SNP wins comfortable overall majority in Scotland

darkman2

This could well be the beginning of the end for the UK as it is currently constituted.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-13305522

I have serious doubts as to whether the concensus from England that the now inevitable Independence referendum would actually fail are correct. I think they are being very naieve.

mike65

Could well be the beginning of the end of the SNP as a governing party, now they are in charge they get all the flack!

deise go deo

I don't think there is any doubt about it other than there will soon be a referendum in Scotland on independance, while I do not really expect a yes vote first time out, I think it will be much closer than British Nationalists would ever like to admit to themselves. I think the UK is moving step by step closer to being broken up.

I think that a successful independance referendum in Scotland could be of major importance here as well as it would finally show that constitutional politics can achieve results when the majority is behind you. The dissidents will have lost their final justification for their acts.

That wuould make the situation in the north very interesting indeed, where do the Ulster Scots go for support if there is no more UK? Scotland or England?

GSF

Interesting question for Irish nationalists too! Supporting two seperate nations on the island of Britain but arguing that Ireland as an island should only have one parliament.

deise go deo

GSF wrote: »

Interesting question for Irish nationalists too! Supporting two seperate nations on the island of Britain but arguing that Ireland as an island should only have one parliament.

Yes but Britain was always devided into different nations, That is recognised within the UK, Different nations, Scotland, England and Wales making up the United Kingdom.

Not the same in Ireland, Ireland is all one Nation.

Eliot Rosewater

deise go deo wrote: »

Not the same in Ireland, Ireland is all one Nation.

In your opinion. Northern Irish Unionists would (correctly, in opinion) dispute the notion of a shared culture and ethnicity on the island of Ireland.

SharpshooterTom

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

In your opinion. Northern Irish Unionists would (correctly, in opinion) dispute the notion of a shared culture and ethnicity on the island of Ireland.

But we are of the same ethnicity....

deise go deo

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

In your opinion. Northern Irish Unionists would (correctly, in opinion) dispute the notion of a shared culture and ethnicity on the island of Ireland.

Would they? Even Ian Paisily said that he would never deny that he is an Irish man, they just see their Irishness in a British context.

Before independance Ireland was constituted as one nation within the UK.

Soldie

deise go deo wrote: »

Not the same in Ireland, Ireland is all one Nation.

This was only the case under British rule. Besides, a geographical entity does not necessarily need to correspond to a unitary political entity just because it happens to be an island. Frankly, I care far more about the freedoms I enjoy than I do lines on a map.

HivemindXX

deise go deo wrote: »

Before independance Ireland was constituted as one nation within the UK.

So we should be one nation again because that's what we were under British rule? What a bizarre justification from a presumed nationalist.

deise go deo

HivemindXX wrote: »

So we should be one nation again because that's what we were under British rule? What a bizarre justification from a presumed nationalist.

No, Just stating facts, the justification for the Irish nation was and is the Irish people. But it is wrong to say that there has traditionaly been seprate nations on this Island like there has been in Britain.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Interesting. Why do they do so poorly in general elections? Out of a total of 59 MPs for Scotland snp only got 6

I therefore don't think this actually means much for the national question. People could be voting snp for a whole host of reasons other than Scottish independence.

A Dub in Glasgo

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Interesting. Why do they do so poorly in general elections? Out of a total of 59 MPs for Scotland snp only got 6

I therefore don't think this actually means much for the national question. People could be voting snp for a whole host of reasons other than Scottish independence.

This is correct

A referendum will fail as I do not think Scottish people are secure enough in their identity to go it alone - I have lived here for nearly 18 years and I have now come to that conclusion.

The main reason Labour got spanked is down to their leader - Iain Gray is not as charasmatic as Salmond and Labour misjudged the Scottish electorate by fighting the election on a Westminster platform ie Labour are a bulwark to the Tories, it was only late in the day when Labour turned their attention to the SNP.

What is interesting is the huge error Labour made about the top up lists, some of their main candidates failed and they were not on the list therefore some of those Labour MSPs elected are low profile C list candidates which will probably affect their opposition competence!

spank_inferno

I think the referendum question will be shouted from the media.
However I dont think the SNP will move for such a thing just yet, the time may not be right.

A previous poster was right about the Leader of the Scottish Labour Party.
He's as exciting as a bucket of paint, and though an ok politician, stood no chance against the bombast and personality of Salmond.

The Lib-dems got a bit of a roasting because their brand stinks at the moment.

Wolfe Tone

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

In your opinion. Northern Irish Unionists would (correctly, in opinion) dispute the notion of a shared culture and ethnicity on the island of Ireland.

I hope you dont mind me pointing this out, but surely such a comment will only lead to the usual trench digging and debate over the national issue rather than about the scots?

Eliot Rosewater

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

I hope you dont mind me pointing this out, but surely such a comment will only lead to the usual trench digging and debate over the national issue rather than about the scots?

That's true. My comment was ill-advised from the point of view of keeping this thread on-topic. It was relevant for demonstrating that the particular comparison made between Ireland and Scotland (the topic here) was not quite accurate, and hence that different comparisons could be made, but given the culture of this forum any pursuance of said point will, as you say, result in off topic "Irish question" trench digging.

dlofnep

mike65 wrote: »

Could well be the beginning of the end of the SNP as a governing party, now they are in charge they get all the flack!

The SNP were a governing party, and that is why they have made huge gains. The public believes that the SNP did a good job. That's about the bones of it.

A Dub in Glasgo

The SNP have done a very good job even for a minority government over the last 5 years, it will be tougher over the next 5 years. They must be fuming that they could not cancel the Edinburgh Tram scheme and the minimum price on alcohol did not get passed, now that it is looking like a majority government, they will implement the minimum pricing and it will be interesting to see what they will do with the Tram scheme.

I think it is very good for Scotland that the SNP got back in

karma_

GSF wrote: »

Interesting question for Irish nationalists too! Supporting two seperate nations on the island of Britain but arguing that Ireland as an island should only have one parliament.

The three counties on Great Britain have always been distinct. Rather like France is distinct from Germany. So no, I really don;t see how this is an interesting question for nationalists.

SharpshooterTom

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

A referendum will fail as I do not think Scottish people are secure enough in their identity to go it alone - I have lived here for nearly 18 years and I have now come to that conclusion.

Do you think they will eventually? I could see it happening within the next 30 years. Getting a referendnum is at least a start.

dlofnep

Gnobe wrote: »

Do you think they will eventually? I could see it happening within the next 30 years. Getting a referendnum is at least a start.

The reason why they didn't have much faith was because of the political spectrum, and the media casting doubts. Now the media seems to be firmly behind the SNP so I'd expect attitudes to change alot over the next few years.

LondonIrish90

Gnobe wrote: »

Do you think they will eventually? I could see it happening within the next 30 years. Getting a referendnum is at least a start.

Just a question, why are Irish people so interested in the break up of the union?

For what it's worth, as an English person I would be very happy to see Scotland going it alone. It would be such a positive for England and also signify a fresh start for the biggest country in the union.

There is no way the Scots will vote for autonomy in the next 5 to 8 years though.

dlofnep

LondonIrish90 wrote: »

Just a question, why are Irish people so interested in the break up of the union?

The Union is a fundamentally undemocratic process where the majority of power resides within England, which saw it's creation through fundamentally undemocratic principles. It is obviously of keen interest to some Irish people, on account of the implications it would have for our own nation.

dlofnep

LondonIrish90 wrote: »

There is no way the Scots will vote for autonomy in the next 5 to 8 years though.

They already have autonomy through the Scottish parliament. It is independence that they will be voting on.

Brussels Sprout

With the majority of the oil and gas wealth of the UK falling within Scottish jurisdiction I can't see an independent Scotland being allowed happen by London anytime soon.

Northern Ireland on the other hand

dlofnep

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

With the majority of the oil and gas wealth of the UK falling within Scottish jurisdiction I can't see an independent Scotland being allowed happen by London anytime soon.

If the Scottish people vote for it, there is very little London can do about it.

Batsy

darkman2 wrote: »

This could well be the beginning of the end for the UK as it is currently constituted.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-13305522

I have serious doubts as to whether the concensus from England that the now inevitable Independence referendum would actually fail are correct. I think they are being very naieve.

One reason why SNP have done well is because a large number of English people living in Scotland have probably voted for them.

According to a 2007 poll, the English are actually MORE in favour of an independent Scotland than the Scots are. And, according to the same poll, an independence referendum in Scotland would see Scots voting against independence. 56% of the English are for Scottish independence and only a minority - 41% - of Scots.


Support for Scottish independence is much higher among English voters than those north of the border, a new poll shows.

A majority oppose higher spending on Scots households and votes for Scots MPs on English-only issues and 56% believe it is now time to end the 300-year-old Union, according to the ICM poll for the News of the World.

But in Scotland itself - where the high-flying SNP is promising a referendum on independence if it takes power in Thursday's Holyrood parliament elections - only 41% back the move.

The two nations' voters also disagree about the continued justification of Scots receiving more public funding per head - 53% against in England to 55% for in Scotland.

But they are in agreement over the so-called "West Lothian Question" - with a majority of both wanting Scots MPs banned from deciding English policy at Westminster.

More than two thirds (68%) in England want the change, with 58% backing it in Scotland.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23394445-english-keener-on-scottish-independence-than-scots.do

LondonIrish90

dlofnep wrote: »

The Union is a fundamentally undemocratic process where the majority of power resides within England, which saw it's creation through fundamentally undemocratic principles. It is obviously of keen interest to some Irish people, on account of the implications it would have for our own nation.

"Union is a fundamentally undemocratic process where the majority of power resides within England, which saw it's creation through fundamentally undemocratic principles"

Your second sentence is fair enough, if worried about Irish republicanism then I'm sure that events in Britain will be of huge interest to you. No idea about the point you made which I have pasted though. Why is that of concern to the Irish? It has been made quite clear through various polls in England, Scotland, and Wales in recent years that independence is not sought by people in large numbers in any of these constituent nations.

Are you trying to back an idea on behalf of nations of people who have far less interest in it than you? Who are you as a group to be saying "good news" and "hopefully a referendum will come" when not only is it nothing to do with you, it isn't really of interest to the vast majority of people in the country you are speaking about?

Do not forget, these are assembly elections, nothing more. To add to that, the Scots and Welsh have a hell of a lot more power over decisions affecting their countries than the English do on issues affecting only their nation (not difficult seeing as the English dont have a parliament). The Westminster government is becoming a parliament focusing on issues in the combined national interest, from defence, to immigration, to trade. Just the way it should be and the people of all nations (including the leader of the SNP) want it to be.

PatsytheNazi

GSF wrote: »

Interesting question for Irish nationalists too! Supporting two seperate nations on the island of Britain but arguing that Ireland as an island should only have one parliament.

This nationalist would support three nations on the island of Britain - Wales, Scotland and England.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

In your opinion. Northern Irish Unionists would (correctly, in opinion) dispute the notion of a shared culture and ethnicity on the island of Ireland.

It's the opinion of only 18% of the population of Ireland, who I agree with you have their own culture and ethnicity on the island of Ireland - British. Interestingly, English people living here in my experience try to integrate into Irish life better than the unionists.

Nevertheless, the unionist minority community are not entitled to a veto any more than say, Polish or Chinese people would be. I don't see Westminister proposing to partition say, western Scotland or northern Wales into their own seperate states.

LondonIrish90

dlofnep wrote: »

If the Scottish people vote for it, there is very little London can do about it.

Well, London have to let them vote on it first of all, so to say there is very little London can do about it is ill-informed and misguided.

Secondly, the "oil and gas wealth" argument should be put to bed here. England makes a net loss when it comes to subsidising Scotland, this is including the frankly meagre sums of money Westminster gains through these Scottish natural resources.

Dozen Wicked Words

Only downside to England gaining independance from Scotland would be a further stranglehold of the Conservative party on politics there.

PatsytheNazi

LondonIrish90 wrote: »

Well, London have to let them vote on it first of all, so to say there is very little London can do about it is ill-informed and misguided.

Secondly, the "oil and gas wealth" argument should be put to bed here. England makes a net loss when it comes to subsidising Scotland, this is including the frankly meagre sums of money Westminster gains through these Scottish natural resources.

Where do you think say, the banks, financial houses etc in the City of London got it's money from ? Scottish oil in the 70's and 80's that's where. It's the Jocks who financed England, not the other way around.

Batsy

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

With the majority of the oil and gas wealth of the UK falling within Scottish jurisdiction I can't see an independent Scotland being allowed happen by London anytime soon.

Northern Ireland on the other hand

Don't believe what the SNP tell you about the so-called wealth producing properties of North Sea oil and how an independent Scotland will be as wealthy as Norway because of the oil. The SNP in their fantasy thinking seem to think Scotland will have an unlimited supply of North Sea oil, even though one day it WILL run out and, after hitting its peak in 1999, North Sea oil production is in decline and could run out in just 20 years' time. Then what will Scotland do? It's all fantasy and make believe. SNP are are also the ones, if you remember, who wanted Scotland to join what they called the "Arc of Prosperity", whose members included Ireland and Iceland!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/edmundconway/6505670/North-Sea-oil-is-dragging-us-into-the-red.html North Sea oil is dragging us into the red.

http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/subsidy1.html £22,000 per year per person - England's subsidy for Scots.

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/world/do%2Bthe%2Bscots%2Bsubsidise%2Bthe%2Benglish/166260.html Do the Scots really subsidise the English?

Batsy

dooferoaks wrote: »

Only downside to England gaining independance from Scotland would be a further stranglehold of the Conservative party on politics there.

How could it be a downside? England is a democracy. If the Conservatives are in power in an independent England it'll be because the English voted for them in the first place.

Batsy

dlofnep wrote: »

The Union is a fundamentally undemocratic process where the majority of power resides within England, which saw it's creation through fundamentally undemocratic principles. It is obviously of keen interest to some Irish people, on account of the implications it would have for our own nation.

The Union is actually unfair and undemocratic towards the English, not the Celts.

It should be worth reminding you that England doesn't have its own government. It doesn't even have its own parliament! It's the largest nation in Europe without its own parliament. We're ruled solely from Westminster, the UK Parliament, whereas Scotland, Wales and NI are ruled from Westminster and also each have their own parliament or assemblies.

England needs its own parliament, and then we can stop Scottish, Welsh and NI MPs from voting on matters with solely affect England. After all, English MPs are banned from voting on matters which solely affect Scotland, Wales or NI.

A perfect example of the unfairness of was the voting over university tuition fees. Scotland has no tuition fees because Scottish MSPs at Holyrood voted AGAINST having them in Scotland. However, the English have tuition fees because, even though many English MPs in Westminster voted AGAINST introducing them in England, there were many Scottish MPs who voted FOR introducing them England, even though they probably would have voted against introducing them in Scotland if they were MSPs in Holyrood. And Scottish MPs were able to vote on tuition fees in England even though English MPs weren't allowed to vote on tuition fees in Scotland. So English students have to pay tuition fees thanks largely to Scottish MPs.

It's unfair and undemocratic and a perfect reason why England needs a devolved parliament.

getz

the scottish people will never vote for any breakaway from the rest of the UK.it costs the english tax payer a average of £1,600 for every person in scotland,it was said by the minister last week, the in the case of independance,everyone in scotland would have to pay 50% tax just to stay as they are now,

Fr Tod Umptious

getz wrote: »

the scottish people will never vote for any breakaway from the rest of the UK.it costs the english tax payer a average of £1,600 for every person in scotland,it was said by the minister last week, the in the case of independance,everyone in scotland would have to pay 50% tax just to stay as they are now,

A Independent Scotland would not be good for the Republic of Ireland.

They could cut their corporation tax rates and introduce other incentives to compete with us for foreign investment that we rely on so heavily

Plus they would have a far better infrastructure in place which would help them no end.

dan719

LondonIrish90 wrote: »

Well, London have to let them vote on it first of all, so to say there is very little London can do about it is ill-informed and misguided.

Secondly, the "oil and gas wealth" argument should be put to bed here. England makes a net loss when it comes to subsidising Scotland, this is including the frankly meagre sums of money Westminster gains through these Scottish natural resources.

Ah, the fatal conceit of every urban dweller. I posted on this years ago in the Enviromental forum and I'm going to post it here to save time. It was in response to a claim of large transfers from urban to rural areas. For Dublin read London. For NAMA, read state bailout of Lloyds et al.

You can't even prove that there are any. Rather you are dependent on dogdy accounting practices which allow urban areas to claim that they pay higher tax revenues, when in fact it is partly due to the location of company headquarters in these areas. You then ignore the logical conclusion of such a claim, that NAMA is a Dublin problem. That's before we even mention the refusal of urbanites to pay a property tax, which as we all know, is merely a result of your lifestyle choice.

You cannot tell us what all these fantastic urban areas are producing of any value, and you don't even acknowledge that parts of Dublin are nothing but a cesspit of humanity. What about the costs of social welfare to the professional scum, the cost of rehab for your druggies.

In the Scottish case I would also point out the North Sea resources which are not only oil and gas, but massive monetary value of fishing rights. I would also point out impact on Britain's armed forces.

The English may think they want to get rid of Scotland, but since Cameron has promised to resist the "dissolution with every fibre of his being" it seems they would be economically and politically naieve to do so. If Scotland decides to declare independence, good for them. As long as they don't want to join the Republic of course.

Edit. The post I quoted was from a rather heated debate. Pretend I wrote it in a nicer fashion LondonIrish90.

getz

strange isent it,wales has gone the opposite way,

dan719

getz wrote: »

strange isent it,wales has gone the opposite way,

Any chance of a reply to the points I raised wrt accounting practices rather than trying to equate what are two very different scenarios? Scotland's drive for independence has always been more forceful than that of Wales, and in terms of natural resources the two are not comparable.

dlofnep

Batsy wrote: »

The Union is actually unfair and undemocratic towards the English, not the Celts.

Oh please, spare me the nonsense.

Batsy wrote: »

It should be worth reminding you that England doesn't have its own government. It doesn't even have its own parliament! It's the largest nation in Europe without its own parliament.

Nonsense, it has it's own parliament. It's called "Westminster". You know, the central Government for the UK of which England has 533 out of 650 seats.

Batsy wrote: »

We're ruled solely from Westminster, the UK Parliament, whereas Scotland, Wales and NI are ruled from Westminster and also each have their own parliament or assemblies.

Yes, you are ruled solely from Westminster where you have the comfortable majority of 533 seats (Approx 82% of the seats). The reason why such devolved parliaments exist in the north, Wales and Scotland is because England has so much control over UK affairs.

Batsy wrote: »

England needs its own parliament, and then we can stop Scottish, Welsh and NI MPs from voting on matters with solely affect England. After all, English MPs are banned from voting on matters which solely affect Scotland, Wales or NI.

The reality is, Labour, Lib-Dems and the Conservatives are English parties. Their branches in Scotland and Wales vote along the exact same lines as them. To sum it up - Conservatives, Labour & Lib Dems (All English at heart), have 88.1% of Westminster seats. So please don't play the baseless line that England can't control it's own affairs.

Batsy wrote: »

A perfect example of the unfairness of was the voting over university tuition fees. Scotland has no tuition fees because Scottish MSPs at Holyrood voted AGAINST having them in Scotland.

However, the English have tuition fees because, even though many English MPs in Westminster voted AGAINST introducing them in England, there were many Scottish MPs who voted FOR introducing them England

Actually, it isn't a perfect example. The vote was 323 to 302 (21 in favour). The combined seats of Conservatives and Lib-Dems was 364. 23 Lib-Dems abstained or voted against, 6 Conservatives abstained or voted against. So setting aside, a handful of MP's who were not present - they pretty much had enough votes to pass it regardless.

So don't blame any other MP's. Blame your Tory/Lib-Dem Government. 341 out of 364 of which are ENGLISH MP's (Over 93%).

Batsy wrote: »

Scotland has no tuition fees because Scottish MSPs at Holyrood voted AGAINST having them in Scotland.

Good. And that's why the SNP now have a majority Government, because they don't want to burden their students with insane university costs.

Batsy wrote: »

So English students have to pay tuition fees thanks largely to Scottish MPs.

No, they have to pay tuition fees largely thanks to the Conservative Party, with a small prop up from the Lib-Dems. Any Scottish or Welsh MP's that voted on it, voted on party lines. If you don't like it, don't vote for the Tories. It's that simple.

KeithAFC

Interesting result. SNP don't care for independence, the bigger they grow.

djpbarry

Gnobe wrote: »

But we are of the same ethnicity....

That depends on your definition of ethnicity.

LondonIrish90 wrote: »

Just a question, why are Irish people so interested in the break up of the union?

Because many Irish people like to believe that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are “occupied” and/or oppressed by England – it couldn’t possibly be that the majority of Scots, for example, are happy enough to call themselves British.

dlofnep wrote: »

The Union is a fundamentally undemocratic process where the majority of power resides within England...

Really? How so?

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Where do you think say, the banks, financial houses etc in the City of London got it's money from ? Scottish oil in the 70's and 80's that's where. It's the Jocks who financed England, not the other way around.

Who financed the exploration and development of North Sea oil and gas fields?

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

They could cut their corporation tax rates and introduce other incentives to compete with us for foreign investment that we rely on so heavily

Every country in Europe is free to cut their corporate tax rates as is – I’m not sure why Scotland poses a particular threat.

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Plus they would have a far better infrastructure in place which would help them no end.

Scotland has a far better infrastructure than Ireland? In terms of what? And again, why does Scotland need to independent to take advantage of this supposedly fantastic infrastructure?

dlofnep

KeithAFC wrote: »

Interesting result. SNP don't care for independence, the bigger they grow.

On what do you base that? They routinely discussed an independence referendum during their election campaign. It wasn't as if they were shy about it. Silly Keith.

dan719

KeithAFC wrote: »

SNP don't care for independence, the bigger they grow.

This makes no sense? Do you mean that the SNP would be happy commanding majorities in Holyrood? Because that's simply not true.

KeithAFC

dlofnep wrote: »

On what do you base that? They routinely discussed an independence referendum during their election campaign. It wasn't as if they were shy about it. Silly Keith.

I just don't see it. Its probably at the bottom of the list and slowly fading away to be honest. They used to play that trump ground but as they grow, just wait and see, it will fall away off the agenda. I know so many of my Scottish friends who have voted for them and they are pro Union.

dlofnep

djpbarry wrote: »

Really? How so?

I believe I've already pointed that out. The majority of control over the Union is determined by English MP's, which make up 82.5% of Westminster.

In comparison - Scotland has 9%. Wales has 6%, and the North has 2.7%, of which nationalists have 1.2%.

So the Union is very much undemocratic in the sense that individual countries are controlled by one larger country in England. While devolution resolves some local matters - taxation and foreign policy is still pretty much determined by English MP's.

So to be a Scottish or Irish nationalists in such a scenario, your aspirations will never be catered for. That's the reality of the Union, and one of the fundamental reasons why so many people object to it.

dan719

KeithAFC wrote: »

I just don't see it. Its probably at the bottom of the list and slowly fading away to be honest. They used to play that trump ground but as they grow, just wait and see, it will fall away off the agenda. I know so many of my Scottish friends who have voted for them and they are pro Union.

No offence Keith, but I doubt you have any friends that aren't pro Union, whether they be from Northern Ireland or from Scotland. As a result, I'm not goin to use your personal anecdote as evidence for future policy. Especially as there will be a referendum held in the next five years.

A Dub in Glasgo

Batsy wrote: »

Don't believe what the SNP tell you about the so-called wealth producing properties of North Sea oil and how an independent Scotland will be as wealthy as Norway because of the oil. The SNP in their fantasy thinking seem to think Scotland will have an unlimited supply of North Sea oil, even though one day it WILL run out and, after hitting its peak in 1999, North Sea oil production is in decline and could run out in just 20 years' time. Then what will Scotland do? It's all fantasy and make believe. SNP are are also the ones, if you remember, who wanted Scotland to join what they called the "Arc of Prosperity", whose members included Ireland and Iceland!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/edmundconway/6505670/North-Sea-oil-is-dragging-us-into-the-red.html North Sea oil is dragging us into the red.

http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/subsidy1.html £22,000 per year per person - England's subsidy for Scots.

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/world/do%2Bthe%2Bscots%2Bsubsidise%2Bthe%2Benglish/166260.html Do the Scots really subsidise the English?

The only info I have is from a few years ago showing the following

dlofnep

KeithAFC wrote: »

I just don't see it. Its probably at the bottom of the list and slowly fading away to be honest.

You just don't see it, aye? Then take your head out of that sand, because it's quite obvious to the majority of the people that the SNP aspires to see a referendum in independence, and that independence is one of their core policies.

You've no basis for an argument here Keith. Move on.

sensibleken

dan719 wrote: »

This makes no sense? Do you mean that the SNP would be happy commanding majorities in Holyrood? Because that's simply not true.

you sound suprised