Pro-independence party poised for win (Scotland)

marco murphy

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070503/ap_on_re_eu/britain_scotland

EDINBURGH, Scotland - Scotland marks the 300th anniversary this week of its union with England to create Great Britain. Even as it observes that milestone, Scots are poised to hand a resounding election victory to a party that vows to dismantle the union.

For Treasury Chief Gordon Brown, the proud Scotsman preparing to succeed
Tony Blair as Britain's prime minister, there's a bitter irony: With his moment of triumph in sight, his homeland may be slipping from his grasp.

As voting got under way Thursday, the Scottish National Party was poised to sweep elections in Scotland's regional government, claiming a mandate to chart a path toward an eventual split. The party, which has pledged an independence referendum by 2010, dreams of an independent nation matching the economic successes of neighboring Ireland, rather than relying on heavy subsidies from London.

At the heart of the matter is the nature of nationhood at a time when the
European Union — an even broader umbrella — might be seen as a guarantor of peace and prosperity no less great than Britain. And while Scotland would not have automatic entry, few believe it wouldn't ultimately join the 27-member club.

There are significant economic subplots.

With independence, Scotland would control lucrative oil and natural gas reserves in the North Sea. The Scottish National Party also promises drastic corporate tax cuts that would attract foreign investment and, it claims, transform Scotland into a Tartan Tiger on a par with Ireland's Celtic Tiger.

Brown and the governing Labour Party, however, warn breaking free would wreck the Scottish economy. The territory lags behind England economically and benefits more from British public spending than it contributes in national taxes.

And it would be a humiliation for Labour to have presided over the breakup of Great Britain — even though the English and the Scots share a surprising antipathy.

Will a divorce take place? Perhaps not so fast. Despite the Scottish National Party's growing support, an independent Scotland may be far off.

Polls show that less than a third of Scots want to leave the union, and even Scottish National Party activists acknowledge rancor over Blair's 10-year premiership is helping their cause as much as a desire for independence. Fueling the party's success has been dissent over the
Iraq war and domestic policies Scots feel have stunted economic growth.

A booming, independent Scotland is the vision party leader Alex Salmond sells to shopkeepers as he darts between stores in the border town of Selkirk, the spot where William Wallace, the famed patriot who resisted English occupation, was named guardian of Scotland — or de facto head of state — in 1298.

Unlike the legendary outlaw given Hollywood treatment in the movie "Braveheart," Salmond claims efficient governance will prove a Scotland ruled by his party can manage its affairs without interference from London.

"This is about having a chance to show what we can do as an administration," Salmond said. "Then, in 2010 we'll ask the voters of Scotland for their permission, in a referendum, to move forward to independence."

Polls suggest his party will claim the largest share of seats in Scotland's 129-member parliament and form a coalition government — probably with the Liberal Democrats, who have previously sided with governing Labour. Results of the ballot held every four years are expected in the early hours of Friday.

Labour has been the largest party since Scotland's parliament was established in 1999, following an overwhelming vote in favor of a domestic legislative body in 1997. It has never run second in a Scottish poll since 1955.

Scotland's parliament passes laws on education, health and justice, but London retains primacy on all matters relating to Britain as a whole — including defense, energy and foreign relations.

Actor Sean Connery is the Scottish National Party's leading celebrity supporter and claims "there will never be a better opportunity than now," to move toward independence, lending his distinct Scottish accent to a campaign video.

Convincing voters of the need for secession will take more than celebrity endorsements, pollsters say.

Salmond's chief foe will be Brown, who has launched an urgent defense of Great Britain, telling an Edinburgh rally any split would leave Scotland bankrupt and marginalized on the world stage.

Voters aiming to use Scottish elections to sting Blair will cause an enormous headache for his successor, said analyst Phil Cowley, handing him a neighbor who could undermine Brown's authority ahead of national polls in 2009 or 2010.

"He has always seen Scotland as his fiefdom," Cowley said. "When you do badly in the fiefdom, you suffer."

Interesting stuff. Any ideas anyone?
Does the SNP have a credible strategy to run an indepedent Scotland?

lostexpectation

Poblachtach wrote:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070503/ap_on_re_eu/britain_scotland





Interesting stuff. Any ideas anyone?
Does the SNP have a credible strategy to run an indepedent Scotland?

no did we?

meanwhile in the conservatives are making big comeback, mostly by promising to save the hospital from labour which is strange seeing labour were carrying ou tory policy

darkman2

If Scotland went independent they would have SERIOUS issues to address. One is in relation to the North of this Island where Protestant Unionists will not be happy. The question is does an independent Scotland want to piss us off? I dont think they do.

Thats the North though - other issues like defence, economy and politics will dominate. Are they even up to it?

RalphCifaretto

darkman2 wrote:

Are they even up to it?

I can't believe the arrogance of that comment. Why wouldn't they be "up to it"?

A Dub in Glasgo

So far the SNP have 31 seats, Labour have 32

This is a fantastic result for the SNP when you consider the tabloids went into disgraceful overdrive over the last week portraying them as devils in suits. So much negative campaigning from Labour and so much scare tactics from their friends in the tabloids.

odonnell

By the look of things, SNP will make large gains but wont be in power as such. The good thing that we are seeing though is that the Labour margins have been slashed dramatically and thats always a good thing - the only problem being, who else do we trust in power? The Lib Dems?

Let me just clear something up though for anyone ignorant enough to not consider how we perceive these elections in Scotland, as Scots... for me, as a pro-indepenant... I couldnt care less about 'The North' - its not even on my radar...and why should it be? There are 4 regions that make up the UK - Wales, England, Scotland and Northern Ireland - Northern Ireland isnt anything to do with Scotland in a Scottish sense - its a UK issue and the UK and Ireland can deal with it. So why should the N.Irish be bothered about Scottish independance and what has it to do with them? They dont live there, they more than likely dont have a vote there, and they surely have their own issues!

As for the OP question - Im sure they have a strategy in place mate, but whether it is realistic is another story, these things are very much in the tasting if you follow. The SNP have had top British economists publish statements in defence of an independant Scottish economy, yet Labour have had 'their' experts come out and refute any claim we could be prosperous...so itll have to be a hit & hope thing i reckon, if it ever comes to pass. BUT - thats what happened in Ireland and at least we have the luxury of time for consideration and strategising....you guys unfortunately had to figure it out on the spot and did not too badly by the look of things.

You see something is being overlooked here guys and im slightly hurt by it. We have grown up in a Scotland (im 29 so my generation im referring to) where all we know is that Scotland is Englands poor cousin, who could never support itself should it be 'cut loose by the english' and would only fall into oblivion under the weight of its own sheer inadequacy. We are poor, we are inadequate, we have no economy, all we ever get that is good is from England or the EU, we are essentially paupers being treated to an annual pocket money from the union. And lets not forget that Scotland doesnt actually make up part of the union, its ruled by an English parliament (im being sarcastic...this is how its viewed by a lot of people who dont know any better). None of this is true though, and its about time people woke up.

So this is what Ive grown up with, and I would be at pains to illustrate that this attitude alone is enough to cast doubt on a countries ability to be successful. But you have to ask - why shouldnt an independant Scotland be prosperous? There have been thousands of reports done over the years that mainly suggest we would be in defecit for the first few years and gradually stabilise to become a healthy european economy much the same as comparable countries like Denmark, and Ireland!

So whats the difference?

There is none. Its just that years of propoganda and being part of a union makes a nation forget its own confidence. Im sick of people being nay-sayers and casting doubt on something that a lot of people are wishing for, myself included. Scotland would be grand in time - if anything, its current footing would only help it to prosper, however, there would be issues needing sorted like the military, the oil (can we have our oil back please? its in our waters you know, thanks) the fishing rights (can we stop the spanish over fishing our seas while scottish sea-side towns go down the pan? thanks EU!), etc... but they WOULD be sorted. Nothing much would change in my opinion other than we would finally be in control of our own destiny instead of being voice in a crowded room.

SNP though, are eejits dont get me wrong id LOVE independance, but SNP are not the party Id want ruling the country afterwards. My main question wouldnt be would scotland be prosperous - it would be... 'how good would our political system be, and would we see a return to the olden days of Scottish politics where theyd stab each other in the back rather than see the people ok?' as Scottish history is plagued by double crosses in politics. Sure - if it hadnt been for a long line of double crossing, the union may not exist today!

To cap this off...lets not forget that even if the SNP did gain power in the next election (i doubt they will gain power in this one, its likely a labour, lib dem team) - they would still have to run a reffurendum and have the people of Scotland VOTE on independance. The polls have suggested that of all the votes in Scotland, only somewher in the region of 23% of the voters would vote for independance.

I doubt this number slightly, as of all the people i know in my life, around 90% of them are pro indie. So who knows.

odonnell

darkman2 wrote:

If Scotland went independent they would have SERIOUS issues to address. One is in relation to the North of this Island where Protestant Unionists will not be happy. The question is does an independent Scotland want to piss us off? I dont think they do.

Thats the North though - other issues like defence, economy and politics will dominate. Are they even up to it?

piss who off? what is it to the unionists? theyre aiming to remain part of the UK, Scotlands got eff all to do with them and if we want independance, what is it to the unionists?

two very different issues here.... sorry to say.

Looks like results for several councils will be delayed: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6623287.stm

odonnell

yeah. apparently some of the voting has been fecked a bit due to a high amount of 'lost votes'. Seems the new system isnt working brilliantly.

gurramok

odonnell wrote:

SNP though, are eejits dont get me wrong id LOVE independance, but SNP are not the party Id want ruling the country afterwards. My main question wouldnt be would scotland be prosperous - it would be... 'how good would our political system be, and would we see a return to the olden days of Scottish politics where theyd stab each other in the back rather than see the people ok?' as Scottish history is plagued by double crosses in politics. Sure - if it hadnt been for a long line of double crossing, the union may not exist today!

To cap this off...lets not forget that even if the SNP did gain power in the next election (i doubt they will gain power in this one, its likely a labour, lib dem team) - they would still have to run a reffurendum and have the people of Scotland VOTE on independance. The polls have suggested that of all the votes in Scotland, only somewher in the region of 23% of the voters would vote for independance.

I doubt this number slightly, as of all the people i know in my life, around 90% of them are pro indie. So who knows.

Why wouldn't you like SNP ruling Scotland, you haven't explained why!

Also the recent polls publicised from the BBC website have shown that around 50% of the electorate support independence and that includes Labour/Lib Dem voters, hardly 23% you state!

magick

long overdue imo

odonnell

gurramok wrote:

Why wouldn't you like SNP ruling Scotland, you haven't explained why!

Also the recent polls publicised from the BBC website have shown that around 50% of the electorate support independence and that includes Labour/Lib Dem voters, hardly 23% you state!

The 23% was quoted on a BBC radio program just the other day believe it or not, and im pretty sure it would have been one of those tit-for tat figures that generally gets thrown about by Labour. If you read though, i did say that almost all the people i know were pro-indie, so i too am confused by the 23% figure, and i wonder where the REPORTER got it from mate... i didnt make it up nor did i do the survey so... [edit] and ive just seen yet another bbc report putting pro-indies at 32% - so it really is anybodys guess as to where the man next to you stands on it. do i need to go and drag up a thousand more poll results or can i be on my way now?

As for SNP - well... have you ever watched or heard Alex Salmond debating? Im sorry, but i just place a lot of stock in someone who can speak and debate coherently without tripping over his own slightly dodgy statements. Over the years the man hasnt impressed me, however, neither have the alternatives. If he stepped down again, then maybe.

Dave!

odonnell were the polls you're talking about conducted all over the UK or just in Scotland?

The polls linked to on wikipedia seem to suggest support of independence is around 44%:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Parliament_election,_2007#Constitutional_issue

flogen

So they have a one seat lead ahead of Labour and with their most likely coalition partners (the lib dems) ruling out any support for an independence referendum it's hard to see how the SNP will get their way.

My prediction is that they go in with the lib dems on the agreement of some really watered down face-saving exercise that is flimsey enough for the Lib Dems to keep their pro-Union stance but strong enough to make it seems as though the SNP are advancing the issue... maybe a demand to devolve a few extra powers to Edinburgh and a pledge to set up a review body to analyse the case for a referendum.

odonnell

DaveMcG wrote:

odonnell were the polls you're talking about conducted all over the UK or just in Scotland?

The polls linked to on wikipedia seem to suggest support of independence is around 44%:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Parliament_election,_2007#Constitutional_issue

i know mate its a game of pick-a-number i think and its been that way for years.

i think, from what i gathered, theyd have been high street polls in scotland. But you nkow what? Id readily believe them to be fabricated figures too....like i say - there have been sooo sooo many of these polls.

odonnell

flogen wrote:

So they have a one seat lead ahead of Labour and with their most likely coalition partners (the lib dems) ruling out any support for an independence referendum it's hard to see how the SNP will get their way.

My prediction is that they go in with the lib dems on the agreement of some really watered down face-saving exercise that is flimsey enough for the Lib Dems to keep their pro-Union stance but strong enough to make it seems as though the SNP are advancing the issue... maybe a demand to devolve a few extra powers to Edinburgh and a pledge to set up a review body to analyse the case for a referendum.

i think that sounds about right, and to be prefectly honest - i see no harm in it because independence seems like it WILL happen in the future, so i see no reason why the SNP should be shooting themselves in the foot just yet, as from their point of view theyre in a winning situation. theyve proven their point it seems... im very surprised they beat labour - and im pleased.

Mucco

There was an article in The Economist last week (or week before) about Scottish independence. They pointed out that it very much depends on Scotland being a member of the EU, which, though probably a given, wouldn't happen automatically. The Spanish wouldn't like the idea of encouraging breakaway states and could delay their entry.
I don't really get why the Scots want independence. The economic issue is finely balanced at the moment, and the oil is running out. They have a devolved government, and have a seperate identity. Mind you, I'm not really into nationalism.

In any case, without an overall majority, a referendum is unlikely.

M

darkman2

odonnell wrote:

piss who off? what is it to the unionists? theyre aiming to remain part of the UK, Scotlands got eff all to do with them and if we want independance, what is it to the unionists?

two very different issues here.... sorry to say.

Could it be the fact they identify strongly with Scotland and refer to themselves as 'Ulster SCOTS'? They have mooted this many times up there. Going into some sort of Union with Scotland. Though I know it will never happen.

InFront

I doubt anyone, anywhere is expecting that to happen to be honest

odonnell

darkman2 wrote:

Could it be the fact they identify strongly with Scotland and refer to themselves as 'Ulster SCOTS'? They have mooted this many times up there. Going into some sort of Union with Scotland. Though I know it will never happen.

Sorry mate i still dont see the relevance. Theyve got NO bearing on whether or not I vote for independence when the time comes, and i very VERY much doubt theyve got ANY bearing on the rest of the scottish vote.

As for WHY independence? Did you not enjoy it when the English were here no? Sure...why not? Would it not have been far easier to let things lie? OR didyou actually want your own country back in your own hands? Thedevolved government has little or not substiantial power, and every major issue normally has to be referred back to Westminster.

And heres a wee nut for me to throw in, i tell my irish mates about this and they are astonished it happens, but rest assured - it happens on an almost daily basis: when asked about where im from - a lotof the time im asked what things are like in 'england'. Now, these people know fine and well im Scottish and Im from Glasgow...yet they refer to the UK as England, and also refer to England as the UK, and im sorry but thats pretty annoying...petty but...Reeeaaaally annoying :rolleyes:

Its a symptom of how, i believe, we are losing our identity and irish people neednt ask why we should crave our independence - you guys should know better.

And why do people always go on about the economy? If a country of 6million people cant support itself with the decent economy it has already - how can ireland and denmark do it? Why arent you guys all heading into the abyss?????

The oil apparently has another 50 years or so, and theyre investing now in drilling larger areas of the north sea so - thats an assest for a short time at least, but who cares? Ireland doesnt have oil.... how WILL we survive without it? I dont see how it can be quite such an issue, and i believes its all down to the scare mongering thats happened over the years. Sure itll take time to get right and sure - someone will pay for it, but given time .....

Let me ask... wouldnt YOU want an Independent Ireland and truly be in control of your own destiny?

Mucco

odonnell wrote:

And why do people always go on about the economy? If a country of 6million people cant support itself with the decent economy it has already - how can ireland and denmark do it? Why arent you guys all heading into the abyss?????

The oil apparently has another 50 years or so, and theyre investing now in drilling larger areas of the north sea so - thats an assest for a short time at least, but who cares? Ireland doesnt have oil.... how WILL we survive without it? I dont see how it can be quite such an issue, and i believes its all down to the scare mongering thats happened over the years. Sure itll take time to get right and sure - someone will pay for it, but given time .....

Some interesting economic arguments here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/evandavis/2007/04/the_scottish_gamble_1.html#commentsanchor

odonnell

thanks ill get a read at that later....however you should knowthat the BBC are known for a) mixing their statistics - prime example being the poll mentioned earlier, and b) being the voice of whatever power is in westminster. they have continually rejected any pro scottish arguments no matter WHO the nationalists offer up as number crunchers.

And besides.... a projection is a projection and nothing more and im sick to the back teeth of people being doom sayers all because of a projection. If its what the people want - whos to argue? Im sick of us being referred to almost in terms of a village with no social life - a wee backwater dead town with no prospects. We have a larger population than Ireland, Scotland is a country - has everyone forgot?


Cheers for the article mate ill go have a read.

thats a very interesting article and actually fairly balanced....thanks for that. Also, apologies if i am starting to sound like a broken record, ive been having these conversations the past few days IRL, and im starting to get a bit jaded at the 'viability' talk as though we would be third world paupers.... spoken by people who not so long ago lived in a poorer ireland.

Mucco

odonnell wrote:

and im starting to get a bit jaded at the 'viability' talk as though we would be third world paupers.... spoken by people who not so long ago lived in a poorer ireland.

Some of the comments on that article are interesting and seem well informed, both for and against!

I'm not knocking your aspirations, but the world and the EU today are very different from when the Irish celtic tiger took off, so you can't really use that as a comparison. As you know, the irish economy was non-existant for many decades, as was the Nowegian economy before oil.

M

odonnell

nah i know youre not knocking mate im not moaning at you... it was a good article, seemed quite balanced.

I cant help but thinking, though, that there are other economies in the world smaller than our own who dont have to rely on oil and im sorry, but a large part of me is more concerned with the right to choose, over the fear of the future - you know what i mean?

I think the economy will get sorted out in due course, and there would be around 50 years to do that hopefully. Like your man in the artcile rightly said, and like a lot of people have been pointing out - it would be a leap of faith.

But why shouldnt we have the right to choose that leap of faith? Instead we have largely had, in rceent history anyway, politicians telling us "no thats not good for you, you cant do that".

Fratton Fred

I don;t see why Scotland can't be a success on it's own. Oil and Finance are two of Scotlands biggest industries and I can't see either running out too soon. Manufacturing is still going strong and I believe they have the odd hydro electric damn up there as well.

The only problem I can see is the "Unpicking" of the union. Scotland and England are so close that seperating the two would be like seperating siamese twins, very difficult, could take years and there is always the risk you end up killing both parties.

Maybe England could finally have it's own parliament then as well.:rolleyes:

odonnell

Fratton Fred wrote:

I don;t see why Scotland can't be a success on it's own. Oil and Finance are two of Scotlands biggest industries and I can't see either running out too soon. Manufacturing is still going strong and I believe they have the odd hydro electric damn up there as well.

The only problem I can see is the "Unpicking" of the union. Scotland and England are so close that seperating the two would be like seperating siamese twins, very difficult, could take years and there is always the risk you end up killing both parties.

Maybe England could finally have it's own parliament then as well.:rolleyes:

hehe niice

nicely done.

FTA69

I wouldn't be close myself to the SNP's positions on many issues, but I would certainly support the aspiration toward Scottish independence, as a Republican I would feel it would have a very positive impact on this country and it would also go far in crumbling the cocept of a "United Kingdom".

csk

Fratton Fred wrote:

Maybe England could finally have it's own parliament then as well.:rolleyes:

Surely ye only have yerselves to blame for not having your own parlaiment!

FTA69 wrote:

I wouldn't be close myself to the SNP's positions on many issues, but I would certainly support the aspiration toward Scottish independence, as a Republican I would feel it would have a very positive impact on this country and it would also go far in crumbling the cocept of a "United Kingdom".

I agree 100% and only hope the people of Scotland take control of their own affairs sooner rather than later.

Fratton Fred

csk wrote:

Surely ye only have yerselves to blame for not having your own parlaiment!

No more so than the Scots.

odonnell

Fratton Fred wrote:

No more so than the Scots.

Absolutely FF. This raises an interesting question though.

- The fact that WE arent responsible for the union existing, but crave the right to vote on whether or not it should still exist makes me ask - why dont we have this right? Should it be right that a decision made 300 years ago be allowed to stand unatested for so long, without a sniff of a referendum from any of the regions involved? What kind of agreement exists that is unquestioned and goes without a bit of stock taking for 3 centuries!?

It isnt our fault the union exists, but it should be our right to question its existence.

This may be something worth petitioning. Of course the UK will never be 'no-more' however - its ridiculous that this issue has never been raised publicly.

Has it? Do we have this right and its just gone unexcercised?

csk

odonnell wrote:

Absolutely FF. This raises an interesting question though.

- The fact that WE arent responsible for the union existing, but crave the right to vote on whether or not it should still exist makes me ask - why dont we have this right? Should it be right that a decision made 300 years ago be allowed to stand unatested for so long, without a sniff of a referendum from any of the regions involved? What kind of agreement exists that is unquestioned and goes without a bit of stock taking for 3 centuries!?

It isnt our fault the union exists, but it should be our right to question its existence.

This may be something worth petitioning. Of course the UK will never be 'no-more' however - its ridiculous that this issue has never been raised publicly.

Has it? Do we have this right and its just gone unexcercised?

Who is the WE you speak of?

EDit: ah just read back and see your Scottish so never mind my silly questions!

But of course the Scottish People have a right to National Sovereignty just Likethe People of Ireland!

csk

Fratton Fred wrote:

No more so than the Scots.

But the Scots have their own Parlaiment albeit devolved from Westminister?

odonnell

csk wrote:

But the Scots have their own Parlaiment albeit devolved from Westminister?

That was part of a major excercise in devolution around a decade ago though, which also happened throughout England if memory serves me right? The point was to devolve local, constituent power across the UK - that meant Scotland, Wales, and today again N.I got a devolved 'parliament' where England was broken down and more power given to the local councils?

Correct me here Fratton... but thats my understanding of the way it happened... its just that you cant really take the parliament in Westminster (the elected power base of the UK) and make it exclusive to England... otherwise, thatd be independence for all! yay!! :rolleyes:

Fratton Fred

odonnell wrote:

That was part of a major excercise in devolution around a decade ago though, which also happened throughout England if memory serves me right? The point was to devolve local, constituent power across the UK - that meant Scotland, Wales, and today again N.I got a devolved 'parliament' where England was broken down and more power given to the local councils?

Correct me here Fratton... but thats my understanding of the way it happened... its just that you cant really take the parliament in Westminster (the elected power base of the UK) and make it exclusive to England... otherwise, thatd be independence for all! yay!! :rolleyes:

That's kind of my point.

Why is it that the Scots get to vote on devolution but not the English. What if we no longer want a United Kingdom?

odonnell

Fratton Fred wrote:

That's kind of my point.

Why is it that the Scots get to vote on devolution but not the English. What if we no longer want a United Kingdom?

Well im in agreement! Like i said above - shouldnt it be the case that after 300 years we get the chance to reassess the situation publicly? I think its only fair that people decide their own destiny, and that destiny continue to be decided by each generation getting their vote on the issue.

This being said, i can sort of understand the difference between devolution, and regional government given the UK parliament is IN England - you guys hold the cards really, whereas when i voted for labour 10 years ago, i voted for them on the promise of a devolution referendum - home rule. Im not sure how England COULD have anything more than Westminster... i mean, what would you like to see happen?

luckylucky

In light of this talk about Scottish independence and the union between England and Scotland. Just wanted to throw a different angle on it. Has the point ever been brought up about a different sort of United Kingdom, one between Ireland and Scotland. One of the biggest drawbacks, well as I see it to the UK is that it's not balanced, England has something like 85% of the population of it.

Wouldn't a union between Ireland and Scotland have a certain balance to it, the population of the island of Ireland and Scotland are similar enough, similarly the overall religious balance would be pretty evenly split too.

Anyway yeah i know it's something that will never happen but you never know, Scotland went where the money was at back in the 1700s, maybe it would do the same again

ScottishDanny

I would like to see Scotland free from the UK but in the EU. The main reason being so we can have a fair crack at brussels and our nation of 5m people be represented properly. The UK Union was created as an unfair economic union and continues to be so. I'm conscious of the bad history between ourselves and England (well, everyone and England) but I don't hate them. Thats the past and the more we hang onto that the worse it gets. I'd vote SNP on the national question but when that is addressed then I'd vote according to my left-wing leanings.
Its ironic that Labour set up the Scottish Parliament to kill off home rule and the SNP have used it as a vehicle to further their aim.
The Ulster Scots thing does not come into the equation, the majority of people in Scotland, England and Wales are not interested in NI other than they want peace there. Ulster Scots have little influence in Scotland and is used more to describe an ethnic grouping and culture, they left Scotland in the 17th century after all.

odonnell

luckylucky wrote:

In light of this talk about Scottish independence and the union between England and Scotland. Just wanted to throw a different angle on it. Has the point ever been brought up about a different sort of United Kingdom, one between Ireland and Scotland. One of the biggest drawbacks, well as I see it to the UK is that it's not balanced, England has something like 85% of the population of it.

Wouldn't a union between Ireland and Scotland have a certain balance to it, the population of the island of Ireland and Scotland are similar enough, similarly the overall religious balance would be pretty evenly split too.

Anyway yeah i know it's something that will never happen but you never know, Scotland went where the money was at back in the 1700s, maybe it would do the same again

personally i would like to think the people who went where the money was, were the aristocrats and upper class politicians. I doubt very much the Scottish 'people' would have voted to ally themselves with England in the 1700's after hundreds of years of battling against them. People STILL go on about culloden and the jacobite rebellion... in thie climate, could you see people being anxious to join up with the 'auld enemy'? Nah, id say they be more inclined to ally themselves with the French again. (its been a long time since i read Scottish History so ill need to go and brush up before i shoot myself in the foot here....)

As for the Irish - i cant say that thought ever entered my head. I for one am not interested in Scotland entering another union, merely getting out of the one its in currently. You mentioned the religious divide - Ireland is mainly Catholic yes? Scotland isnt mate...not that it should matter.

Fratton Fred

odonnell wrote:

Well im in agreement! Like i said above - shouldnt it be the case that after 300 years we get the chance to reassess the situation publicly? I think its only fair that people decide their own destiny, and that destiny continue to be decided by each generation getting their vote on the issue.

This being said, i can sort of understand the difference between devolution, and regional government given the UK parliament is IN England - you guys hold the cards really, whereas when i voted for labour 10 years ago, i voted for them on the promise of a devolution referendum - home rule. Im not sure how England COULD have anything more than Westminster... i mean, what would you like to see happen?

I don't see what it matters where the UK Parliament is, the important thing is who makes up the parliament. If the talk of devolution is serious, then is it simply a case of all the scottish MPs are kicked out of westminster? goodbye George Galloway, David Cameron and Gordon Brown for starters. Oh well, **** happens:D

odonnell

Fratton Fred wrote:

I don't see what it matters where the UK Parliament is, the important thing is who makes up the parliament. If the talk of devolution is serious, then is it simply a case of all the scottish MPs are kicked out of westminster? goodbye George Galloway, David Cameron and Gordon Brown for starters. Oh well, **** happens:D

Devolution already happened though mate - but thats devolution, not separation - thats why there are still MPs from ALL constituents in the UK parliament. What you seem to want is an English only government? Fair enough i say, id be all for it, but what we are talking NOW is separation, but its by no means certain there will ever even be a referendum - its all pie in the sky currently.

Fratton Fred

odonnell wrote:

Devolution already happened though mate - but thats devolution, not separation - thats why there are still MPs from ALL constituents in the UK parliament. What you seem to want is an English only government? Fair enough i say, id be all for it, but what we are talking NOW is separation, but its by no means certain there will ever even be a referendum - its all pie in the sky currently.

Sorry, getting my devolutions and seperations mixed up:o

But even still, Scotland could vote for conservatives in the UK elections and SNP in holyrood, meaning England could end up with a government we didn't vote for, but Scotland is ok, becuase the SNP can change any taxes, laws etc they didn;t like, whereas the English have to lump it. if you get what I mean.

Scotland kind of get two cracks at the whip.

ScottishDanny

Its called the West Lothian question. Ie England can't vote on Scottish affairs but Scottish MPs in Westminster can vote on English affairs. The answer is easy. Complete independence! That way there will be no Scottish MP in London.

odonnell

Fratton Fred wrote:

Sorry, getting my devolutions and seperations mixed up:o

But even still, Scotland could vote for conservatives in the UK elections and SNP in holyrood, meaning England could end up with a government we didn't vote for, but Scotland is ok, becuase the SNP can change any taxes, laws etc they didn;t like, whereas the English have to lump it. if you get what I mean.

Scotland kind of get two cracks at the whip.

Theres the thing though - we cant go changing taxes and laws....those are referred back to Westminster. [i THINK we have LIMITED tax powers now i think about it, but its only a recent addition to powers]... so the Scottish government really isnt that powerful - we get to decide how to spend our cash but major issues like tax and legislation are reserved for westminster - thats why we still require scottish MPs there mate. See the problem?

[edit] i meant to say i also see your point though bud - its just that we can do nothing about it....we have no say!

Fratton Fred

odonnell wrote:

Theres the thing though - we cant go changing taxes and laws....those are referred back to Westminster. [i THINK we have LIMITED tax powers now i think about it, but its only a recent addition to powers]... so the Scottish government really isnt that powerful - we get to decide how to spend our cash but major issues like tax and legislation are reserved for westminster - thats why we still require scottish MPs there mate. See the problem?

[edit] i meant to say i also see your point though bud - its just that we can do nothing about it....we have no say!

I didn't realise the powers were so limited, but you see my point and if i were Scottish, I'd want a seperate Scotland as well.

I guess it buggers Celtic and Rangers chances of playing in the premiership though:D

odonnell

Fratton Fred wrote:

I didn't realise the powers were so limited, but you see my point and if i were Scottish, I'd want a seperate Scotland as well.

I guess it buggers Celtic and Rangers chances of playing in the premiership though:D

aaaah not so fast - UEFA are standing fast on that one saying that a team from another country cannot set the precedent of playing in a league not its own - but ..... cardiff? gretna? (and these are two teams in the UK alone!....there are teams allllll over europe who participate in leagues cross border)

soon.....soon we will come!

luckylucky

odonnell wrote:

personally i would like to think the people who went where the money was, were the aristocrats and upper class politicians. I doubt very much the Scottish 'people' would have voted to ally themselves with England in the 1700's after hundreds of years of battling against them. People STILL go on about culloden and the jacobite rebellion... in thie climate, could you see people being anxious to join up with the 'auld enemy'? Nah, id say they be more inclined to ally themselves with the French again. (its been a long time since i read Scottish History so ill need to go and brush up before i shoot myself in the foot here....)

As for the Irish - i cant say that thought ever entered my head. I for one am not interested in Scotland entering another union, merely getting out of the one its in currently. You mentioned the religious divide - Ireland is mainly Catholic yes? Scotland isnt mate...not that it should matter.

Well no doubt the original union decision was taken by the aristocracy and upper classes. My understanding of Culloden was that it was more of a Protestant v Catholic thing rather than England v Scotland. The exact nitty gritties of that conflict I would also need to check up on but one thing I'm sure of, there was Scottish on both sides of that conflict.

Speaking from my point of view, not claiming this to be representative of all Irish people... but Scotland has had a hate/love relationship with England for a good while, least that's the way I see it.

And yip Ireland is mainly Catholic and Scotland is mainly Protestant, and I agree not that it should matter, but alas it probably does.... anyway both have large minorities of Protestant and Catholic respectively so that's why I'm saying it evens itself out.

In practical terms I know this suggestion isn't workable but just wanted to throw a daft alternative thought that wouldn't normally come to mind. Heh you couldn't even have Belfast as the capital

odonnell

luckylucky wrote:

Well no doubt the original union decision was taken by the aristocracy and upper classes. My understanding of Culloden was that it was more of a Protestant v Catholic thing rather than England v Scotland. The exact nitty gritties of that conflict I would also need to check up on but one thing I'm sure of, there was Scottish on both sides of that conflict.

Speaking from my point of view, not claiming this to be representative of all Irish people... but Scotland has had a hate/love relationship with England for a good while, least that's the way I see it.

And yip Ireland is mainly Catholic and Scotland is mainly Protestant, and I agree not that it should matter, but alas it probably does.... anyway both have large minorities of Protestant and Catholic respectively so that's why I'm saying it evens itself out.

In practical terms I know this suggestion isn't workable but just wanted to throw a daft alternative thought that wouldn't normally come to mind. Heh you couldn't even have Belfast as the capital

Nah mate it was to restore the house of Stuart to the throne and depose George II. The armies that clashed were largely made of Scots, of various faiths on both sides, it wasnt a battle of religion perse, it just so happened that a large quantity of the Jacobites were Catholic. The British forces were mainly made up of Scots also...so yes - by all accounts it was brother v brother.If youre ever in Scotland, visit Culloden... itll raise a tear.

Scotland isnt mainly Protestant at all mate, its generally seen to be an even spread of Catholic and Protestant... jings, imagine Scotland and Ireland uniting - the Protestants would go mad.

I see how its an interesting idea, but nah...

luckylucky

odonnell wrote:

If youre ever in Scotland, visit Culloden... itll raise a tear.

Jeez, we got enough sad history of our own without seeking sadness from yours ' n all

odonnell wrote:

I see how its an interesting idea, but nah...

Yeah tbh I don't think it would ever be a runner.. could you imagine rangers playing teams in dublin on a regular basis :eek: .... anyway just a crackpot idea that came to mind a while back, well at least it didn't get completely scoffed at, like i thought it would

ScottishDanny

could you imagine rangers playing teams in dublin on a regular basis

I didn't think the Setanta Cup (NI teams vs ROI) would work but it does, so maybe....(bit off topic though eh?)

odonnell

ScottishDanny wrote:

I didn't think the Setanta Cup (NI teams vs ROI) would work but it does, so maybe....(bit off topic though eh?)

woah hang on a second! If dubliners can go to lansdowne road and BOO the danish team because Peter Lovenkrands plays for them, (and rangers at that time) then id hate to see their reaction with the gers team! hehe not a chance lads!

however, as a famous rangers song states - "if they go to dublin, we will follow on!"



Waaaaay OT