at this point. You opened your post talking about how Labour had no mandate in England between 2005-2010, because you (erroneously) thought that Labour did not secure a majority of seats in England.

    Now you are changing your tune to the complete opposite when it comes to Scotland. You recognise that David Cameron's party only returned one seat in the past few general elections in Scotland - but yet you seem to believe that it's wholly democratic, while Labour ruling England is not democratic.

    Make up your mind.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,493 ✭✭✭DazMarz


    Kevok wrote: »
    Why is there no "I'm not Scottish it doesn't matter what I think" option? :confused:

    Or the old stand-by, "I could not give a flying, fiddler's f*ck" option???


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    dlofnep wrote: »
    I feel it would be a far more democratic country, where the Scottish people would no longer live under the governance of a political party which has no mandate in Scotland and never receives a mandate from the public there.

    Benefits also include Scotland being able to determine it's own foreign policies, and not spend billions on immoral, illogical or illegal wars in the middle-east.

    But most importantly - I support it because it would allow the Scottish people alone to determine their own political affairs, instead of having David Cameron and his ilk dictate to Scotland what it can or cannot do.




    No, I'm not - but I'm perfectly capable of having an opinion on the matter like the 350+ other people who have voted in the poll, regardless of my nationality.

    Scotland is predominantly Labour. It was a Scottish Labour Prime minister that took the UK to war.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Batsy wrote: »
    And England would become more democratic should Scotland become independent, because the English people would no longer live under the governance of a political party which has no mandate in England, such as Labour between 2005 and 2010.

    And if Wales and NI go, too, then England would become even more democratic because then it will finally have its own parliament which it should have been given in 1999 when the pampered Celtic nations were given theirs. It is England which is suffering the biggest democratic deficit in the UK, not Scotland.

    .

    And once more - given the above and the previous remark below
    As a Tory voter I'll be glad to see the back of Scotland.

    Why o why o why are you constantly posting against it?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Scotland is predominantly Labour. It was a Scottish Labour Prime minister that took the UK to war.

    It would serve you better to actually read the flow of conversation, rather than to interject randomly forcing a repeat in conversation. I have already addressed this. It's not an issue of whether or not war has been supported, it's an issue of affording Scotland the choice on whether or not they as an individual nation want to partake in them.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Cú Giobach


    Nodin wrote: »
    And once more - given the above and the previous remark below .......
    Why o why o why are you constantly posting against it?
    He's not actually posting "against it", he has actually stated he would be for it, because it would make England a "Tory" country, all he is saying is that they would be unable to run their own country.

    Batsy, do you feel the Scots are some sort of Untermenschen who are genetically incapable of running their own country, or do you believe there is a minimum population size below which an independent country is unviable?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    dlofnep wrote: »
    It would serve you better to actually read the flow of conversation, rather than to interject randomly forcing a repeat in conversation. I have already addressed this. It's not an issue of whether or not war has been supported, it's an issue of affording Scotland the choice on whether or not they as an individual nation want to partake in them.

    What?

    No one gets to say if their politicians decide to start a war on their behalf.

    The only option is to vote those politicians out at the next election, which the Scots didn't do.

    at the first election post the invasion of Iraq, the labour vote in Scotland fell less than it did in England. Labour still received far more votes for the westminster parliament (where UK foreign policy is made) than anti war parties.

    Your point is completely moot, Scottish independence and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are simply not connected.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    What?

    No one gets to say if their politicians decide to start a war on their behalf.

    I stated that it would allow Scotland the choice on whether it wished to participate in future wars.
    The only option is to vote those politicians out at the next election, which the Scots didn't do.

    at the first election post the invasion of Iraq, the labour vote in Scotland fell less than it did in England. Labour still received far more votes for the westminster parliament (where UK foreign policy is made) than anti war parties.

    Your point is completely moot, Scottish independence and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are simply not connected.

    Er, no - my point is perfectly valid. Your ability to comprehend basic English on the other hand is slightly suspect. I was outlining that one of the benefits of Scottish independence would allow them to determine their own foreign policy, where they would have the choice on whether or not to engage in any future wars.

    For some reason - this very basic point seems to have gone way over your head.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    dlofnep wrote: »
    I stated that it would allow Scotland the choice on whether it wished to participate in future wars.



    Er, no - my point is perfectly valid. Your ability to comprehend basic English on the other hand is slightly suspect. I was outlining that one of the benefits of Scottish independence would allow them to determine their own foreign policy, where they would have the choice on whether or not to engage in any future wars.

    For some reason - this very basic point seems to have gone way over your head.

    It would also allow them to decide if they want to start up their own space programme, or invade Rockall.

    Both of which are as relevant to Scottish independence as your point is.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    It would also allow them to decide if they want to start up their own space programme, or invade Rockall.

    Both of which are as relevant to Scottish independence as your point is.

    You don't seem to understand what the word 'independence' means, or what it implies - do you? Independence means that Scottish affairs will be controlled by the Scottish people, of which includes being able to determine their own foreign policies on a range of issues. I can't make this anymore simpler for you.

    So the issue of determining one's foreign policy is highly relevant to Scottish independence.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    dlofnep wrote: »
    You don't seem to understand what the word 'independence' means, or what it implies - do you? Independence means that Scottish affairs will be controlled by the Scottish people, of which includes being able to determine their own foreign policies on a range of issues. I can't make this anymore simpler for you.

    So the issue of determining one's foreign policy is highly relevant to Scottish independence.

    Agreed.

    The Scots obviously care about their foreign policy, which is why they vote SNP in for Holyrood and vote overwhelmingly against them in Westminster.

    Or, put another way, they don't seem to upset about the UK's foreign policy.


Advertisement