Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Union rallying cry as Brown bids to end referendum fiasco

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 16 May 2008
GORDON Brown yesterday put himself at the forefront of the battle to save the Union, as he issued a rallying cry for people to rise against the "separatist" forces of the SNP.
The Prime Minister said he would spend the "next few months" making the case for the preservation of the United Kingdom. He said others across the political spectrum who shared his views "should now be out there defending the Union".

His comments
came as an opinion poll found only 31 per cent of Scots would vote for independence, while 43 per cent would vote against.

Mr Brown's intervention followed a torrid fortnight for Wendy Alexander, the Labour leader in Scotland, who has performed a series of U-turns on her support for an independence referendum and the timing of any vote.

Labour MSPs, at a meeting on Tuesday, ditched her pledge that the party would not stand in the way of an SNP bill, which has yet to be tabled at Holyrood, to hold a referendum in 2010.

Labour also backtracked from Ms Alexander's infamous call to the SNP to "bring it on" and hold a vote as soon as possible.

Mr Brown was asked yesterday, at his monthly news conference at No 10, whether Scots should place their faith in him – and his long-standing defence of the Union – or Ms Alexander.

He sidestepped the question, saying there were no plans on the table, either at Westminster or Holyrood, for a referendum. But he admitted an "intense debate" was taking place, creating "uncertainty" and, leading many people to argue that "action should be taken".

He went on: "Now that we know that the Scottish National Party, at some point, want to break up the United Kingdom, and now that we know there is also an English lobby for a separate English parliament, the case for the United Kingdom and the integration of it has got to be put, and that is what I intend to do over the next few months."

Mr Brown called for attention to be focused on the "economic and social and political case" in favour of the 300-year-old Union. He said: "It's very important to recognise that the case for the Union must now be put."

Asked how he would rate Ms Alexander's performance over the past fortnight, he said: "I said last Saturday that she had been an excellent leader of the Labour party in Scotland."

He went on: "What I want to say is that all those people who are unionists, who believe the Union is worth defending, should now be out there, defending the Union and realising that there are people whose only mission in life is to break up the Union. I'm going to defend the Union. I believe it's good for Britain. I believe it's good for the people of Britain."

But his call was mocked by the SNP.

A spokesman for Alex Salmond, the First Minister, said: "If Gordon Brown wants to campaign for his preferred solution, he should equally be prepared to allow the people to decide in a referendum at the conclusion of the campaign.

"There is no point in having a campaign if you are running away from a referendum."

Ms Alexander's "bring it on" call was seen as a way of "shooting the SNP's fox" but many in the Labour Party feared any referendum would become a popularity contest between Mr Brown and Mr Salmond.

INDEPENDENCE SUPPORT AT 31%

FEWER than one in three Scots back independence, according to a new poll.

Asked whether Scotland should become independent, 31 per cent said Yes, 43 per cent said No and 26 per cent said they did not know.

The telephone survey of 1,051 adults, for STV's Politics Now programme, is in contrast to a newspaper poll last month that found marginally greater support for independence than for staying in the UK.

The STV poll also found that if a multi-option referendum was held, 50.1 per cent would back remaining within the UK but with more powers for the Scottish Parliament. Only 25.1 per cent would back independence, while 24.8 per cent wanted no change.

Second preferences were not counted in the poll.







Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 15 May 2008 9:27 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Scottish independence
 
1

Angus Ogg,

15/05/2008 22:12:49

How out of touch is Gordon Brown.

He is now the political Midas touch in reverse.

If he intends to put himself at the forefront of saving the Union, then Great Britain is trully doomed. Independence will follow.

Personally, I think the bulk of non-political-anorak voters are fed up with what we have, and whilst they may not quite be willing to go the whole hog and completely seperate Scotland from the UK, I would put money on the actual result being to have some form of federal independence within the UK.

I simply cannot see the average voter voting for either the bankrupt status quo, nor the complete end of the Union.

As with many things, the sound money is on there being a negotiated settlement of the will of the people, and that, in all probability will be a balanced view.

Hence the reasoned thought it will be "Independence Within The UK".

The only wild card is if Gordon Brown makes himself a figurehead for backing the Union. If that happens, then as he is so unpopular, and the Scottish electorate can be stubbornly contrary, that the vote may very well end up with a majority for Independence.

Intersting Times !

2

Conan the Librarian™,

16/05/2008 00:07:27
Yet again Labour arrogance.There is most definately a plan for an independence referendum at Holyrood.
Perhaps not on the opposition side.This week. Maybe.
3

,

16/05/2008 00:16:47
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
4

livilion,

livingston 16/05/2008 00:52:19
Only 31%? Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't 24% enough to put Honest Tony Blair back in government to take us into a war in Iraq and Afghanistan, restart the nuclear arms race, abolish the 10p tax band and so forth?

Unionists must be keeching their pants when they consider that no-one has actively put the case for independence for years now and still 31% have said they're definitely in favour of full blown independence and another 26% have declined to rule out the idea.

What can a unionist tell Scotland in the run up to a constitutional referendum that we haven't seen discredited this last thirty years or more?:

IE: The SNP have no experience of running a government, we'd become an economic basket case, we'd be the next Albania or Bangladesh, £5000 a head extra tax bills, Scotland would be too wee to be viable, companies heading for the border exits, border guards at Carlisle and families divided across an English checkpoint Charlie, terrorists just waiting for independence day celebrations to bomb us back to the union. We have insufficient talent or intelligence to run an independent government by ourselves. Folks in England might take the huff and stop subsidising us?

Aye, that'll be shining bright, heard it, tried the pies, got the tee-shirts!
5

ochone,

Sauchie, Clack's 16/05/2008 00:53:34
But they had since before 1707 to talk up the union, how much more time do they need?

As for the poll, I wish they would make their mind s up, we were told it was only 19% about three weeks ago!
6

ochone,

Sauchie, Clack's 16/05/2008 00:57:33
livilion, you forgot the all time clincher of we won't be able to get Coronation Street anymore!
7

livilion,

livingston 16/05/2008 00:59:53
Bumsh!t, toleyfart the gemmsa bogey
8

the_figures_are _fudged,

Galashiels 16/05/2008 01:11:05
Newsflash from the Ministry of the Bleeding Obvious in Westminster ..........

"Now that we know that the Scottish National Party, at some point, want to break up the United Kingdom,"

I wonder didnt they suspect anything up till now ?
9

Edward,

16/05/2008 01:11:11
I would be interested in knowing when and where the sampling took place for STV's poll
Its also interesting that for the multi option question, second options were not considered, this has shown to be a flaw when doing multi option polls, especially as an actual multi option referendum wold use stv system
Like as always politicians grasp any meager crumbs of comfort
Ive always advocated that a proper opinion poll be carried out accross Scotland sampling at least 1700 to 2000
10

Edward,

16/05/2008 01:16:13
'Mr Brown called for attention to be focused on the "economic and social and political case" in favour of the 300-year-old Union. He said: "It's very important to recognise that the case for the Union must now be put."
Yes bring it on Gordon, just cant wait to hear once again the purile arguements in favour of the Union
Last year we had the 'it would break up families' and 'it would add £ 5000 to every family' and 'border posts' and who could forget 'no more Eastenders' (allthough speaking personally that last one would probably be not a bad thing!)
I would love to hear from anyone actually from the Unionist camp actually set out why the union is good for Scotland and why not being in a union with England would be bad
11

Kipling,

16/05/2008 01:29:17
Both those for an English parliament and those for a Scottish parliament have much in common to work from, particularly a dislike of Labour Unionism. I was sad to hear some within the Campaign for English Democracy recently roll out the criticisms against the Scots for living off English subsidies and likewise the Scots rolls out a similar case of the English living off Scottish oil reserves. Scottish and English nationalists (and I'm not referring to BNP extremists) should work together for a separate future, whether federalist or completely autonomous. There's no reason why the promotion of separate nationhoods has to be bloody or bloody minded.
12

acanthus,

16/05/2008 01:35:13
The SNP will happily take 31% as a starting point before the debate has even begun. Risen as it has in 1 week from 19% then to 25% depending of which Unionist you speak to.

Personally, and i think most people agree, the figure would be around 35% but neverthless let us not forget the 26% of those who are undecided.

Even half of those persuaded would bring the total to 48%.

Then there are those who will be faced with voting for independence or enduring Conservative rule.

Not forgetting the 35% of businessmen who are now more in favour of voting for independence.

Yes, the Unionists are in big big trouble..happy days!
13

Andrew BOD,

Aberdeen/shire 16/05/2008 01:36:56
This guy is priceless.

He's clearly just discovered the aims of the SNP. Or one of his advisors just told him. But he's forgotten again that Wendy would still welcome a referendum. I think.

Utter garbage from an utter garbage politician.

He needs to get a 'Scottish' spin doctor who knows the right things to say for a Scottish audience because he just makes a fool of himself with comments like these. His English spin doc is much better versed as he made political capital out of the trouble in Manchester by saying that a minority of Rangers (Scottish) fans have jeopordised England's bid to host the World Cup. Clever.
14

acanthus,

16/05/2008 01:38:11
I can hear the slogan now..a vote against independence is a vote for the English Conservatives...lovely!
15

Andrew BOD,

Aberdeen/shire 16/05/2008 01:38:54
A non-STV poll by STV. Ironic Wendy.
16

Scottish not British,

16/05/2008 01:51:59
Ah yes Gordon Brown truely is special, to think that someone so clueless actually became PM is a wonder. The only way to resolve the issue of independence is to have a referendum, roll on 2010...
17

Edward,

16/05/2008 02:07:50
I noticed John Reid, Chairman of Celtic is still an MP
How can he carry on these tasks?
Why doesnt he resign his seat now and have a by election?
Then again Labour would loose it, just as there about to loose Crewe
18

brian mcc,

the arctic 16/05/2008 02:41:31
From an Irish perspective: The walls will come tumbling down, Ireland and Scotland in dual wheel drive. The taste of Independence is sweet.

The digestion of invasion should be flushed down the toilet.
19

Jeeemy,

St Andrews 16/05/2008 03:24:55
Mr Brown called for attention to be focused on the "economic and social and political case" in favour of the 300-year-old Union. He said: "It's very important to recognise that the case for the Union must now be put."


Yes the “economic” case for the union, McCrone Report buried, the value to the treasury of a million £ per hour.

The “Social” case for the union, £150 million of lottery funding to assist in cleaning up industrial waste land in London.

The Political case for the Union, Scotland will send 59 labour MP’s to prop-up the rump of the Labour vote in Westminster.

No Mr Brown, in gaining your history degree a Edinburgh Uni you missed out on one point in particular; “ you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you cant fool al of the people all of the time”

20

Snuffy Ivy,

Aberdeen 16/05/2008 03:27:36
Statistics can mean whatever they're designed to do. Assuming 31% is accurate, can someone tell me what the total voter turnout is likely to be? (Look at the present voter turnout versus the voter register.....the figures are remarkably different). 31% of WHAT?
21

Alec M,

Falkirk 16/05/2008 04:43:10
A few days ago I read that Maggie had said "I'll do everything necessary to save the Union."

Alex, get someone to taste your curries for you!!!

More seriously, Edward (#17) I was surprised too. What might he be claiming in MP's "expenses" before he cedes his seat?
22

Colin Wilson,

16/05/2008 06:33:27
"Mr Brown called for attention to be focused on the "economic and social and political case" in favour of the 300-year-old Union. He said: "It's very important to recognise that the case for the Union must now be put."

Is there one, that isn't based on distortions, ridicule, and downright lies? I haven't heard it.
23

Saul Tyre,

Germany 16/05/2008 06:43:24
The latest poll shows that a massive 43 % want to keep the Union. Only 7 percent points more and half the population will want to stay part of Great Bitain. Gordon Brown can now sleep well in the knowledge that nearly half the Scots support the continuation of the Union.
24

Calvinist,

16/05/2008 06:51:05
Why is Salmond delaying a holding a referendum until 2010? Perhaps the reason is that the fears the outcome. If the outcome is no to independence, then he will look like a discredited fool. If the answer is yes he will loose his reason for existence. Or does he imagine that he will then have the right to rule Scotland for ever and a day?
25

Royster,

16/05/2008 07:05:21
Bit of cheek for us to go out and defend the Union on behalf of the Labour Party. It was the half-wits in the party that endangered the Union in the first place with their breathtakingly incompetent devolution experiment.
26

Jimmy the Pie,

16/05/2008 07:05:46
I watched with horror yesterday's TV footage of the 'defenders' of the Union in action yesterday.

Absolutely horrendous!!

Then I saw the Rangers hooligans in action!

Holyrood was worse
27

Jimmy the Pie,

16/05/2008 07:10:05
#27 Calvanist

I'll put this in very simple terms for you -

If you were selling your house, would you invited some of the football 'supporters' seen on TV yesterday round to watch a match on the tele, before prospective buyers come to view??
28

A Better Way,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 07:17:31
Why is it Unionists like Calvinist keep trying to imply Alex is afraid of the arguement or the Vote. He is the only politician that has included Independance in his parties manifesto and hasnt diverted from in in anyway. He like the Scottish People cannot wait for the day, and he like the Scottish People does not fear the decision, merely because he knows whatever happens Scotland can only be better of than they have been in three hundred years.

Make your arguement Brown, but dont think you can keep the genie in the bottle about the fact that at present Scots get Ten Billion a year now, when by a simple matter of ticking a box means we get 76 billion per year and make our own decisions. Sounds like a no brainer to me and 5 million other Scots.
29

democracy,

Scottish Borders 16/05/2008 07:25:19
I see #28 Royster, that you must have believed New Labour when they keep telling people they gave Scotland devolution, they didn't, they were forced to do so by EU charter, Blair and Brown never wanted Scotland to have a devolved administration, they were dragged kicking and screaming to do so,under the threat of sanctions, as Westminster was deemed to be governing Scotland illegally in a quasi-colonial fashion and was affecting the case for other members joining the EU. I am fed up of telling Unionists this,
so when you said "their breathtakingly incompetent devolution experiment" it doesn't apply because they had no choice in the matter,end of story!!
30

Number 6,

Germany 16/05/2008 07:25:44
#27 Good Grief ! have you unionistas STILL not got it ?.
31

john z,

edinburgh 16/05/2008 07:28:08
Gordon Brown, as usual is talking garbage. If Scotland became independent, it would not per se break up the united kingdom, but it would remove one player from Great Britain.

Great Britain is, Scotland, England and Wales. The United Kingdom is actually the united kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I am quite sure the United kingdom could continue very well without Scotland.

Of course, it sounds so much more dramatic, for Broon to talk of 'separatism' rather than independence, and to talk near hysterically of the end of the union, which is a bit of an overstatement.

No, the spin doctors of Westminster have ensured Broon uses these silly phrases, in order to do nothing but mis-lead.

Why, for example, will Gordon Brown not ever use the phrase 'Scottish Government', as I cannot think of any other national leader who aims to insult and offend the democratically elected government of any country in the same way he does to Scotland.

Perhaps he needs to remember where his constituency actually is, as the people of Scotland are pretty pleased with the way the SNP Scottish Government is running things.

As regards polls on independence, a third in favour of independence, can translate to a near majority in any referendum, as not everyone will vote. You can be sure however, that those in favour of independence will vote.

Of course the regular publishing of such poor quality referendums is part of the deceit used in the 1970's to defeat independence then. It is no surprise it is being used now. They effectively mean nothing, but can be used to marginalise pro independence people in the public's eye.


32

eric,

16/05/2008 07:32:37
idont believe polls just as i know that 200,thousand rangers fans did not riot.the tory party will be in gvt soon anyway,browns comments are amusing,
33

LEAL,

NORTH 16/05/2008 07:36:20
The Union cannot survive Labour incompetent and sleaze ridden government.I cant think that a Conservative govt in London will persuade Scottish voters to fight to save the union.Opinion in Scotland is fairly evenly divided at the moment on whether to vote for independence or to vote for London control.
It's all to play for.My feeling is that when it comes to the bit...When people get to referendum day...they are more likely to vote for the saltire than the union jack.They are more likely to vote for Salmonds Scotland than Browns Britain.They are more likely to vote for Salmonds Scotland than Camerons Britain.
Gordon Brown can wrap himself in the union jack and make defence of the union his number one priority if he likes,but that would really annoy the voters of England who arent worried whether Scotland leaves the union or not.They expect their PM to be concentrating his efforts on the economic crisis etc.
34

Roy,

16/05/2008 07:40:11
Reasons why an Independence referendum might fail:
Millions of pounds pushed into a 'No' campaign by Labour and Tory central offices.
Low self-esteem ingrained into too many Scots.
England might deport Maggie Broon.
Reasons why it might suceed:
Pride and responsibility might just make folk have the bottle to seize a 'one-off' opportunity to launch new Scotland.
The notion that the SNP might not campaign again for an independence referendum for a generation, should the first one fail, is just too crazy for words.
35

democracy,

Scottish Borders 16/05/2008 07:40:23
The referendum question should be a simple and truthful one and not one which misleads and should be as follows:

Should Scotland continue to be governed by a foreign country? YES or NO
36

Alex X,

16/05/2008 08:01:13
This use of "Separatist Forces" is beginning to sound very much like Star Wars with Brown as Darth Vader reperesenting the Empire, aboard the Westminster Death Star and Salmond as co as the Rebels.

We all know who Jackie the Hutt is, but which one is the WENDY?
37

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 08:02:33
Its about time somebody made a case for the union. Maybe then we wont have to deal with so many lies baseless opinions and pure idiotic fantasy.
We might even get a real debate finally.
38

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 08:04:02
37

Federation without seperation and how does that work then?? How do we become a Federation without disolving the act of union???
39

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 08:37:50
37

Are you that stupid you believe the Scots the English the Welsh and the Northern Irish will all be willing to give up their national identities in order to become part of a federation state of Britain??
And you think this can be acheived without dissolving the act of union between the KINGDOMS OF SCOTLAND AND ENGLAND???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Time for a new logon dont you think????
40

Fairfax,

16/05/2008 08:39:58
democracy (32): "they were dragged kicking and screaming to do so,under the threat of sanctions, as Westminster was deemed to be governing Scotland illegally in a quasi-colonial fashion and was affecting the case for other members joining the EU"

I think this is an urban myth, but can you provide references? The EU tolerates many quasi-colonial arrangements, in fact, such as Andorra. The remnants of the French overseas empire, the Departements D'outre Mer, are essentially still quasi-colonial in practice.
41

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 08:42:59
32

They were forced to do so by what they perceived to be the growing threat of independence.
I dont know or even care if the EU had any part in it but we wouldnt be where we are today with our own parliament without the Independence movement EU or no EU.
42

brownlie,

16/05/2008 08:46:59
38 Roy

Labour Central Office does not have millions to spend as they are millions in debt under Gordon Brown's leadership.

Co-incidentally - the UK is getting into more and more debt under Gordon Brown's leadership.

Quite significant that Brown is going to spend the next few months putting forward the case for the unionist cause.

That would suggest that he is going to go for a referendum in an attempt to spike the SNP's guns.

It would be pointless to campaign for the next few months and then stop campaigning prior to the SNP's proposed referendum in 2010.

All us unionists can hope for in the next few months will be the media churning out the "sky is falling", "doom and gloom" in an independent Scotland and, perhaps, the odd "dodgy dossier".
43

Alan B,

16/05/2008 08:50:14
Brown is undermining the union by not sorting out the mess they made with devolution and by picking needless fights with the scottish government.

Rather than use calman to sort out the problems with devolution he has manipulated it, vetoing potential members to try to control the outcome.

As i see it there a 2 overarching reasons for independence.
1)because u believe scotland would be better run by representatives voted in by scotland and this would address scotlands problems and issues.
2)because we do not get a good deal from the union. Mainly because unionist politicians sell scotland and its interests out for their own or their parties interests. That has been very obvious with brown.

if the union is too survive, much more power has to be devolved. Conceptually it is stupid to have devolution and not devolve powers in many areas.

Having said that one thing is noticable, unionist supporters in general cannot find any good reasons for the union. The only reason is some vague emotional attachment. That in itself is part of the problem with the union (as it is also evident in unionist politicians). They have an emotional attachment to it, but cannot find tangiable reasons for it to continue. The results in a poor poor deal for scotland.
44

Fairfax,

16/05/2008 08:50:20
Foulkes (48): "They were forced to do so by what they perceived to be the growing threat of independence."

This is not my memory of 1997. There was no particular threat in 1997: Scotland had just voted Labour -- a landslide for them, across the UK, of course. Blair and Brown inherited the devolution promise from John Smith's time as leader. I agree that many Labour arguments from the time argued that devolution would damage nationalists.
45

scottish person,

paisley 16/05/2008 08:57:11
Who cares what face in trough foulkes has to say, and since when have the SNP become enemies. They are the only party who are interested in Scottish people. We seen how the unionists behaved the other night in Manchester.
46

Guga II,

Rockall 16/05/2008 09:00:03
If Maggie Broon is so sure of himself, and his support for a defunct and archaic Union, then why doesn't he, as an unelected Prime Monster, call a general election now. Bring it on Maggie.
47

Vote UKIP in the 2009 EU elections!,

16/05/2008 09:01:41
Perhaps people will start to vote UKIP. We need to use the 2009 Euro elections as an opportunity to have a say on the EU Constitution.

Liar Brown et al think they have got away with denying us a referendum. They've shown their contempt for the British citizen. Some MEPs have already called for the Irish referendum to be non-binding. Clearly scared of public opinion. Of course, it'll only be non-binding with a 'no' vote.
48

Nikostratos,

16/05/2008 09:03:18
Another opinion poll different result but one trend remains clear people given the choice always prefer a devolved Government with more powers over 'Independence'

Perhaps the snp raving loony barmy mad 'Independeistas' would do better to take a long term gradualist approach.
Given if they lost a Referendum they would be unable to return to this Question again for 25 years. Unless of course they dump Alex.

And if the people chose more devolved powers within the 'union' they may never get another chance ever again.


#50 Alan B

You hear many good reasons every day you just do not want hear..........It the dialogue of the deaf I'm afraid.


you are right about the 'emotional attachment' to the 'Union' but then they are always the strongest..........Look at it this way Alan B what would you give to save your Family?...Everything

#53

Why doesnt Alex call for an immediate referendum Guga he got enough support in the scottish Parliament..........Bring it on Alex
49

1745,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 09:08:45
In which part of Scotland are these polls conducted? Who chooses the people to be asked the questions? I have yet to meet anyone in Edinburgh who has had the privilege of being asked the question on Independence.
More info please.
50

Vote UKIP in the 2009 EU elections!,

16/05/2008 09:09:19
For SNP supporters.

Let's not forget that your beloved EU has striped Scotland of her fishing rights, destroyed post offices etc. Official EU maps divide the UK up, not along Scottish, English, Welsh and Irish lines, but deliberately throught the middle in order to destroy our country. Living in Fife, I'm in the North Sea Region, which includes most of the east coast of England, parts of northern Europe and Scandanavian countries. Then you have the North Atlantic Region and Atlantic Region. Which part does the SNP represent?

The real question is: shouldn't Alex Salmond be demanding independence from the EU dictatorship? The SNP has clearly been bought off by the EU.

New EU map makes Kent part of same 'nation' as France
By Jasper Copping and Melissa Kite
Last Updated: 12:05AM BST 03/09/2006
51

yockel,

16/05/2008 09:09:23
"Battle to save the Union," Game on then. Unlike the recession which is still a "what crisis."
52

Ananurhing,

16/05/2008 09:20:38
" Rise against the Seperatist forces"

"There are people who's only mission in life is to break up the union."

Oh mercy, has the evil empire invaded?
What can we do to save the union and mankind?
I've heard that these "seperatist forces" skewer and eat babies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Poor Broon. He just doesn't know how to connect........
with anyone. No empathy. He can't even scaremonger very well. At least Blair could fake empathy.
53

Fairfax,

16/05/2008 09:21:02
1745 (56): Most polls, of any type, involve a sample of (typically) a few thousand people at most, so any single person's chance of knowing someone polled is tiny.
54

Jock Politicaljunkie,

Glasgow 16/05/2008 09:26:58
Broon to save the union eh??

And with UUendy at his side how can he possibly fail?!?

Heh, heh.


And Mr Vote UKIP,.........1 union at a time mate!

Scotland HAS had a duff deal out of the EU but most of that is due to the UK rep selling Scottish interest down the river. After the union of 1707 is binned we will be in a better position to assess if the EU is for us or agin us. WE will then be able to decide on that after some time and consideration. After all, Greenland looked at the EU and said No Thanks; Norway has NEVER been in and has no plans to. Who knows what WE may decide at the apropriate time. That time is not now, however. One at a time.
55

Phil C,

16/05/2008 09:29:26
Another misleading headline. According to the report Brown didn't even mention a referendum! Just more hot air.

The (meaningless) poll result 'INDEPENDENCE SUPPORT AT 31%'
could have been 'UNION SUPPORT AT 43%'

Give us all a break. Polls are pretty much irrelevent, even the 51% pro-independence ones!

It was 'kind of' agreed by Labour that they wouldn't stand in the way of a referendum in 2009/2010. The SNP won an election based on a 2010 pledge. So let's get the whole thing organised and stop these unionist diversions to running the country.
56

Tommy Trout,

Alicante, Spain 16/05/2008 09:30:17
On a number of occasions I have asked this question, but no one has every been able to supplied the answer, it is:
Britain (read England) painted the world map red, with the help of a lot of Scots, Irish & Welsh. Now that the Empire is defunct, how many countries of the old Empire did England leave voluntarily without having to be chase or bombed out off? Not many I think...I can't name any off the top of my head.
So, the message is be prepared for a long, hard, dirty battle to get your independence as England will hold on tooth and nail to it's last facade of Empire.
57

megz,

glasgow 16/05/2008 09:30:19
Gordon brown is probably the most disliked politician in the uk, followed closely by wendy alexander is he really the best placed person to save the union? Labour are the nasty & negative party (anyone seen their crewe class war campaign?) Scotland needs a positive vision, and a desire to make the country better not being told to stick to the status quo.
58

subrosa,

16/05/2008 09:33:41
"Mr Brown called for attention to be focused on the "economic and social and political case"

He could have made it much simpler for the masses to understand by saying "the reason I'm defending the union is oil, oil, oil"
59

Urban Guerrilla,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 09:36:18
The advantage of the Union for Gordon Brown is that it allows him to be Prime Minister of a much bigger country!
60

glassbenmhor,

16/05/2008 09:37:17
Can any Unionist of whatever persuasion give me one single solid financially backed up reason for staying within the Union??????
61

Phil C,

16/05/2008 09:38:21
#63 TT

It's ok. We'll just send our new Scottish regiment to the front line. One look at the Loyal Rangers Dragon Guards and their whistelling band and the English will run a mile! Mind you they bat for the other side most of the time, so maybe not.
62

glassbenmhor,

16/05/2008 09:38:56
67#

as opposed to Chairperson of North Queensferry Community Council
63

glassbenmhor,

16/05/2008 09:40:31
TAKING BETS ON GORDON BROWN RETAINING HIS DEPOSIT
64

glassbenmhor,

16/05/2008 09:45:16
Not a Celtic or Hibs of any fan,

Who said it was the Scots at the riot in Manchester,

All I saw was a "Sea of Butchers' Aprons"

and here being the "BIG ISSUE" 'Aprons'

Well just like Mr. McChatterer's cassock it's time to put them in the cupboard!
65

megz,

glasgow 16/05/2008 09:45:41
#67 (i'm not a unionist though) Well financial reasons are plenty.

1. michael martin would get to keep buying art and whatever else his little heart desires with his expenses and his wife can get a taxi everywhere.
2. all the labour MPs will be able to keep their jobs and hefty expenses
3. Oil revenuse are going to brng the treasury a fortune (ontop of what they have had over the passed 30 years) once the oil price rises even further

can't really think of any financial reasons any non politicians would want to stay in the union though.
66

Vivas,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 09:56:50
31% is a decent baseline. I honestly don't know if independence can be won in 2 years time, but anything over 40% will be a strong result and encouragement to keep heaving 'awa. The next referndum after that would be within 5 to 10 years (none of this "not for a generation" guff) and quite likely after the tories have bedded in for a lifetime of government at Westminster.
67

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 10:04:30
63 Tommy Trout
Are you saying that the British were bombed/chased out of the following countries :
Australia, Canada , New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, Bermuda, Fiji, Ghana, Nigeria, Singapore, Hong Kong etc. etc. etc
I would be interested to learn of any historical evidence to support this.
The vast majority of former Empire countries achieved autonomy with no or very little form of violence.
Even in those where movements against the Empire were active (Malaya, Cyprus, Kenya etc.) autonomy was granted on an agreed negotiated basis- the Cyprus govt. still accepts UK armed forces Malaya, Kenya etc are still part of the Commonwealth.
Your implied assertion that The British were "bombed or chased" of all of its colonies flies in the face of reality.
68

All Politicians are the same,

Scotland 16/05/2008 10:09:07
The support for Independence has been sattionary for years, the biggest problem the SNP have is voter apathy and a "better the devil you know" attitude.

#73 Even Alex salmond has said that it can only be a once in a generation question.
69

Calum10,

16/05/2008 10:13:01
These poll figures are yet again in line with recent polls, and shows that everything is to play for. A poll of polls shows that support for independence and support for the union is about even. That in itself is a blow to unionism.
70

Jimmy the Pie,

16/05/2008 10:13:56
The thought of Our Dear Leader, Comrade Broon, and his trusty lieutenants, Humiliated Red Wendy, Screaming Harridan Curran and Lard Foolkes going around Scotland 'saving' the Union fills me with anticipation.

Bring it on!!
71

Border Scot,

16/05/2008 10:17:02
#74 - He was just spouting anti-English nonsense from Spain. Such people are an embarrassment to Scotland and best not indulged.
72

Suomi,

Salo,Finland 16/05/2008 10:19:57
The desire for independence is shared by many Scots at home and abroad.It is also the norm in most of the world.It is a legitamate aim.I think that Gordon Brown's recent attack on the very natural desire to be independent is motivated by self interest.The SNP are a major political threat to Labour at the next election.This reduces his chances of winning.

While it is also legitimate to argue for the union I wish that Brown could be truthful.Recently he claimed that the SNP were dropping their manifesto committment by delaying a referendum until 2010 (untrue).Now he is saying that the SNP want to break up the United Kindom.Since the UK refers to the union of the crowns,that is also untrue.In fact Alec Salmond pointed out recently that Scotland and England had shared a single crown for 100 years ,when both had been independent countries.He also uses tjhe term seperatists to imply isolation.If he means sepperate parliaments,we already have that situation.The only problem is that they are not equal.There is no possibility of a regional parliament achieving outcomes achieved by a fully independent parliament (like the Finnish Parliament in Helsinki).If another parliament decides how much of Scotlands money they can get back,or what some of it will be spent on (Trident,Wars in Iraq etc)this places a big limitation on what the Scottish Parliament can achieve.

What we are witnessing is the last throw from yesterdays man.Change in the nature of the relationship between Edinburgh and Scotland,and Scotland's role in Europe,is coming anyway.We just do not know when.Gordon Browns attempts to prevent change makes him look like King Canute.
73

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

16/05/2008 10:21:08
I am somewhat bermused that the Nats here attack Brown for defending the union. What else do they expect him to do?

It's like expecting Alex Salmond not to push for independence - it just would not happen.

As for the polls - even though I am not a great fan of them - the interesting figure is the 26% who are undecided. That gives some support to my gut feeling that support for both the union and for independence is soft. That of course may change once voters are actually faced with the reality of making a decision - there may be a hardening of attitudes and a reconsideration of some people's stance - the undecideds figure may fall the closer we get to having a referendum.
74

Fairfax,

16/05/2008 10:24:02
Tommy Trout (63): "Now that the Empire is defunct, how many countries of the old Empire did England leave voluntarily without having to be chase or bombed out off?"

Canada, Australia, New Zealand come to mind. We also left India and much of Africa voluntarily. By most imperial standards that's fairly civilized -- consider, for example, French Indo-China and Algeria, or Dutch Indonesia.

It's interesting that you view the Empire as English: would you suggest renaming it the English Empire in Scottish history books? You can then include the line "The English Empire was the largest in the world" in schoolbooks.
75

,

16/05/2008 10:25:15
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
76

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

16/05/2008 10:28:21
#50 "Having said that one thing is noticable, unionist supporters in general cannot find any good reasons for the union. The only reason is some vague emotional attachment. That in itself is part of the problem with the union (as it is also evident in unionist politicians). They have an emotional attachment to it, but cannot find tangiable reasons for it to continue."

One could argue that the same is true for many supporters of independence. As I have said before most unionists do not understand the mindset of nationalists and most nationalists don't understand the mindset of unionists.
77

Fairfax,

16/05/2008 10:31:59
glass (67): "Can any Unionist of whatever persuasion give me one single solid financially backed up reason for staying within the Union??????"

I'm not a Unionist, so take the following as playing devil's advocate only: The largest economic partner for Scotland is England. If England becomes a bitter rival after independence, then it would be possible to close Scotland to English trade entirely, including all financial access. RBS and HBOS would then be reduced to shadows of their former selves, as would the Scottish insurance industry. It would even be possible to close Scotland entirely to food exports, at relatively low cost to England: all of those items marked "British", not "Scottish", are of course from England.

Of course, Scotland would still have oil, but what if English money funds English settlers in the Orkneys and Shetland before independence (easily done over one year, at relatively small cost), leading to Scotland losing control of much of its oil wealth? I really don't know why billionaires haven't thought of this already: a single data-storage company, exporting, say, 4000 people, would costs millions per year, but the possible oil wealth control after independence would be worth trillions . . .

78

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

16/05/2008 10:35:44
#64 You'll be surprised - my own grandfather loathes Brown - but he hates Alex Salmond's "smug, smarmy puss" more - his words not mine by the way.

Personally, I don't loathe Brown, I actually have sympathy for someone who is quite clearly out of his depth and only got the job because it was Buggin's turn. As for Salmond - my grandfather is probably right that he does come across (sometimes) as smary and arrogant - but when you are possibly one of the most able politicians of your generation then you can afford to be.
79

Ananurhing,

16/05/2008 10:36:39
The Fed 80#
"I am somewhat bermused that the Nats here attack Brown for defending the union. What else do they expect him to do?"

Perhaps he could try not treating us like idiots, and perhaps use some reasoned intelligent debate!
Or does he realise that would be walking into a "seperatists" trap.
80

Fairfax,

16/05/2008 10:38:04
PhilC (68): "One look at the Loyal Rangers Dragon Guards and their whistelling band and the English will run a mile! Mind you they bat for the other side most of the time"

Nationalism and homophobia in one post: who would have thought it from the progressive civic nationalism of Scotland? I'm shocked . . .

However, I'm surprised that I can't find historical evidence for Scottish victories over the English for some centuries. Certainly not in the 17th century, when Cromwell defeated, then conquered, all of Scotland in the early 1650s -- Scotland was abolished, becoming a mere region of the Commonwealth of England, until the Restoration in 1660. Certainly not in the 16th century, when the Scots lost their king, and many nobles, after their unprovoked invasion of England was annihilated at Flodden (and you also lost your queen later that century, but that was hardly a tragedy). In fact, we have to go back some 700 years to find a significant Scottish victory: hardly a good track record.
81

Fairfax,

16/05/2008 10:41:30
Border Scot (78): "He was just spouting anti-English nonsense from Spain. Such people are an embarrassment to Scotland and best not indulged."

It's good to hear that, and I hope you're correct, but suspect you're over-optimistic: I fear we will see this form of ethnic nationalism increase in both England and Scotland.
82

,

16/05/2008 10:43:04
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
83

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 10:48:30
89 Fock 107

And your contibution is what again????
84

Fairfax,

16/05/2008 10:48:59
Suomi (79): "In fact Alec Salmond pointed out recently that Scotland and England had shared a single crown for 100 years ,when both had been independent countries."

In fact it's technically a mere 95 years: Scotland was assimilated into the English Commonwealth by Cromwell in 1651, following Scottish defeats at Dunbar and Worcester, which assimilation continued until the restoration in 1660 -- isn't it surprising that Scotland celebrates Bannockburn but neglects the more complex history of the 17th century? Teasing to one side, it is difficult to take the view that the two nations were independent during the Civil War, from 1642 onwards, since Parliamentary and Royalist sides cooperated on both sides of the border.
85

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 10:49:48
83

And yet you cant answer a simple question regarding your own so called Federalist credentials.
86

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 10:54:38
51

Dont be a tube the Nationalist threat to the Union was percieved as far back as their conception in 1934.
Their members were put under scrutiny by Special branch. Their phones were bugged and Westminster had a political fit in 1974 when they won 11 seats.
Hence the suppression of the McCrone report.
87

,

16/05/2008 10:55:26
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
88

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 10:55:51
75

So true.
89

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 10:57:31
94

I get your a troll looking for attention and an excuse tae post mair o yer childish p*sh move along sonny theres nothing for ye here.
90

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 11:00:09
79 Suomi
It is a rather simplistic generalisation to say that the desire for independence is the "norm". You appear to believe that Scotland is somehow unique in being a country which formed a larger union. In this respect it is not unique nor even unusual. Both Italy and Germany were formed as unions of smaller states in the latter half of the 19th century. Crete joined a union with Greece in 1913. Corsica was not always part of France.
Further afield there are a host of other examples. Texas was a separate state before it joined the union of the USA. All over the world there are similar situations. In some places (eg Catalonia) the desire for independence is substantial. In others (eg Texas) it is negligible. The situation varies enormously. But you cannot say that the desire for independence is the "norm".
Incidentally, do people in Texas feel that the offshore oil in the Gulf of Mexico belongs to them and not to the rest of the USA. As a formerly independent state which became part of a union such a claim must have equal validity to any claim that North Sea oil belongs to Scotland.
91

Urban Guerrilla,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 11:00:12
#83, > As I have said before most unionists do not understand the mindset of nationalists and most nationalists don't understand the mindset of unionists. <

I think this is perceptive and true. To a nationalist it seems so blindingly obvious that a nation should be independent and govern itself that it's hard to see how anyone could disagree. To unionists, I suppose the status quo in the UK seems so natural and right that it's hard to see why anyone should want to disturb it.
92

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 11:01:35
97

Scotland didnt form a union with anybody dont you know how this so called union of Parliaments was implemented then??
93

Fairfax,

16/05/2008 11:01:49
Foulkes (93): "Dont be a tube the Nationalist threat to the Union was percieved as far back as their conception in 1934."

Agreed. However, the event in question was devolution in 1997, not these earlier events: times had changed. Given the Labour landslide, I suspect Blair could have reneged on the promise of devolution had he wished. I agree that the issue would have resurfaced later.
94

Alan B,

16/05/2008 11:04:21
#83 The Federalist

Actually u are probably the only unionist supporter on these boards that can actually put forward a coherent and workable vision of the union. That and u actually believe in the democracy and the right of people to choose.

However i do think ur reasons are still more emotional rather than tangible benefits. Partly because there is little u would not devolve, including even scotland possibly using a different currency within the union ie euro. (i believe that is what u postered the other day).
95

Fairfax,

16/05/2008 11:05:02
Suomi (79): "We just do not know when.Gordon Browns attempts to prevent change makes him look like King Canute."

Canute, despite his poor press, had at least conquered England (together with his father Sweyn) in 1016: not a task yet achieved by Brown.
96

Border Scot,

16/05/2008 11:05:08
#88 - I find that the most virulent anti-English nonsense often comes from patriotic Scots living thousands of miles away from Scotland. However, the more focus there is on the very few differences between the Scots and the English, and the less we hear of the many things that unite us, the more chance there will be of increasing hostility between the English and the Scots. Nationalism is pernicious because it seeks to divide rather than unite. It can only thrive in an atmosphere of suspicion and hostility. So moving on to the another point you have made, I do fear that were the UK to split up, it would not be a velvet divorce.
97

Alan B,

16/05/2008 11:08:36
#Fairfax

"I suspect Blair could have reneged on the promise of devolution had he wished"

Blair could have got rid of brown but he did not. Blair probably did not actually feel that strongly about his base.

It would have been difficult for him to ditch it given the huge support that labour gave to the issue during the 80s and 90s with all the scotland united marches etc. There was strong union support for it as it was engaged in the whole constitutional convention.
98

Fairfax,

16/05/2008 11:10:11
Ugly George (97): "do people in Texas feel that the offshore oil in the Gulf of Mexico belongs to them and not to the rest of the USA."

I generally agree with your post, and I'm not disagreeing with the Gulf of Mexico point, but Texas did negotiate some unusual clauses when it joined the Union. In particular, the Texas State retained large tracts of land, unlike many other states in the South-West, for which the Federal Government claimed similarly large areas. Since many of these sections of Texas later proved to contain oil, Texas' (land-based) oil is often Texas' oil, not the USA's oil. In particular, the University of Texas at Austin and Texas A&M University both have oil-generating fields, some of which are on campus (or were)!
99

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 11:10:56
101

How can you possibly post that?? He hasnt got a clue what he stands for. A true Scottish federalist would want Scotland as part of the best Federation it could negociate its way into and right now thats the US not England. I could understand but not support a federalist argument to join a real Federation and not just another approach to keep us within this corrupt union of KINGDOMS. Christ what is wrong with you people??
100

Fairfax,

16/05/2008 11:12:09
Alan B (104):"It would have been difficult for him to ditch it given the huge support that labour gave to the issue during the 80s and 90s"

You might be correct. However, Blair also ditched many other policies that had seemingly been strongly supported by Labour, such as Clause 4, nuclear disarmament, free university education, . . .
101

Alastair the First,

16/05/2008 11:16:12
The best time for a referendum would have been about 8 o'clock last Wednesday night when the unionists were all out the country, showing solidarity with their fellow Brits by smashing up Manchester.
102

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

16/05/2008 11:16:59
"106 Foulkes Off the CyberNat,Edinburgh 16/05/2008 11:10:56
101

How can you possibly post that??"

Because Alan B actually takes the time to read my posts.
103

Alan B,

16/05/2008 11:17:42
#Border Scot

I think u actually have it the wrong way round. Having a bad marriage actually causes more problems and animosity that anything else.

Thatcher caused alot of anti-engish resentment as did the denial of a scottish parliament.

Part of the problem is failure to identify reasons why people get p***** of and address them.

2 things spring to mind. 1 media and 2 politics.

1)the london media can treat scotland with contempt. this can happen in 3 ways.
a)while it no longer happens with the outbreak of all the pc-new. U used to always get the stereo-type scot in many tv programs. i particularly remember shows i used to like in the 80s like minder. every time there was a scot it would be a drunk.
b)news- uk news makes u feel like a foreigner in ur own living room. easy to address either report all english and scottish news on an equal basis (not going to happen) or allow scottish produced news choosing the international, and uk stories to discuss.

how many time do u here this policy is introduced in britain only to open the paper the next day and find out it was wrong. either than or tells u policy for england and not the scottish equivelent.
3)politics- sp has address much of this but it is too weak and still cause problems. Fact is now people know it is up to scotland to decide if they want more power and it is not england subjecting unwanted policies on scotland.

104

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 11:19:54
109

Did you take time to read the questions I put to you??
105

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

16/05/2008 11:21:48
#101 As I have said before Alan - I have never gone along with those who use wholly the economic argument - of course emotions and political considerations are involved.
106

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 11:22:10
111

Jackie yer wasting yer time hen they make it up as they go along and call it debate.
Thats what happens when you try to argue from an impossible position.
107

Saruman,

16/05/2008 11:26:14
#4 livilion writes: “Unionists must be keeching their pants when they consider that no-one has actively put the case for independence for years now and still 31% have said they're definitely in favour of full blown independence and another 26% have declined to rule out the idea.”

Are you living in a parallel universe or something? Have you never heard of a pressure group called “the SNP” which has modelled itself as a right of centre social democratic alternative to Labour in Scotland, thus filling the void left by the continuing unpopularity of the the Scottish Tories? Any credibility the independence agenda has comes from the fact that Salmond and his lieutenants are prepared to trumpet it along with their non independence related policies.

#115 Foulkes obsessive: how have you not been deleted yet, after the debacle of having a good half dozen posts removed on the "call to unite devolution reviews" thread last night? Do you have a pal in the paper's moderation team or something?
108

Fairfax,

16/05/2008 11:28:46
Jackie Priest (111): "Thanks for admitting that the English have been perennial interferers in Scottish affairs"

No thanks are needed. Such interference is the mark of a successful nation. Still it hasn't all been to your detriment: after all, there's (i) joining one of the wealthiest, most successful, and most free states in human history, (ii) spreading Scots across the planet, thanks to English overseas expansion, and (iii) obtaining a more representative parliament. The last is an interesting point: popular representation increased in Scotland after 1707, because the English House of Commons had more powers than Scotland's Three Estates.

"Perhaps you should explain how Cromwell solicited and received help from the Scottish military during his campaigns in England and then promptly betrayed them by turning against them"

Certainly. I'm bemused by your description of Cromwell's betrayal. The Covenanters, having formerly supported Parliament, made a deal with Charles I, that "Man of Blood", in which he agreed to allow them to establish Presbyterianism in England. The Parliamentary forces were unanimous that they would oppose this, although they disagreed on pre-emptive action (Fairfax resigned, whilst Cromwell took command). There was no English betrayal here: quite the opposite. In fact, with the ending of the Covenanters, religious toleration increased in Scotland: an English gift. I suggest you read Edinburgh historian Trevor Royle's "The War of the Three Kingdoms".
109

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 11:30:09
117

Your reminding me I have had a good half dozen posts deleted and yer asking in the same sentence whether I have a pal in the moderation team??
Are you deliberately trying to split ma sides??
110

Border Scot,

16/05/2008 11:30:20
#113 - I suggest you actually read what I wrote which was that:

"I find that the most virulent anti-English nonsense often comes from patriotic Scots living thousands of miles away from Scotland."

In other words, people not living in Scotland.

111- And the British Union was formed by British states. What's the difference?
111

Alan B,

16/05/2008 11:30:44
#Foulkes Off the CyberNat

As u will have seen from my posts for a long time i support independence. As u will see from my post #50 that i do not think i have seen much of an argument for the union on these boards.

"He hasnt got a clue what he stands for."
He does. U and i may not agree but he is one of the few that actually can come up with a coherent view of the union.

While his argument is coherent i just do not see any advantage in it. The only advantage i could see was if u were to take the view (which i don't) that :
1)we should remain with sterling rather than the euro
2)think it better to have a defence union with the rest of the uk.
3)think the uk would better represent scotland interests in the eu.
112

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 11:31:40
114

Ref 109 obviously not or you just have no answers.
113

Ugly George,

Ediburgh 16/05/2008 11:32:44
111 Jackie priest
What do you mean that Italy was formed from "Italian States". Italy did not exist as a country before their amalgamation. The only way you could describe them as "Italian" states was that their language was Italian. Similarly Germany.

Incidentally what language do most people in Scotland speak. According to your argument must be an English state.

Please analyse comments before resorting to gratuitous insults.
114

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 11:34:25
123
sorry - that should read - According to your argument Scotland must be an English state.
115

All Politicians are the same,

Scotland 16/05/2008 11:34:53
#111

Germany did not exsist until the staes formed the union and neither did Italy these countries were formed by the Union of staes like Scotland and England.
116

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

16/05/2008 11:35:30
#113 "Scots want to run their own country as they see fit. End of. Call it what you like. And we're not anti-English, we're anti-Westminster Establishment"

There are also many who would not support independence but also loathe the Westminster establishment as well. The irony is that many of the attitudes displayed by the Westminster establishment are shown by our own politicians at Holyrood and other political bodies. Changing the political structures may not necessarily change politicians attitudes or make them more representative.

Perhaps that is something that we do need to give consideration to - how do we make our politicians more responsive and representative?
117

Fairfax,

16/05/2008 11:35:56
Jackie Priest (115): "Are you saying that England and Texas are bascially the same kind of political entity?"

I only observed that Texas is an unusual state of the Union (i.e. the USA), not least because it had previously been an independent state. Nevertheless Texas and England are basically the same kind of political entity, since both are representative democracies based on English Common Law (as are all states of the USA, with the exception of Louisiana, to my knowledge).
118

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 11:37:14
121

He thinks or he want us to believe he is arguing for a Federal solution to the constitutional debate and that is simply a nonsence without first supporting full Independence. He doesnt want to see an Independent Scotland and neither does he want to see Scotland as part of any Federation that doesnt have England running it. He is simply just another unionist or at best a devolutionalist.
How can he present a coherent argument for the union and still pretend to be a Federalist???
where is the coherence in that??
119

,

16/05/2008 11:37:50
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
120

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 11:38:51
126

So I ask you again can you accept a Federal Scotland within a Federation that doesnt include England???
121

,

16/05/2008 11:39:09
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
122

,

16/05/2008 11:39:46
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
123

All Politicians are the same,

Scotland 16/05/2008 11:40:13
#128

"He is simply just another unionist or at best a devolutionalist"

There we have it, the scorn and hatred the hardcore Nats have for people who disagree with them.
124

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 11:43:21
133

Dont mistake contempt and pity for hatred.
125

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 11:45:21
124

There are people arguing on this blog for that very desire.
126

All Politicians are the same,

Scotland 16/05/2008 11:45:57
#134

I apologise, so in a parliamentary democracy you hold the majority view point in contempt?
127

Miss H,

16/05/2008 11:50:01
136 Neither you nor I nor anyone else knows the majority viewpoint on independence/enhanced devolution. The SNP wants to find out. The unionists don't. Well Labour might. (Not quite sure what their position on the referendum is today).

So who has contempt for the electorate?

The party which wants the electorate to decide Scotland's future directly or the parties which don't?

All politicians are not the same.
128

Alan B,

16/05/2008 11:51:08
#Foulkes Off the CyberNat

Not sure where u are coming from. Yes he wants a union with england. But he wants it very decentralised with a small uk parliament. All 4 countries making up the uk would have there own nation parliament. He believes in full fiscal autonomy which is very important and also the right for the scottish parliament to choose it relationship with the uk rather than the uk parliament having control like now.

As far as i can understand from what he says the uk parliament would meet infrequently and have powers over:
1)eu membership
2)foreign affairs
3)currency but he believe that the sp should be able to decide that scotland could join the euro while we remain a member of the eu.
4)defence.

As i see it his vision would be a big improvement as we have now but reject it because:
1)it is better for scotland to be a member of the eu on it own right. uk does not represent scotland interests well. and the uk is always at odds with the rest of the uk so is not exactly the best member to attach urself too. too often scotland and england interest diverge and the persues english political interests at the expense of scottish.
2)i do not believe scotland wants to pay for nuclear bombs and is more sceptical getting involved in overseas conflicts. i personally would want the eu to involve itself more with peace keeping and conflicts.
3)foreign affairs - dito 2
4)i support the euro. but would like some economic study done looking at the benefits and disadvantages.


The thing is with this poster. He does not blindly like most unionist posters think that the current union is working. Politically i think he much closer to the independence argument that he is to the ultra unionists that we get on these boards.
129

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 11:51:08
136

Since when have we been discussing Parliamentary democracy? I didnt know such a thing existed where is it??
130

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 11:52:38
138

"Not sure where u are coming from. Yes he wants a union with england. But he wants it very decentralised with a small uk parliament. All 4 countries making up the uk would have there own nation parliament. He believes in full fiscal autonomy which is very important and also the right for the scottish parliament to choose it relationship with the uk rather than the uk parliament having control like now."

Now which part of that is Federal and not devolution??
131

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

16/05/2008 11:55:18
#130 A federal relationship makes more sense with neighboring countries than those that are not - hence your notion that somehow we should have a federal union with the USA makes no sense. It seems logical to me that would in the immediate term that would mean the existing parts of the UK - in the long term though I believe that a genuinely federal Europe is desirable.

You also confuse federalism with unionism - unionism believes that power lies in the centre - federalism believes power lies with the constituent parts. For example, as it stands at present only Westminster can actually (legally) have the power to validate a vote on Scottish independence. That is wrong - the constituent parts of a Federal UK (or Federal Europe) should have the ability to decide for themselves on such a decision. It should be the right of any constituent part to decide its level of commitment to a Federal arrangement and the sharing of sovereignty.
132

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 11:55:37
138

A UK parliament can never be anything else other than dominated by England due simply to the distribution of the UK population. The problem Scotland has within this Union is it will always be a ethnic minority and no amount of devolved government will change that and a Federal solution will only make it worse.
Is that so difficult to understand??
133

European Scot,

16/05/2008 11:56:29
97 Ugly George

"But you cannot say that the desire for independence is the "norm".

The Independence of Scotland is a subject of the here and now. We are talking present day, not of history, not the past.
The usual Unionist comparisons, Scotland with States, it's too difficult when you actually look at like with like.
We're not talking States, Principalities, Regions whatever, this is all about a Country.
Numerically, the vast majority of people in the contemporary Free World support the Independence of their country. How can we forget the many scenes of Independence celebrations, that have we all witnessed on television.
If you are a Unionist, then you are out on a crumbling limb, with very few people from other parts of the Free World sharing in your beliefs.
In Global terms, standing against the Independence of your country just isn't normal.
Independence is a very precious thing to gain, and it's never given up voluntarily.
As for your comments about the Oil in the North Sea, under International law, that would belong to an Independent Scotland, and would be recognised by the EU.
You may not want to believe that, but panicking Gordon Brown, is certainly more than aware of it.
134

pwd,

Borders 16/05/2008 11:57:23
*24 Traquir "Soon Scotland will rejoin the world as an equal."

Oh Dear!
135

Alan B,

16/05/2008 11:57:42
#All Politicians are the same

Are we in a " parliamentary democracy" or a "democracy".

In england there is a parliamentary democracy in scotland sovereignty is mean to lie with the people. A true parliamentary democracy does not do referendums. It is a representative democracy.

To make urself a full democracy then u need to be open to direct democracy. Abit like a liberal democracy is a balance between the rights of the individual against the rights of the majority. A real democracy understands that parliament is not the end of the matter and democracy lies with the poeple. It is the view of the people that matters.
136

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

16/05/2008 11:57:46
"Now which part of that is Federal and not devolution??"

Under the present devolution arrangements it means that power is given not taken as a right. I believe a federal solution that reverses that arrangement is actually much more preferable.
137

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 11:58:29
141

Then why dont we ditch the Union and become a federation with Iceland, Norway Sweden Denmark Greenland and Ireland?? why does it have to be with England??? and why not become the 51st state of the US?? surely from a federal point of view that would be the very best solution???
138

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 12:00:24
147

What????? you cannot have a federal solution to anything under devolution you first have to get rid of devolution break up the act of union and then form a Federation are you really this thick or is all this a wind up?????
139

pwd,

Hawick 16/05/2008 12:00:34
*143 European Scot

"Independence is a very precious thing to gain.."

We don't need to gain it. We British already have it. We have had it for a long time and we're going to keep it.
140

Gtj,

Dundee 16/05/2008 12:02:10
I would treat any poll by STV with a pinch of salt. They are not exaclty bias free.

I have said it before, these polls are meaningless, the only poll that counts is a referendum. Who's running scared now.
141

Urban Guerrilla,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 12:04:14
#150, > "Independence is a very precious thing to gain.." We don't need to gain it. We British already have it. We have had it for a long time and we're going to keep it. <

This illustrates perfectly the perceptive point made by #83:

> As I have said before most unionists do not understand the mindset of nationalists and most nationalists don't understand the mindset of unionists. <

142

The Master,

16/05/2008 12:04:40
#137 Miss H: you Nats are keen to find out the views of the Scottish people at a time when Labour under Brown have gone the way of the Tories under Major and you feel confident that the electorate will welcome any opportunity to have a kick at Labour. Your alternative scenario is that you can play on the continuing unpopularity of the Tories (having helped yourself to the support of right of centre types whose English counterparts are now boosting the Tories down south). Where’s the “democracy” in that, I ask you! You Nats really are something else!
143

Lianachan,

Highlands 16/05/2008 12:05:28
Disgraceful use of the word "separatist", which to the great unwashed these days is more or less synonymous with "terrorist".
144

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 12:08:32
153

No part of the so called union is democratic so how can the SNP employ democracy and still work within it??
They are constrained by the same undemocratic parliamentary rules as everybody else. You obviously support an undemocratic political party so whats your problem??
145

Alan B,

16/05/2008 12:09:08
#Foulkes Off the CyberNat

"Now which part of that is Federal and not devolution??"

Federal and devolution are the same thing. Devolution the process and federal the result.

It is one point i made to many arguing for federalism, is that we have a form of federalism now.

"The Feds" line is dev max for scotland basically. But also an english parliament with a small uk one.

"A UK parliament can never be anything else other than dominated by England due simply to the distribution of the UK population."

Agree. That would probably and partly be his reason for devolving as much as possible.


"Federal solution will only make it worse."

Given that he is effectively talking about dev max, i cannot see how increasing the power of the sp, giving us full control over things like taxation and spending would make it worse. U are almost arguing if we can't have everything we should having nothing.


While i do think it is an emotional attachment that makes him support the union rather than tangible powers. The argument for the union would be based on areas that maybe best pulled.

ie is it best for scotland to continue with sterling. My answer to that is no, as the higher interest rates over a period of time have been damaging to scotland economy. If u are going to share a currency look for one more likely to be beneficial to our economic interests and for me that would be the euro.
146

European Scot,

16/05/2008 12:09:36
150 pwd

" We don't need to gain it. We British already have it. We have had it for a long time and we're going to keep it."

Royal 'We' ?
Otherwise include me out, I'm Scottish, and you certainly aren't .
147

Border Scot,

16/05/2008 12:10:09
144 - Britain has been Britain for over 2,000 years in the same way that Italy has been Italy. Britain was composed of independent states before they united to become one country and Italy was composed of independent states before they united.

I am a unionist and I believe that Scotland is anation, just like Austria, Sweden, Catalonia, Lombardy, Flanders and Slovenia etc. Some of those nations are independent countries, some are not. If we Scots wish to become independent we can take that option.
148

Border Scot,

16/05/2008 12:13:39
#157 - Ah, that old chestnut again. You can't be a Scot unless you support Scotish independence. How attractive your form of inclusive Scottish nationalism is.
149

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 12:13:45
156

In that case what we have between the Parliaments of Scotland and England cannot be classified as devolution as neither country is part of a Federation is it??? both are in parnership as a union of KINGDOMS.
150

Alan B,

16/05/2008 12:14:24
#Foulkes Off the CyberNat

" you cannot have a federal solution to anything under devolution you first have to get rid of devolution break up the act of union and then form a Federation"

think ur definition of federal is different from how i would see it.

A federal structure is simply having a central parliament and regional (in this case along national lines for all 4 nations) parliaments.

ie Germany has its landers and central parliament. the us has states and then central government by way of a president and congress.

How u get there does not matter. Federal is a structure.

I just do not think it is in scotlands interests.

Partly becuase i see not advantage in any areas where u would pull powers and also becuase their are too many unionist that are willing to sell scotlands interests out.
151

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

16/05/2008 12:15:36
#149 Illogical - effectively you are saying that the only way Federalism can be achieved is by divorcing and then remarrying. My view is that instead of going through a messy and acrimonious divorce it would be better to seek marriage guidance and reassess the relationship. Rewriting the Scotland Act so that the power lies with the Scottish Parliament to decide what it wants to run at a Scottish level and what it wants done at a UK level would be a step in the right direction. The only way that can happen is that complete Fiscal Autonomy is established and that the Scottish Parliament would be responsible for reverse funding any UK-wide committments.
152

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 12:15:48
158

Before they united??? Ireland and Wales was conquered militarily and Scotland was bought and coersed with bribes and threats of military action.
Thats some unity.
153

Arfur,

16/05/2008 12:18:44
Sorry to go off subject but seen this as another story and had to laugh.

Also they are not allowing comments on this story.

'THE Scotsman today announces some changes to the newspaper to reflect the growing interests and concerns of its readers.

From Monday, the newspaper will introduce a number of clearly defined sections which build on its reputation for first-class journalism.'
154

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

16/05/2008 12:18:47
#156 "The argument for the union would be based on areas that maybe best pulled."

Probably the best line that sums up my position - and it would be up to the constituent federal parts to decide.
155

Border Scot,

16/05/2008 12:20:47
#163 - Just like Italy then - united through pact and military conquest. But that was a while ago. These days we have votes and, if we so wish, we can vote to leave the union. We have not yet put ourselves in a position to do that. Maybe we will in the next election.
156

George Mackay,

Dundee 16/05/2008 12:20:48
#29 Jimmy the Pie

My Dad was a Rangers fan even though he cam from Dundee. He was a corporal in the Black Watch and joined in all the fichts in Germany. Wee poison dwarfs the Germans called them. H would have been proud of Rangers the other night. Did you see the polis run away?

See you Jimmy.
157

,

16/05/2008 12:20:49
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
158

Alan B,

16/05/2008 12:23:45
#Border Scot

U are a unionist. Can u tell me. what is the advantage to scotland of being in a union where scotland votes one way ie labour and england votes another tory, and scotland gets 17yrs of tory rule.

Democracy is about the accountability of ur elected representatives. But as we have found out we cannot control in scotland who our government is.

When we had recessions in the 80s and voted the tories out we got, tory. When the south of england got a recession in the early 90s england voted the tories out. If u cannot vote the government out no matter how bad they are seen to be what is the point.

2nd question. The governor of the bank of england eddie george said that unemployment in the north of britain is a price worth paying to control inflation in the south. Do u as a unionist think unemployment in scotland is a price worth paying for the union?
159

Border Scot,

16/05/2008 12:24:27
#166 - In other words, you do not agree with me but can't argue your case from any factual basis. Show me where I am going wrong instead of insulting me, it's a much more effective way of presenting your case.
160

European Scot,

16/05/2008 12:24:43
159 pwd

" Ah, that old chestnut again. You can't be a Scot unless you support Scotish independence. How attractive your form of inclusive Scottish nationalism is."

You really walked into that one didn't you ?
Now take another look at your comment.

"We have had it for a long time and we're going to keep it."

Now the reply.

"Otherwise include me out, I'm Scottish, and you certainly aren't" ( going to keep it ).

No, I'm not that kind of Scottish nationalist !
161

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

16/05/2008 12:24:56
#169 Dissolving the Act of Union does not necessarily mean that independence follows - why not a new Act of Federal union that dissolves the old one and replaces it?
162

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 12:25:09
163 Foulkes
I have heard about the bribes but I have not heard about the threats of military action.

Also how can you be "coerced" with a bribe. If a bribe is offered you are free to accept or reject it - there is no cercion in that. And why would anyone offer a bribe at cost to himself if he can get his way by coercion and threats.
163

Alan B,

16/05/2008 12:26:25
#The Federalist

"and it would be up to the constituent federal parts to decide."

As a point of definition. If it is up to the "constituent federal parts to decide" i would call that confederalism rather than federalism.

164

Publius,

London 16/05/2008 12:28:51
#91 Fairfax

Right on.

To dismiss the seventeenth century as the time when Scotland and England happened to share a monarch is to display breathtaking ignorance of the history of these islands.
And, for what it's worth, the 17th century called themselves Kings of Great Britain (not King of England King of Scots): see the preface to the King James Bible.
165

Border Scot,

16/05/2008 12:29:10
#170 - What do we get from the Union? Well, let me see:
1. Universal access to free healthcare
2. Universal access to free primary and seconday education
3. Universal access to a range of welfare payments for the sick and unemployed

That's three hefty and on-going benefits to start with
166

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 12:29:28
175

It doesnt surprise me I have yet to see a unionist on these blogs with any sense of reality. During the so called Parliamentary debate and passing of the bill to merge the Parliaments English forces where massed on the border with Scotland.
Mind you they could have simply been on training excersize.
167

Border Scot,

16/05/2008 12:31:29
#172 - Apologies. I am glad that you are not that kind of Scottish nationalist.
168

,

16/05/2008 12:32:32
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
169

Publius,

London 16/05/2008 12:33:04
#137 Miss H

...but would the SNP accept the result if it was a no? ... would the SNP then shut up about independence?
170

Alan B,

16/05/2008 12:34:06
#Ugly George

"I have not heard about the threats of military action."

Was there not a military build up on the border? That is what i heard. Unfortuately scottish history in schools is so sanitised that i learned more about the russion revolution (very interesting too) than proper scottish history.

"Also how can you be "coerced" with a bribe."

Think u either need to go back to school or get a dictionary and look up the work "coerced". I had a quick look in a thesaurus and one meaning was to "persuade".
171

pwd,

Hawick 16/05/2008 12:34:19
* 157 European Scot

But where will you go if you include yourself out, as you put it, and the Union goes on as it no doubt will?
172

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 12:34:23
178

Aye I remember reading how all of that was negociated in 1707 to encourage the dissenters.
173

,

16/05/2008 12:36:03
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
174

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 12:36:45
174

Idiot boy if you want Federalism you have to support Independence its that simple. One cannot happen without the other.
175

Publius,

London 16/05/2008 12:37:48
#151 Gtj

Can't tell how accurate the STV poll is, though it seems to be in line with other polls.

If we knew which polling organisation was commissioned by STV, we'd have more idea.
176

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 12:39:42
177

And that post has some relevance does it??
177

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 12:41:18
182

Are you suggesting that our generation has the right to decide how future generations live???
178

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

16/05/2008 12:42:06
#176 Sorry Alan - I did not make myself clear.

I meant it would be up to the federal parts to decide what areas to pool - clearly once that decision has been made then the central Federal government would have the power to deal with that issue without reference to the constituent Federal parts. Changes to the areas to be pooled would be made by the Federal parts not by the Federal government.

I believ the differnce between a purely confederal and federal relationship is that in the pooled ares of a confederation teh constituent parts would still have the right to veto any decisions made by the central government - in a extremly decentralised federal structure that would not be the case - the only way decisions could be overturned is if the Federal parts no longer agreed to pool powers in that particular area.
179

Alan B,

16/05/2008 12:43:28
#Border Scot

"What do we get from the Union? Well, let me see:
1. Universal access to free healthcare
2. Universal access to free primary and seconday education
3. Universal access to a range of welfare payments for the sick and unemployed"

And what is too stop a democratic scotland offering the same thing. Nothing.

Most if not all eu countries offer no 2 and 3. Most of the countries have better public services that ourselves.

With regard to 1, we do pay for perscription charges. (not against that but we do). France u also pay charges. Germany and spain i believe run universal insurance schemes. Probably similar to our national insurance. Call it insurance but it is effectively a tax.

Plus the fact we are devolved now anyway for education and health so these are not uk powers now anyway.

I am asking a serious question about what powers are best pulled and why. Not silly things like if scotland was independent school kids would somehow have to pay to go to school. It is ridiculous arguments like these is why i commented that so few unionist can actually put a coherent argument for the union.

As i said the "Fed" is one of the very few.
180

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 12:43:57
193

That of course would be post Independence.
181

Lianachan,

HIghlands 16/05/2008 12:45:01
#188 Actually, there was no border along the line of the wall. Hadrian's Wall was built to say "Here ends Rome", to impress the local populations and to control (and tax) the movements of goods and people in and out of the Empire on that frontier.
182

FedUpTaxPayer,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 12:46:21
Given Brown's massive unpopularity at the moment (well with me at least) is he remotely wise to be saying anything at this stage. Tricky to see his comments helping his cause.
183

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 12:47:41
194

Alan you are making me pull out what little hair I have left. The so called "Fed" is arguing for devolution nothing more. Devolution in its ultimate form is simply Independence. How can anybody argue for less??
184

European Scot,

16/05/2008 12:48:10
180 Border Scot

No problem at all.
Nationalism or Nats, are terms often used on here regarding SNP supporters, it's just a bit of stereotyping.
In this case, an ex-Labour supporter, who believes in Scotland democratically achieving its Independence.
Most wouldn't fit the bill, in terms of the imagery some would like to paint of us.
It's a pity the SNP weren't re-branded the Scottish Democrats.
185

Alan B,

16/05/2008 12:48:21
#The Federalist

I think we have a slightly different definition of confederal. I do not necessarily see the component parts having a veto when it is agreed powers are pulled. But they would have a right to re-negotiate these powers. obviously the other party might not argee to the re-negotations.

ie similar to the EU.

That is not to say u cannot structure it to give the component parts a veto, but u could do the same with a federal structure.

ie the componment parts become like the house of lords and it has to pass the regional parliaments to become law. (similar but not the same as i am aware the commons can push throught legislation on the 3rd reading in my example)
186

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

16/05/2008 12:51:50
#181 It seems when you are losing the argument you are the one who resorts to abuse and insults.

Explain to me why the Act of Union cannot be replaced (or amended) by an Act of Federal Union?

If the Act of Union were replaced it would have to be dissolved to allow the new Act to take its place.

You assume that the Act of Union as it stands is set in stone - past history - such as the changing constitutional arrangments within Europe would seem to make that argument redundant. Or have you forgotten how many times the Treaty of Rome has been amended or renamed?
187

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 12:55:28
183 Alan B
I have enjoyed discussions with you in the past as I have felt that these have been conducted in a reasonably mature manner. I am therefore disappointed that you, too, are resorting to the insult mode by telling me to go "back to school".

My dictionary defines coerce as "enforce by compulsion". In other words to force (not persuade) somebody to do something against their will. Persuade is defined as "convince by argument" in other words to get somebody to change their will. There is no way that "coerce" and "persuade" can be construed as synonyms.

You stated that you used a thesaurus. A thesaurus does not necessarily provide definitions or synonyms - it gives other options nd alternatives which may be similar or slightly different in their meaning and/or implication.

A bribe therefore cannot be an instrument of cercion as, by definition, there is no element of compulsion within it.
188

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

16/05/2008 12:55:48
#188 "That wall was built to mark a border that already existed before the wall was built."

One of the great myths about Hadrian's Wall is that it was built to keep the Picts from invading. The reality is much more mundane - the wall was primarily built as a way of splitting the Northern British tribes from each other as well as acting as a customs control to raise taxes.

Hadrian used the wall as a way stabilizing northern Britannia, which had been a hotbed of rebellion and unrest for decades. Two of the main British tribes, the Brigantes and the Selgovae, occupied the region. Hadrian basically used the old Roman policy of "divide and rule." His wall split the Brigantes from the Selgovae and pacified the troublesome tribes.

If you examine the associated defences of the wall you can see this clearly. To the North lies a single ditch in front of the wall. To the south a series of mounds and ditches. If the wall was built to prevent an assualt by the Picts (who by the way lived nowhere near the wall but much further north) then why build such defences to the south.

189

Alan B,

16/05/2008 12:59:43
#Foulkes Off the CyberNat

"Alan you are making me pull out what little hair I have left."
:))

"The so called "Fed" is arguing for devolution nothing more."

I agree. Dev max done i a symetrical way. I call that federalism. You seem to have a different definition. As i said i understand a federal structure is simply one with a central parliament and regional ones.

"Devolution in its ultimate form is simply Independence."

I agree. It is why i quite like arguing for independence from the point of view of what powers should lie where. It removes the emotive side of the argument and i find very few unionist can come up with coherent powers to be pulled.

That is why u get nutters above saying an advantage of the union is that we do not charge primary school kids to go to school.

"How can anybody argue for less??"

I do not.
190

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 13:05:03
201

Because you have to dissolve one before implementing the other in other words the union of parliaments would have to become Independent Parliaments.
You then want an Independent Scotland and Independent England both to negociate away their independent national status in order to become a Federation of GB??
and what part would the monarchy play in this let alone Wales and NI??

And while we are at it you still havent explained why Scotland should want to form a Federal relationship with England when it could just as easily form one with the US or any other bigger and better federation of nations.
191

Border Scot,

16/05/2008 13:05:52
#188 - No, that wall was deliberately built to divide the lands of the Brigantes, a particularly troublesome native British tribe whose remit traditionally ran from the Humber in the south to the Clyde in the north, into two.

Learn some history Jackie.
192

Border Scot,

16/05/2008 13:05:53
#188 - No, that wall was deliberately built to divide the lands of the Brigantes, a particularly troublesome native British tribe whose remit traditionally ran from the Humber in the south to the Clyde in the north, into two.

Learn some history Jackie.
193

Border Scot,

16/05/2008 13:06:00
#188 - No, that wall was deliberately built to divide the lands of the Brigantes, a particularly troublesome native British tribe whose remit traditionally ran from the Humber in the south to the Clyde in the north, into two.

Learn some history Jackie.
194

Highland Mighty,

16/05/2008 13:06:37
"The STV poll also found that if a multi-option referendum was held, 50.1 per cent would back remaining within the UK but with more powers for the Scottish Parliament. Only 25.1 per cent would back independence, while 24.8 per cent wanted no change."

And so we have ANOTHER poll showing support for independence at a quarter of the population.

Right where it was a year ago.

The nats just aren't making any progress whatsoever, are they.
195

Alan B,

16/05/2008 13:07:34
#Ugly George

I just thought that saying that bribing was not coercing was an symantical argument too far.

I would not think of coercing as compulsion. Probably would place it between compulsion and persuade.

I would define it more as persuading someone to do something they do not really want to do. Or something someone would not do unless under pressure.

for instance say a guy said he would would chuck his girlfriend if she did not sleep with him. i would call that coersion not compulsion.

Apologies for the back to school remark :(
196

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 13:08:14
205

Alan we are a nation a Kingdom not a state nor a county nor a penisular of another nation. We would have to give up our national status to become a Federal state anything else is just a treaty of nations ie the UN the EU NATO.
What are you thinking??
197

Arfur,

16/05/2008 13:09:51
AM2 is touching his toes and taking a pounding on the Herald website.

http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/news/display.var.2275399.0.Prime_Minister_in_rallying_cry_to_defend_Union.php

Here was his post -

"Fine. I'll start. Some benefits of the Union:

• Completely free market between the nations of the United Kingdom
• Economic cooperation rather than competition between UK nations
• Competitive advantages in being part the World’s 5th largest economy
• Fiscal flexibility: flows of treasury resources; shared risk and revenues
• Economies of scale: shared defence, embassies, trade missions etc
• Inward investment: UK attracts more than any other European country
• Stability: part of diversified economy not overly dependent on oil & gas
• Lower taxes than Nordic countries. Better services than Ireland
• Britain is an inspiring example of how nations can work together
• Shared achievement: writers, poets, composers, inventors, engineers
• Shared history: Industrial Revolution, Trafalgar, World Wars I & II etc
• A shared culture that acknowledges and celebrates distinctive elements
• Scots can settle anywhere in the UK without being “abroad”
• Other Britons can live in Scotland as easily as moving to the next town
• Huge influence in the EU due to our population and economic clout
• Britain has the muscle to be a strong force for good internationally
• Continued membership of NATO and the G8 – playing our part globally"
198

Border Scot,

16/05/2008 13:09:57
#194 - You asked me for a union dividend, I gave you three. Ireland does not provide universal free access to health care - people have to pay to see their doctors, it is the same in many other European countries. Those countries that tend to have better free provision than the UK tend to ask their citizens to pay much higher taxes. Is that what you are proposing for an independent Scotland?
199

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 13:10:41
210 Troll

Aye you just stay within yer parallel universe and we will smile and wave to you as usual.
200

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 13:12:19
214

As was stated nothing you mentioned is a perogative of being within a union. Free health care etc can also occur within independent countries surprisingly enough.
201

European Scot,

16/05/2008 13:15:51
184 pwd

"But where will you go if you include yourself out, as you put it, and the Union goes on as it no doubt will?"

" ...... the Union goes on as it no doubt will?"

Good grief, pwd, a Unionist displaying a rare spirit of optimism !
If the unlikely does occur, then I would settle in France, and Winter in Spain.
A tough prospect !
The future of your Union is actually unpredictable, it's a bit too close right now to use words like 'no doubt'.
202

Border Scot,

16/05/2008 13:17:23
217 - No, but it is a Union dividend because the Union has delivered Scotland universal welfare provision. When you look at most other countries in the world, and even in Europe, you will see that this is not something that most do deliver, even though, as you say, in theory they could. That is because most countries have decided they cannot afford it. This country has decided that it can and has been able to for a number of decades. There is no getting round it - the welfare state is a Union dividend.
203

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 13:19:05
213

He has trolled out that sh*te too many times to count and had every single point shot down again and again.
He just takes cybertrolling to whole new levels.
204

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 13:19:49
219

Still smiling and waving.
205

Alan B,

16/05/2008 13:20:21

"You asked me for a union dividend"
I would never use the term union dividend. I dislike dumbed down blarite terminology. We have devolution. That means some decision are taken in scotland and some at a uk level. I was asking which powers would be best taken at a uk level. Complete devolution is independence if there are none.

U also seem to have missed out my reponse to u where i said
"And what is too stop a democratic scotland offering the same thing. Nothing."
and also commented that since devolution whether we charge for schooling or health is not a matter for the sp not the uk parliament.

Lets face it, free schooling and health will remain free in scotland more so than england where they are more open to alternatives.
206

Arfur,

16/05/2008 13:20:43
And here is just a snippet of the replys he is getting -

Utter tosh! Everything is London centric. All Scotland’s wealth is absorbed by London.

• Scotland is second class citizen in this sham of a ‘union’. England always comes first.

• Scotland has no advantage within the UK. RE: Lanarkshire housing schemes.

• Fiscal clap-trap! The private banking scam props up the London Establishment.

• London Establishment and Labour start horrendous murderous wars killing over 1.3 Million.

• All the serious inward investment is in London. This is self-evident.

• The London Establishment steal Scotland’s oil and Gas. London produces nothing but vapourware.

• Norway is better. Ireland is better.

• Britain is a cesspit and a dump governed by clowns and criminals.

• England takes. Scotland gives.

• Trafalgar? What has this got to do with Scotland? The truth of THAT battle is not known. More historic lies.

• World Wars? Scotland’s men were cannon fodder for bungling Establishment generals.

• There is no shared culture. Invented padding.

• Scots can settle anywhere in the world. This will be unchanged when Scotland is independent.

• Immigration will be defined under Scots law.

• Scotland’s fishing rights have been decimated by the ‘UK’. Shame on London.

• Britain is a war mongering murderous entity. The vast majority of Scots want nothing to do with it.

• Nato and G8 are artificial structures. Nato is a precursor to a world army and G8 is duplicitous at best, that is it delivers NOTHING.


Posted by: John Leven, Leven Fife on 10:28pm Thu 15 May 08
AM2 You are trying to re write history. Bendy Wendy said at a press conference before last years budget that a vote for the SNP would mean a tax bill of £5000 for every family in Scotland.

Care to comment on a supposedly socialist party in Scotland voting against the following,
Building council houses
Lowering prescription charges
Voting against arguing for the return of mon
207

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 13:21:25
218

No it isnt it is a political policy which could have been made in or out of a union of Parliaments.
208

Arfur,

16/05/2008 13:22:49
cont -

Voting against arguing for the return of money withheld from their flagship policy, free personal care, by Westminster.

P.S. I am glad to see you have resurfaced, you were conspicuous by your absence when Wendy was doing all her U turns. You must have learned that from Brown.

AM2, nice to hear from you and I hope your well, but by the love of sweet Buddha I've got to question some of your points:-

• Completely free market between the nations of the United Kingdom

Have you heard of the EU?

• Economic cooperation rather than competition between UK nations

Every area of the UK rivals each other. There is no cooperation at all - A job for Wales over Scotland is celebrated in Wales and a new factory in Sidcup is one up on High Blantyre. According to the NYT in the last 18 months 240 US companies have set up new offices in Ireland compared to 13 in Scotland. We are being pumped.

• Competitive advantages in being part the World’s 5th largest economy

Name me any valid ones and none of yer p*sh.

• Fiscal flexibility: flows of treasury resources; shared risk and revenues

So we join the Euro and get all this x 10

• Economies of scale: shared defence, embassies, trade missions etc

London benefits over £100 million annually from foreign embassies. Scotland gets four shillings and thruppence. Scotland pays approx 10% of all UK embassies abroad and gets zip in return.

• Inward investment: UK attracts more than any other European country

Where is your evidence?

• Stability: part of diversified economy not overly dependent on oil & gas

A valid point, but tell that to the people of Norway, Saudi, UAE and Kuwait. Why don't we ask them to join the UK?

• Lower taxes than Nordic countries. Better services than Ireland

We don't need the UK to reach these figures. We could do much better ourselves.

• Britain is an inspiring example of how nations can work together

Good God

• Shared achievement: writers, poets, compose
209

Arfur,

16/05/2008 13:24:18
cont -

• Shared achievement: writers, poets, composers, inventors, engineers

The only ones worth a tinker's cuss are Scottish (joke). Why do you want them to be recognised as British and Scotland's worth to the world dissolved again and again?

• Shared history: Industrial Revolution, Trafalgar, World Wars I & II etc

Yup. Scotland, the most invaded country the world has ever seen. 232 military attempts in 600 years for English conquest of our country, compared with 2 from Germany. Some shared history AM2.

• A shared culture that acknowledges and celebrates distinctive elements

It does not celebrate it. The UK attempts to create a greater London of the whole island and everything outside is parochial pap. Scottish 'culture' celebrated today is completely designed to please London and its nobility. Our culture has been eaten for breakfast by the mouth of your beloved Britain.

• Scots can settle anywhere in the UK without being “abroad”

That is infantile.

• Other Britons can live in Scotland as easily as moving to the next town

Have you seen the EU & succession states influx?

• Huge influence in the EU due to our population and economic clout

The UK is one of the most ridiculed and despised members of the EU. And anyway Scotland's voice is 105 dB below the bellow of London's hungry stomach. We are not heard. We are ignored for the benefit of the real UK - SE England.

• Britain has the muscle to be a strong force for good internationally

Tell that to the million civilians who have died in Iraq because of the US and UK's demand for oil. I cannot believe you have written that. £500 million UK cash spent annually on Iraq and Afghanistan killing people and shafting the country. 9/10 on the Bozo-o-meter AM2.

• Continued membership of NATO and the G8 – playing our part globally.

See above. What price George Bush's puppet?

AM2 you are one hell of a strange cat. Most Unionists are Unionists because they can't be ersed with inn
210

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

16/05/2008 13:25:11
#216 Jeez - I'm actually agreeing with you!!

Free health care etc can happen with or without the Union. What matters is that there are politicians with backbone to carry out the correct policies.
211

Arfur,

16/05/2008 13:25:35
cont -

AM2 you are one hell of a strange cat. Most Unionists are Unionists because they can't be ersed with inner reasoning and debate, which is fine, but you appear to genuinely believe the hollow drivel above. Is it possible for you to recognise 'Scottish' as a concept and to rid yersel' of yer inner poisons against our land?













my work is done.
212

Alan B,

16/05/2008 13:25:47
#224 Foulkes Off the CyberNat

Exactly
213

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 13:26:27
226

I dont know why they even bothered he will just churn it out again on another blog as if it was a brand new argument.
214

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 13:30:10
230

It isnt rocket science but it is the quality of unionist argument and frustrating to deal with hence the swearing.
215

Alan B,

16/05/2008 13:33:28
#The Federalist

"What matters is that there are politicians with backbone to carry out the correct policies"

Or what matter is what policies the people vote for.

Taking Border Scot argument to its logical conclusion, he is saying the scots voting public could not be trusted to continue to vote for these universal benefits. We need the superiour intellect and voting power of our english and welsh comrades to enusure that scotland does not start charging our kids to go to school. (like england has for higher education (not arguing the rights or wrongs of it).
216

LEAL,

north 16/05/2008 13:38:27
How much money will Labour be able to spend on a referendum campaign?and the other unionist parties?
The nationalist movement wont need to spend much because most nationalists would walk over broken glass to win freedom for their country.
I dont think many unionists are that determined to keep their country subdued by westminster.
217

Border Scot,

16/05/2008 13:38:54
#222 - Why do you take it for granted that we will have universal, free-to-access, cradle to grave welfare in an independent Scotland? The UK is among the few countries in the entire world that does provide this to its citizens. In most - if not all - other countries where it is provided, people pay much higher taxes than we do.
218

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 13:39:27
I am still trying to get my head around the significance of Hadrians wall to the Union or an Independent Scotland.
219

Alan B,

16/05/2008 13:39:37
#235

:))
220

Fairfax,

16/05/2008 13:39:52
Jackie Priest (173): "It was a betrayal."

It was: the Covenanters betrayed Parliament, struck a deal with Cromwell, and began the third stage of the war.

"Ah, the history of the world according to the English, in which the whole world is grateful for the great and good things England has done for the betterment of all."

Here's a challenge for you: find me a Scottish historian who believes that Scotland would have been a better place if the Covenanters had won.
221

Border Scot,

16/05/2008 13:44:10
#233 - Hadrian's Wall was built well to the south of where the Picts were found. It was built to divide up the lands of Celtic tribesmen who lived in what is now England and Scotland.

Scotland and England still are separate nations inside one country. Just as, say, Catalonia and Castille are two nations inside Spain, or Lombardy and Sicily are two nations inside Italy. All were once independent states, none now are.

To teach people history Jackie you have to have at least some understanding of it yourself. So go and read a few books, get some understanding and then come back to us.
222

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 13:44:21
237

Whether we do or not is not significant to being in or out of a union of parliaments. We could lose it or keep it in either political state.
Best just drop the whole silly point yer trying to make.
Nowhere else on the planet do people pay more different types of taxation than we do in the UK.
Best to drop that silly point as well.
The overall tax burden in the UK puts every other country in the world in the shade.
223

Busymale,

16/05/2008 13:45:47
All these pro-Unionists are so confident of their case that the people don't want independance yet they fight against a Referendum. The only poll they know that counts is on the big day itself - and their running scared.

By the way, why don't they ever answer the question why did Callaghans govt not want the true status of Scotlands economic wealth given to the people 30 years ago? Answer, because the truth would have ended the Union and the same case applies today!


"Bring it on Wendy" is disgraced and humiliated by her boss, her party, and her own big gob! Time to go dear!
224

Alan B,

16/05/2008 13:46:10
#Border Scot

We will have what the people vote for.

We used to have in the uk free universal education. But blair stopped that. So i could turn round to u reverse the question. What guarentees that it will continue within the union.

The best safeguard to give the people what they want is democracy close to the people.

If scotland wanted to continue with some universal benefit and england did not what would happen. It would be stopped. Although granted the sp puts in some safeguards, however more fiscal responsibility would put in more.

We now pay high taxes too just labour have failed to deliver a similar high service. But that is party political and not constitutional.
225

Border Scot,

16/05/2008 13:48:51
#232 - No, I am not saying that Alan B. I am sayingthat one of the advantages of being a constituent part of the Uk is that we have a universal, free-to-access welfare system - something that most other countries in the world do not have.

I am sure that the Scottish peole would love to vote for such a system in an independent Scotland. The question is whether we can afford one. Most countries seem not to be able to, those that can levy much higher rates of taxation than we are charged in the UK.

You lose the argument when you resort to distorting the arguments of peple with whom you do not agree. Surely you can do better than that.
226

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 13:50:39
241

It was built to signify the border of the Roman empire in that part of the world.
227

,

16/05/2008 13:52:03
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
228

Border Scot,

16/05/2008 13:52:47
#244 - Absolutely. The Scots have consistently voted for a universal, free-to-access welfare state and that is exactly what we have.
229

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 13:52:51
238 Foulkes
I think the next stage is to start discussing the formation of the continental plates.
230

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 13:55:05
245

Being a constituent part of the UK is the whole problem we are supposed to be an equal partner nation.
Nice of you to acknowledge a fundamental arguement against the union. Where is the advantage of being a constituent part of the union as opposed to being and equal partner??
231

Border Scot,

16/05/2008 13:55:25
#246 - The border of the Roman Empire, of course, was very diffrent to the borders that had existed up unti the construction of the wall.
232

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 13:56:00
250

Blue tac.
233

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 13:56:51
252

So??
234

Border Scot,

16/05/2008 13:56:53
#251 - The terms are not contradictory.
235

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 13:58:52
247

Smiling and waving.
236

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

16/05/2008 13:59:04
#233 I was taught this by mother who happens to have a good History degree and has also taught History for the last 30 years - and she's not a unionist - she supports the SNP. The establishment of both England and Scotland as entities comes much later in the timeline.

Southern Scotland was occupied by the Brythionic speaking Celtic tribes. The Picts lived to the north of the Forth and Clyde and were not even one kingdom but a confederation of at least 7 distinct tribes. In fact, the one dominant Pictish tribe, the Fortriu, lived in the area that we know as Moray.

One has to wonder then that if Hadrian's Wall was built to keep out invading Picts why it was not built much further North?

In fact the Romans did build across the Forth-Clyde valleys when they erected the Antonine Wall. It was the land to the north of this wall that the Romans called Caledonia.

The modern boundaries of Scotland were established when the Kingdom of the Picts (by that stage the Kingdom of Alba) acquired control of the lands lying to the north and south. By the 12th century, the kings of Alba had added to their territories the Anglic-speaking land in the south-east and attained overlordship of Gaelic-speaking Galloway and Norse-speaking Caithness; by the end of the 13th century, the kingdom had assumed approximately its modern borders.
237

Tartan Tory Tango,

16/05/2008 13:59:30
#191 Priest writes: And ask yourself this: if we vote yes for independence, should this stop unionists in the future from tabling a motion for a referendum on returning to the union? It shouldn't, no. Unionists should be allowed to campaign for re-joining the union, if that's what floats their boat.

What are you on today, Priestie? Do you really think that, after going through all the massive upheaval of independence, it would be sensible, or indeed feasible, for Britain to be reunified? There would be all sorts of legal, financial and administrative problems in the unlikely event that Scotland were ever to become independent; indeed, many of the problems would probably take years to sort out. After that, I just can’t imagine anyone having the heart to unravel it all again: while separation makes no sense whatsoever, except on some kind of pseudo emotional level, it’s extremely disingenuous to argue that the process could be easily reversed, should the people of Scotland so wish.
238

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 13:59:42
255

Maybe not in your universe.
239

Alan B,

16/05/2008 14:00:43
#Border Scot

"You lose the argument when you resort to distorting the arguments"

or maybe i was just showing how silly ur argument is. The fed another unionist poster agrees that is it not sensible argument. It

"Most countries seem not to be able to, those that can levy much higher rates of taxation than we are charged in the UK."

Most countries can afford it, but just many deliver services in different ways. Most small western european countries are richer than the uk. Different european countries approach issues differently. Most have universal schooling. Most have some sort of univeral health which can be insurance based. similar to the way we have national insurance. Some make those with ability to pay, pay a small component at the point of use. All valid ways, depending on the model people want to vote for.

Arguing that schooling and health are reasons for the uk is simply silly given that we are on of the unhealthiest countries in europe and others countries provide better health care and education systems. (although i think the scottish ed system is decent).

We actually have high taxes now. We had low taxes and universal services during thatcher. labour believes they were underfund and we have moved to a high tax model. (although there is the argument about whether they have delivered for the money spent).

"The question is whether we can afford one."

That is the first proper point u have made. It brings us on the one of the real discussion points. will we be richer outside or inside the union.

Gvien our economic performance within it, and given the performance of other small northern european countries we would have to be completely incapable no to do better than currently.

240

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 14:01:14
257

And yet none of this has any significance to the events of 1707 and the 300 years since.
241

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 14:03:22
258

Like I said before its not up to this generation to decide how future generations lead their lives.
242

Fairfax,

16/05/2008 14:17:06
Jackie Priest (202): "Actually, but not surprisingly, you are both very wrong, as unionists always are about Scottish history, especially if they are not from Scotland."

I'm not a Unionist. In case there's any misunderstanding, I want Scotland to secede.

"You two, it is clear, have never heard of this man"

Montrose was indeed a fascinating man, but the fundamental fact remains that it was Scotland which recommenced the final stage of the War.
243

Publius,

London 16/05/2008 14:21:46
#202 Jackie Priest

You are wrong on almost every count.

(1) I am a Scot, but working in London during the week.
(2) I am well aware of Montrose and MacColla and of MacColla's exploits as leader of a guerrilla army.
(3) If you had bothered to read my orginal post instead of jumping in with both feet, you would seen I was attacking a simplistic version of 17th century history.
244

Border Scot,

16/05/2008 14:22:17
#260 - You asked me for advantages to Scotland of being in the Union, I gave you three. The simple fact is that in most European countries you either pay for some aspects of your health cover above and beyond what you pay for in tax or you pay much higher tax. The advantage of being a part of the UK is that we get relatively low taxes - it is a simple fact, go and look up the tax rates of other countries in Europe - and we get the universal access. In Ireland you pay tax and then you pay to see your doctor; in Scandinavia you just pay much higher tax in the first place.
245

Publius,

London 16/05/2008 14:26:52
Jackie Priest

Your sense of ancient history - Picts and all that - is pretty feeble too. I suggest you give the wackipedia a miss and read some decent history books.
246

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 14:31:52
268

No you didnt you cant even come up with one but dont despair neither can any other unionist on these blogs.
Relatively low taxes compared to who??? who else pays as many different taxation schemes as we do??
Border Scot Just another logon for the blog troll.
247

Alan B,

16/05/2008 14:44:49
#Border Scot

I am sorry but ur argument makes little sense to me.

1) Scotland would continue with universal provision if it voted for that. We do not need the rest of the uk for universal provision.

2)Scotland has now devolved education and health. So whether universal provision stops is determined by the sp not the uk parliament. If england was to stop universal provision scotland could continue. ie higher education. The only thing that could jepordise universal free health care for instance was if westminster was to starve the sp of cash by abandoning such policies itself.

While it took u a while, the only advantage u really came up with was if it made it richer within the uk and hence could fund these services better. Since scotland has performed so poorly economically it is not much of an argument.

I have to say u are blinded by ur support for the union that u do not see the basic fundamental that we while get what we vote for. Whether we throw money at public services like labour have done or arguably starve them of cash like the tories depends really on who we vote for. As such scotland is much more in control of the policies its leaders implement if we were independent.

3)
248

,

16/05/2008 14:46:05
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
249

Alan B,

16/05/2008 14:48:55
#270 Foulkes Off the CyberNat

That was my point very few unionists can come up with genuine reasons for the union.

while i know u disagree with the fed atleast he actually will try to come up with proper reasons.

The reasons for the unions would be

1)emotive
2)it better represents scotland in the eu and in the world
3)we would be a stronger economy.
4)defence

The arguments against them would be
2)scotland is poorly represented by the uk in the eu.
3)lol
4)scotland does not tend to support funding nuclear weapons or wars in other parts of the world. (rightly or wrongly)
250

A Scot in America,

16/05/2008 14:52:40
#22.....Scotland, the UK's, the world's.......inept leader"

I'm terribly sorry to have to differ with your opinion of poor misguided PM Brown but we here in the "States" must disagree most strenuously on what country holds the title for having the most inept head government.
251

Alan B,

16/05/2008 15:00:23
#276

Bush might be inept but atleast he tries to put his countries interests first. Brown just sells out scotland. Brown believes being scottish is such a disadvantage to his own ambitions that he prances around with his british malarky.

Some union pretend ur not scottish but british, because he thinks england will not vote for a scot.

Abit like it was said kinnock was unelectable because he was welsh.
252

Scottish not British,

16/05/2008 15:02:20
The fact that there is so much debate about the history of Scotland and its people would suggest that schools should teach what happened instead of trying to pretend we only existed as of 1707 and stop treating the wars of independence as if they were a national shame.

These polls are meaningless only a referendum will resolve this issue.
253

,

16/05/2008 15:05:06
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
254

Geoff,

sa 16/05/2008 15:07:01
275 Meths my dear friend,what a pleasant surprise to find u to cross swords with as I open the page! Hope u are well and not too distressed by the Gers Debacle!!
Gordon brown mentions the gathering support for an English Parliament as though it were a threat to the Union. The exact opposite is the case-an English Assembly will take the pressure off the Union. Whether or not the Union prevails the present setup is untenable .Westminster can not be both English Parliament and Union Parliament-be it in the latter case for the whole Union or the rump UK should scotland ever take the dark path to Independence!:)
255

Edward,

16/05/2008 15:08:52
#214
Your arguement for the union is so heavily flawed its laughable
First you state the union provides
1. Universal access to free healthcare
2. Universal access to free primary and seconday education
3. Universal access to a range of welfare payments for the sick and unemployed
Then its correctly pointed out that this would be provided anyay in an Independent Scotland
So then you retort with that old nutmeg - Ireland
And yes they do have to pay towards some of the healthcare. But what you seem to forget is that Ireland became a republic (1922) long before the NHS and the Welfare state came into being in Britain (1947)
256

JCA REID,

Annan 16/05/2008 15:14:11
It is hypocritical of Mr. Brown to defend this "UNION" when he has made at least one speech that has been broadcasted recently promoting Scottish Independence. They speak of this Union in Lincolnian terms when in fact it was an "Anschluss" in all but name! This 300year old "union" has caused Scotland to have been involved in over 500years of war, seen its people killed in far greater numbers, in terms of population than our "partner": even on D-Day on the Normandy beaches in 1944, far more Scottish troops landed than English. This 21st. Century is only 8years old & we've had several years of war already, with at least another 40years to go in Iraq & Afghanistan, (20 a piece). Our assets have been & are being stripped & ruined to massage the ego of England. Enough is enough! They talk of the benefits of union. Personally it all reminds me of the best line to come out of Hollywood. In the Clint Eastwood film, "The Outlaw Josey Wales", when the union troops execute the Confederate geurilla band & the US senator justifies it, their leader's reply: "Don't pi** down my back and tell me it's raining senator.", sums up this situation. No country ruled another wisely. They rule it to exploit it & for their own advantage! Wake up & see the reality!
257

A Scot in America,

16/05/2008 15:14:45
AlanB ....."Shurb"
Don't you mean he puts the interests of Haliburton "et al" at the forefront? Remember the old American adage that whats good for General Motors is good for the country.
258

Geoff,

sa 16/05/2008 15:18:33
241 Border Scot-another more pertinent example is modern germany-now very much a nation including former nations such as Bavaria and Prussia. Germany is of recent origin-1872 from memory. And to those thta say the Union is relatively recent ponder this- the United States of America came into being some sevety years later and as you all know had bits added for a hundred and fifty years. The United Kingdom is older as a political unit than the vast majority of the worlds 200 plus nations. If you doubt me-google it lads!
Put that in yer pipes and smoke it!!
259

Alan B,

16/05/2008 15:20:06
#Geoff

"Westminster can not be both English Parliament and Union Parliament"

Why? I could see a case for where english mps wear 2 hats. One as an mp within an english parliament. The other as uk mps.

If we were to clear up the mess of devolution. Grant fiscal autonomy to scotland and powers over the most obvious things, transport, energy and its reguatation and transmission, law and order. Stop scottish mps voting on english matters.

U would effectively have an english parliament. With an elected first minister.

The pulled powers of currency, defence, foreign policy and eu membership are things that can be voted on as need be.

The biggest problem with this structure and the reason many labour mps are opposed to dev max is what would they actually do with 90% of their time.
260

Alan B,

16/05/2008 15:24:19
#A Scot in America

"Remember the old American adage that whats good for General Motors is good for the country."

Unfortunately what is good for brown is not good for scotland. He wants to be uk leader and to do this has to sell his soul.

The other problem with brown is he is pretty incompetant when it comes to the whole of the uk too.
261

Alan B,

16/05/2008 15:25:40
#286 "many labour mps " should have been "many scottish labour mps "
262

European Scot,

16/05/2008 15:30:32
281 Geoff

".... should scotland ever take the dark path to Independence! "

Good afternoon Geoff. !
Dark path to Independence ? Oh dear no ?
That would be a little at odds with all those Nations that have celebrated achieving their Independence.
'Achieving' is one of two words commonly used in connection with the word Independence, the other would be 'gaining.'
Hardly negative, or words of darkness !
263

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 15:30:33
261 Jackie Priest
I find it strange that you should castigate others for their lack of knowledge of history when it is evident that your own knowledge of European history is limited. Several people have pointed out to you that both Italy and Germany were formed from separate countries. The type of name chose for the unified country may vary but the principal is the same. Germany calls itself a Federal Republic of states. The UK calls itself a union of states as does the USA. The semantics may vary but the principal is the same. A Bavarian may well tell you that he is Bavarian not German.

Depite the fact that many people have pointed this out to you are merely say that their comments are "bogus" Italy was not formed from a combination of regions as you assert. It was formed union of separate countries. It may not call itsef a union of countries but that is what it is. Why do you persistently refuse to accept the the reality but merley dismiss it as bogus?
264

Geoff,

sa 16/05/2008 15:35:25
286 Alan B-ta for your comment. The only prob with the two hats solution is that it somehow feels to me to be half baked. I would much rather see a constitutional convention for the whole of the UK with Eire also paticipating as an interested observor. This convention should include as many shades of opinion as possible and its aim should be the creation of equal bodies for the four Home countries-perhaps in the case of england examining the possibility of a Northern and southern assembly to reduce the real and percieved view of English dominance. After defining the powers of the home assemblies then reconstite Westminster as a genuine Union Parliament. All of this removes the tensions that exist at present. I understand this would not be acceptable to many Scots Nats but to my mind it is the best solution to the current impasse. If any individual Parliament decides to secde from the Union at a later date,so sadly would be it! It simplifies things considerably constitutionally.
265

acanthus,

16/05/2008 15:36:03
Ugly George:

Perhaps you could tell me how many COUNTRIES (of those that have gained their independence) would hand back their sovreignty?





266

Alan B,

16/05/2008 15:36:28
Can anyone explain the advantages of the current devolution setup? I can understand sort of direct rule from westminster. Think it was awful but can understand the concept. I can understand the concept of devolution.

But the current arrangement just seem barmy. either u believe in devolution and want to devolve powers to scotland because they are best taken in scotland. In which case much more powers would be devolved rather than the mismash we have at the moment. With bits of powers here and bits there.

Intellectually the current arrangement does not make sense.

267

bluepict,

union Falls 16/05/2008 15:42:28
The people of scotland have fought for their freedom and idependence for how long? A 1000 years? More? What makes these "Scots unionist" feel that the National character and spirit of the People of Scotland has suddenly evolved into a toothless bunch of forelock tuggers in the ensuing years since?

Oh we know that the effort was made over the past 300 and more years to....well, the English National Anthem expresses that so much better than I,doesn't it? It goes something like "The rebellious Scots to crush?????". Well to quote Windy wendy over the referendum for independence.....,(with my little add on) "Bring it on baby!!

Our weapons of choice this time will be the vote as opposed to the claymore.Same Tigers,different era.

#57 UKIP, the Quasi-Colonial crape has to go! And well said #61 Jock " After the Union has been binned we will be in a better position to assess if the EU is for us or agin us"

And also #61 jock,"Greenland looked at the EU and said No thanks; Norway has never been in and has no plans to"

"One union at a time mate!"

Absoulutely! Our prime concern for right now is SCOTTISH independence from Quasi-colonial rule,and the EU can wait.This slavish mentality to Westminster and or the EU is most distastefull!

Come on my Scots peeps, Independence? Bring it on baby!!








268

Border Scot,

16/05/2008 15:43:13
#282 - The very fact that the UK could afford an NHS when Ireland could not is quite informative, is it not?

And I did not say that Scotland would have a universal, free-to-access welfare system after independence, I said that I had no doubt the Scots would like to have one. Which, of course, is completely different. Just because you ant something does not mean you can have it. It has to be affordable and sustainable.

The simple fact, which Alan B fails to acknowledge, is that Scotland is one of the very few countries in the world with a universal, free-to-access welfare system. We have it because Scotland is a part of the UK. That is an advantage of being in the UK.

269

Geoff,

sa 16/05/2008 15:44:24
289 European scot-hi Es!I was just taking the mickey with the darkness stuff altho from my point of view it would be a dark day! Reminds me of that lovely scene from Annie Hall-split screen with diane keaton on one side and woody allen on the other,each talking to their shrinks"How often do you have sex?" says the shrink. Woody replies"Hardly ever-twice a week!" Diane replies"All the time-twice a week!!"
270

Border Scot,

16/05/2008 15:47:36
#294 - The Scottish people have never fought for their freedom. Some Scottish noblemen may in the past have dragooned Scottish peasants into armies to fight armies of English peasants led by English noblemen, but there has never been a popular uprising in Scotland for freedom. And now there does not need to be one because we all have votes and we can decide our futures through the ballot box.
271

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 15:48:40
292 Acanthus
Some may - some may not. Its up to them. Crete gained independence from Turkish rule and then joned with Greece. California became independent of Mexico and then joined the USA.
272

acanthus,

16/05/2008 15:49:00
Independence is proven to work. It is THAT simple. Bleat on all you want about macro-economics and what-if's...the fact is that not one country would hand back it's sovereignty!

273

Alan B,

16/05/2008 15:51:21
#Geoff

I think it would be a step forward.

If u are federalising the uk. Then this could be done by having regional assemblies throughout england. Problem is england do not want that. Any talk of english regionalisation is seen as a european plot. But rightly or wrongly i do not think england want regional assemblies (except london).

Alternatively u do it along national lines.

The problem in some ways is labour have given different powers to the welsh parliament compared to the scottish one confusing matters.

I think we really have to sort out the fiscal issue first. Fiscal autonomy would do that.

And also devolve alot more powers to the sp. There are too many silly situations. eg scotland justice minister cannot control how many police in a police car. He had to write to westminster transport secretary who refuse to let him change it.

We need a clean line of responsibilities.

Personally i would think the pulled powers if we remain within the uk would be currency, defence, foreign policy and eu. As such it would probably be easier letting westminster be the english parliament and have a directly elected president for pulled/shared powers.

He would be accountable to the 4 parliaments like the US president is to congress. But would have alot let powers as it would be restricted to the few areas.

274

acanthus,

16/05/2008 15:52:58
California and Crete. Is that the strength of the Unionist argument? You will also notice that i highlighted COUNTRIES.

I am waiting for your list of the European countries that have failed and would hand back sovreignty?


275

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 15:54:15
299 Acanthus
Why do you make such a sweeping generalistion. Independence may have worked for some countries but that is not a universal statement of fact. What about Zimbabwe?
As for your other pont see post 292.
276

Grant,

Scotland 16/05/2008 15:55:39
#297 "but there has never been a popular uprising in Scotland for freedom."

Actually, there were siginificant elements of that during the signing of the Union in Edinburgh, and throughout Scotland in the months leading up to May 1707.
277

Sanny,

16/05/2008 15:57:41
I am concerned at the Validity and/or honesty of the various polls that are constantly being quoted. Of course a poll result can be slanted in any direction, by the wording of the question, or interpretation of answers, or by selection of those being polled. In some cases perhaps downright lies.

A scan of the various comments on political articles in the Scottish newspapers and the trends apparent in these comments would suggest that the polls DO NOT reflect the opinion of the Scottish readers. How can this be?

There are several possible solutions.
1. Not all those polled are sufficiently literate to read or formulate and write a response.
2. A large section of the population has no interest in politics and therefore can make no valid comment, at this time!
3. Only those who are politically aware and interested in the fate of their country make comments recorded in the Scottish newspapers.

Those that fall into the first category are very unlikely to vote, but will answer question if asked and are most likely to give the answer they think is required.

Of the second and possibly the largest section. They will not have given the subject much thought, as yet, but will turn their minds to it when a referendum is announced. In the meantime they will give off-the-cuff answers to get rid of the pollster.

The third and final group are those who have thought the matter through and made their decision accordingly. When the Referendum is announced, they will bring their arguments to bear on those around them.

In reviewing the comments in various newspapers, of differing political hues, I find the pro-Independence Lobby outnumber the Pro-Union Lobby by around 10 – 1. So how does this relate to the various polls and which is the more accurate measure of opinion?
278

Grant,

Scotland 16/05/2008 15:58:22
#295 Border Scot

""is that Scotland is one of the very few countries in the world with a universal, free-to-access welfare system. We have it because Scotland is a part of the UK. That is an advantage of being in the UK.""

This is total rubbish. Most developed European nations have a free to access welfare system, New Zealand and Canada too and no doubt other places as well. Scotland and the UK are not unique in this regard
279

Ugly George,

edinburgh 16/05/2008 15:58:24
You are being insulting to crete. It has had its own features of identity going back to the Minoan civilisation of more than 2500 years ago. As such it prdates Scotland as an entity by several hundred years. How can you assert the nationhood of Scotland and be dismissive of somewhere like Crete.
Similarly how can you
280

Miss H,

16/05/2008 16:01:32
170 You are neing simplistic in a number of ways. Those thimgs exist in all social democratic countries. Spending on healthcare and welfare is much higher in some - the Scandinavian countries for example. And many European countries- Italy, France and Germany for example - spend a higher proportion of their national wealth on healthcare than the UK does. The fact that individual citizens also spend a higher proportion of their own money on private healthcare does not detract from the fact that Italy, France and Germany spend more taxpayers money on doctors, nurses and health facilties than the UK does.

You are also naïve is in assuming that the current model of the NHS or indeed the welfare system will go on forever. Gordon Brown has already moved to talking about an insurance-based model.

These decisions you see are nothing to do with the constitutional status of a country. They are to do with political values. Where the constitutional argument is important of course is in ensuring that the political values of the people are fairly represemted in parliament and by government.
281

Alan B,

16/05/2008 16:01:44
#295 Border Scot

"We have it because Scotland is a part of the UK. "

That is quite simply not true. We have it because people voted for it. Scotland could have it if it were independent if people vote for it.

The simple fact is it is not an advantage of the UK. As u have admitted urself people in scotland would most likely want for it to continue.

U have also said richer countries than the uk could not afford it. That is just silly. Even when they have run higher tax models.

U are implying that scotland could not afford it. The only possible advantage from the uk u have come up is that we may not be able to afford it if independent.

That would be an advantage if true. the problem with ur argement is u confuse the results of a perceived advantage and the actual advantage themself. That is why it comes across so badly even to other unionists.

The real argument would be in relation to what u are saying, would we be richer and able to afford better services or poorer and afford less.

How many eu western countries charge for schooling?

How many eu western countries charge at the point of use and how many do not. (We do abit with prescription charges.)







282

Grant,

Scotland 16/05/2008 16:04:47
#268 Border Scot

Not necessarily. The Scandinavian countries have far greater welfare benefits than the UK (or Scotland) has, ergo there has to be higher taxes to pay for them. Indeed the proportion of GDP accounted for by Government spending is higher in these countries than in Scotland. Some countries have a broadly equivalent system to Scotland with similar tax rates (New Zealand, Singapore etc).

In essence if Scotland or the UK wanted an even better welfare benefits, taxes would have to rise.
283

Alan B,

16/05/2008 16:04:57
#307 Miss H

It was like banging ur head against a wall.
284

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

16/05/2008 16:07:23
#265 Interesting list - I've seen it before.

My understanding is that Cináed mac Ailpín was the first to truly unite the Pictish tribes. Until that point the King of the Fortriu were seen as a type of overlord - the period of overlordship runs from Bridei c AD 580 to c AD 839. There was a period between c AD 839 and c AD 845 where no overking held sway. It was only when Cináed mac Ailpín defeated all the other rival Kings that the Kingdom of the Picts was united.

Before that period (as I said earlier), during Roman times the Pictish nation was a confederacy of the different Pictish tribes.

Even if we disagree about some of this I think we can agree that the boundaries of Scotland have been established for over 700 years.
285

acanthus,

16/05/2008 16:08:51
306:

Still no list forthcoming i see?

You cannot provide me with one country that would give up it's independence can you, not even one?

Yet, conversely you have plenty of arguments why Scotland should NOT have independence..something odd strike you about that?

286

acanthus,

16/05/2008 16:13:09
You, unfortunatly like a lot of Scots, when it boils down to it people like you do not have the bottle. It's that simple!

Not my words, that of an Irishman i know by the way. But untimately it's true.
287

Alan B,

16/05/2008 16:13:19
#Border Scot

Just realised, u have not actually answered the questions i originally asked u:

1. Can u tell me. what is the advantage to scotland of being in a union where scotland votes one way ie labour and england votes another tory, and scotland gets 17yrs of tory rule?

(Democracy is about the accountability of ur elected representatives. But as we have found out we cannot control in scotland who our government is. )


2. The governor of the bank of england eddie george said that unemployment in the north of britain is a price worth paying to control inflation in the south. Do u as a unionist think unemployment in scotland is a price worth paying for the union?


That was a very neat side step to avoid answering the question not wonder u were talking rubbish about scottish kids having to pay to go to school etc.

Now please answer the questions.
288

Sanny,

Upwey 16/05/2008 16:14:06
295 : Border Scot,
It may be to your advantage to read a little of Scottish political History. There have been many occasions since 1707 when the Scots have threatened violence in their pursuit of their Independence. On several occasions the English army have been stationed on the borders in readiness! At the beginning of the twentieth century Tanks were placed in George Square in Glasgow to quell the Scots. In the fifties I recall we had an organisation called the Scottish Republican Army. They were blowing up post boxes the had the ERII emblem! Thankfully, though some consider us a warrior nation, we are not a violent Nation. Hence our objection Iraq et al.

Now read the so called National anthem in full, paying attention to verse 6: -
Lord grant that Marshal Wade
May by thy mighty aid
Victory bring.
May he sedition hush,
And like a torrent rush,
Rebellious Scots to crush.
God save the Queen!
289

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

16/05/2008 16:14:33
#312 Acanthus - some of our Eurosceptics would argue that there are 25 nations who gave up their independence the minute they joined the EEC/EU.
290

Miss H,

16/05/2008 16:16:00
306 What's your point? is there are cretan independence movement? Who is dismissing it?
291

Border Scot,

16/05/2008 16:19:51
#305 - New Zealand does not have a universal free to access welfare system. The welfare system in NZ is very limited and involves payment for a number of services and significant restrictions on entitlements to unemployment benefit, sickness payments etc. In Canada, there is no universal free at point of delivery access to healthcare.
292

acanthus,

16/05/2008 16:23:27
316:

Really? I was under the impression that the EU was composed of member states.

Could you tell me those countries who have consigned all sovreignty to the EU?

I was not aware there were any?
293

Grant,

Scotland 16/05/2008 16:25:28
#318 Having experienced life in New Zealand, I beg to differ. New Zealand's cradle to grave welfare system, is something that gives them a great deal of pleasure. There is subsidised charges for prescriptions and non-essential treatments (not necessarily a bad thing).

I still pay for prescriptions and dental care in Scotland for example.

It still invalidates your point that Scotland is the only country in the world to have these things?

Or is this another implicit Unionist argument that Scotland could not afford these things without English subsidy?

However your point about
294

Geoff,

sa 16/05/2008 16:26:38
316 The Fed-Exactly! Just the point I was about to make.
315 Sanny"Rebellious Scots to crush"-thats ONLY the rebellious ones.
Not the other nice ones.
Also Sanny isnt there some warlike reference to England in "Flower of Scotland?"
295

Border Scot,

16/05/2008 16:27:50
1 - Among the advantages of Scotand being in the Union are as I have outlined. We are part of a country that has comparatively low taxes but which delivers a universal, free-to-access welfare system, and which can do so whatever the global economic circumstances. There is absolutely no guaratee that an independent Scotland would be able to deliver on this even if the majority of Scots wanted it, which I am sure they do.

2 - Eddie George did not say what you claimed he said, so there was not much point in me responding
296

Border Scot,

16/05/2008 16:31:25
#315 - As I said there has never been a popular uprising in Scotland for freedom.

And, of course, that verse - written by a Scot - does not form part of the UK national anthem. Although I do agree the national anthem is a durge. I would love to see the back of it.
297

Miss H,

16/05/2008 16:32:59
319 There aren't any. That is why it is a confederation of independent countries and not a federation - nor will it be.
298

Grant,

Scotland 16/05/2008 16:32:59
Indeed Miss H's point at #307 is relevant to Canada. Canada spends a very high proportion of its national wealth on healthcare - possibly equivalent to the UK/Scotland.

Indeed Scotland spends more on healthcare than the rest of the UK, because that is a policy choice of the Scottish Government. Not a constitutional issue.
299

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

16/05/2008 16:33:56
#319 Their argument (not mine) would state that if a country is truly independent is does not even share its sovereignty with other countries. They would argue (as I understand Jim Fairlie's Free Scotland party does) that the SNP are a quasi-independence party.
300

Alan B,

16/05/2008 16:35:41
#321

The difference with the EU is in many ways it is more devolved. It is confederal by its nature. countries that are members are independent sovereign natiions.

Obviously by joining any club where u pull power it limits ur scope for acting independently.

As i see the advantages of the eu are single market, freedom of movement of people, commom currency (do not like the pressure to join but think it is a good idea to have it available for those that want to participate). I believe it would be in scotlands economic interests to join the euro.

It also make sense for such a body, so that we can deal with global environmental issues and global foreign policy issues. I like the idea of eu peace keeping and taking a lead on resolving foreign policy areas.

I just fail to see the advantage of the UK even as very devolved confederal structure. Which the only one i could really see any logic to.
301

Grant,

Scotland 16/05/2008 16:37:07
#322 Border Scot

There's absolutely no guarantee the UK "as a whole" could continue to fund these things in the future. Welfare spending was heavily cut during the 1970s and 80s for economic reasons. Priorities were realigned and policies were changed. That is normal in a democratic country where these issues are under political control.

All countries have choices to make regarding what they spend, not just on welfare, but in general. There is no bottomless pit of money - not even in a Scotland in the Unionist fantasy world that exists solely on English subsidy.

It is up to the electorate to vote in the parties who pledge to spend on the issues that the "median voter" agrees with.
302

Border Scot,

16/05/2008 16:37:58
#320 - The welfare state in Scotland is much more generous than the welfare state in New Zealand - in terms of healthcare, unemployment, sickness and pension benefits. New Zealand had to reform its welfare state in the 1990s because it could not afford to pay for it.
303

European Scot,

16/05/2008 16:39:33
Why is it Unionists like to hark back to the German states or the United states of America. They do so like comparing States with Countries.
Queen Elizabeth the first was Queen of England, at the same time Mary was Queen of Scots. The two countries were as separate, as Mary's head became from her body.
Britain is a Geographic area, the UK was formed, against the wishes of both the English and Scottish people.
Deals were done between those in high places, and the rest is history.
Now there is an opportunity to put matters right, to recognise both countries, and their individual sovereignty.
The trouble is, those who are in power have most of the cards in their favour. They have control over the media, and the State Broadcaster is well and truly in their pocket. They have the necessary power to influence the public, with their UK / The Nation / British propaganda.
People of countries that have been controlled by an external force in the recent past, have tended to stand up for their own right, to govern themselves as they think fit. Those countries formerly part of the Soviet Union, are obvious examples.
So is Scotland controlled by Westminster ?
Broadcasting is reserved to Westminster.
A fundamental item, one of many, is 'reserved'.
It's quite simply time to put an end to all of this nonsense.
The solution isn't Federal, it's Independence.
Federal doesn't put a Scottish flag outside the UN building, or a Scotland nameplate on the European table. Federal leaves Scotland a part of the UK.
It's a waste of time, aimed to delay the inevitable, and prolong UK oil revenues.
Federal for Scotland, just means more of the same.
The bottom line is Independence.
304

Edward,

16/05/2008 16:40:35
You can have a look at Gordon Browns 'working class' background here : http://tinyurl.com/62mtgt
305

Border Scot,

16/05/2008 16:40:51
#325 - a Scottish government funded from the UK exchequer.

The simple fact is that you can only have the welfare system we have if you can afford to pay for it. They could not pay for it in New Zealand so they had to cut it back. They cannot pay for it in Ireland, so they do not have it. They do have it in the Scandinavian countries, but they pay much higher taxes than we do.
306

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 16:41:29
301 Acanthus
Both Crete and California have been COUNTRIES.
Crete has had its own identity since the Minoan civilisation of 2500+ years ago. As such it predates Scotland by hundreds of years. Its population is far larger than Iceland which has been held up as an example to Scotand. How can you therefore dismiss it.

More astonishingly how can you dismiss California. It has a population of over 30m and if it was still a separate country (which it was for a time in the 19th century) its economy would be one of the 10 largest in the world.

A similar situation pertains to Texas - are you going to dismiss that as well.

You asked for any examples of countries which have gained sovereignty and then acceded it. Your imp-lication appeared to be that there were none. I have given you two (now three). It appears that as they do not fall in line with your argument you merely dismiss them.
307

Grant,

Scotland 16/05/2008 16:42:58
#329 And so did the UK in the 1970s and 80s - again for economic reasons.

In reality, the welfare state is no more generous in Scotland than in New Zealand and far less generous than in most European countries.

Perhaps instead of fruitlessly turning this into a constitutional issue (when it isn't) the question that should be asked is the Scottish taxpayer getting value for money on welfare spending. (Oops I forgot Scots don't pay taxes in the Unionist economic doctine :-)

But you get the idea.
308

Border Scot,

16/05/2008 16:44:38
#328 - I agree. And an advantage of being a part of the UK is that the broad consensus is that we have a universal, free-to-access welfare state within the context of what is, by European standards, a low tax economy.
309

Alan B,

16/05/2008 16:45:36
#Border Scot

u have simply not addressed my point regarding the fact that we cannot vote out the government of the day if england votes a different way.

In my example i showed how england voted tory when scotland were suffering recession and economic problems in the 80s but were quick to change there tune with the south suffered a recession in the early 90s.

Now please address the issue.


"Eddie George did not say what you claimed he said, so there was not much point in me responding"

That is absolute rubbish. He did say it. U can google and see it. See url.

http://www.economicsuk.com/blog/000171.html

look for the bit that says.

"Lord “Eddie” George, the former governor of the Bank of England, was once persuaded by a journalist to concede that high unemployment in the north-east was “a price worth paying” for low inflation in the rest of the country. The resulting headlines were some of the worst the Bank has had in recent years."

Please do not insult everyones intelligence by denying things that were big news at the time.


310

Alan B,

16/05/2008 16:47:19
Here is a bbc link

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/198830.stm

saying Eddie George said it.

Now i am waiting for an apology.
311

acanthus,

16/05/2008 16:48:08
People can make up their own minds on Europe as Norway did as an independent country. Unfortunatly Scotland is not in that position.

But i am not aware as i said of any country that has give over it's whole sovreignty to Europe?

They are, as far as i am aware, a collection of independent sovreign states ...quasi-nothing!
312

Grant,

16/05/2008 16:48:56
#336 Border Scot

It's got nothing to do with being a low tax economy, or being part of the UK, it is about the electorate and the government having similar policy priorities. More spending on healthcare and less spending on defence or on QUANGOs, or higher spending on education and lower on law and order. Government's have choices to make and so do voters.
313

Border Scot,

16/05/2008 16:49:59
#335 - I am afraid you are factually incorrect when you claim that NZ has a welfare system as generous as Scotland's. It is simply not the case. Neither is Scotland's welfare system less generous than that in most European countries. Certainly, there are no central or eastern European countries, or any in the south of Europe, that have a welfare system even remotely comparable to ours. There are countries with more generous systems, but they tend to be much more heavily taxed than we are.

I am not claiming that welfare is a constitutional issue, I am merely stating that the welfare system we have is an advantage of being in the UK. If we wwre not part of the UK, the likelihood is that we would either have to reform our welfare system or we would have to pay more tax to support it in its current form.
314

Alan B,

16/05/2008 16:50:53
#Border Scot

http://www.internetional.se/ballstest.htm

another link that said

"When Eddie George, governor of the Bank of England, was quoted as agreeing that unemployment in the north of England was an acceptable by-product of policy to curb inflation in the south, there were a few half-hearted calls for his resignation. And plenty of red faces at the Bank."

Now where is my apology.

315

Border Scot,

16/05/2008 16:55:39
As the link provided makes clear he did not refer to North britain as you claimed he did, he was talking about specific job losses in the North East of England. And, as you did a Google search, you will also know that he subsequently clarified his comments, which were clearly taken out of context.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/the_economy/197995.stm

And he also made no mention of the south, as you also claimed.

So, no apology. Maybe you should apologise for making things up.

316

Alan B,

16/05/2008 17:00:42
#Border Scot

"I am not claiming that welfare is a constitutional issue, I am merely stating that the welfare system we have is an advantage of being in the UK. If we wwre not part of the UK, the likelihood is that we would either have to reform our welfare system or we would have to pay more tax to support it in its current form"

Why?

If we could perform aswell as other small western european nations then we would be richer.

The small western european nations are richer than the UK anyway.The idea that richer countries cannot afford something the relatively poorer uk can is silly. (not saying the uk is poor it is not).

We would save money not having nuclear weapons or unwanted wars.

Most economic reports say scotland broadly is in balance fiscally. (london a contributor and the rest recipients) Even Goldie was arguing that on newsnight.

An investigation by newsnight uk that was meant to show how had scotland was fiscally in bad shape. this showed that scotland had a lower deficit that the rest of the uk.


Address this point please. In the mid 90s a question to the then tory treasure about scotland fiscal position. The answer was scotland had subsidised the rest of the uk to the tune of £27billion over 18yrs. That is a staggering amount. That is like the uk giving £270 billion to the US.

Or like every tax payer in scotland giving about a 1/3 of his/her income tax away per yr, to the rest of the uk as a wee pressie.
317

Alan B,

16/05/2008 17:06:41
#344 Border Scot

U are really sad. No matter what evidence is given to u, even written down u deny it.

It was all over the press at the time. Labour politicians and unions were calling for him to resign.

He did say it. And meant it. The fact is he tried to wriggle out of it later.

http://www.screenonline.org.uk/education/id/1272107/

there is another link

"Eddie George was the Governor of the Bank of England in 1998 (the year before this programme was made). He provoked a lot of criticism in the north after allegedly telling regional newspaper executives that unemployment in the north was a price worth paying to help the south (where inflation was rising). "


The stupid thing about u, his economic argument was actually right. Just u cannot see there are advantages and disadvantages in most things.

U are so warped u will not even ackowledge obvious disadvantages.
318

Border Scot,

16/05/2008 17:06:43
In other small western European countries they either pay more tax than we do (Scandinavia) or they do not have our levels of public services (Ireland). That is why I say it is likely that upon independence we would either have to cut the welfare budget or raise taxes - small countries have to make that choice. The UK, thankfully, does not.

Can you provide me with the link to the details about Scotland's subsidy of the rest of the UK over 18 years?
319

Border Scot,

16/05/2008 17:09:35
#346 - You can provide no quote of Eddie george saying what you claimed he said and the one piece of "evidence" you do supply contains the word "allegedly" before reporting what he is supposed to have said.

I'll ask you a quesiton though - do you support an independent Scotland joining the Euro or keeping the pound?
320

Alan B,

16/05/2008 17:10:35
# Border Scot

"And he also made no mention of the south, as you also claimed."

What planet are u on. The question asked to him was whether controlling inflation in the south was a price worth playing with unemployment in the north.
321

Alan B,

16/05/2008 17:12:38
#348 Border Scot

What are u on about he did not deny it. He confirmed it. He just tried to sooth the waters by saying he did not like unemploymetn but he said it.

Secondly he was actually right in his economic analysis given his remit.


322

Andrew Allan,

16/05/2008 17:15:43
It seems to me that in the next few months Gordon Brown can either put himself at the forefront of trying to stop his Labour government and his position as prime minister going down the plug hole, or he can put himself at the forefront of the battle to save the Union, he's not going to be in any position to take on both.
323

Border Scot,

16/05/2008 17:18:37
349/350 - Eddie George: "I made it clear that monetary policy can only target the economy as a whole, not particular regions or sectors, however uncomfortable that reality might be."

Why did you talk about North Britain in your orignal question when it is clear that whatever he did or did not say he was speaking specifically about the north east of England?
324

Alan B,

16/05/2008 17:19:07
#Border Scot

"I'll ask you a quesiton though - do you support an independent Scotland joining the Euro or keeping the pound?"

Personally i would like to join the euro. Having said that i would like some economic analysis of the advantages and disadvantages to the scottish economy.

One thing i hate is the fact that labour and lib dems are for the euro (jack mcconnell was) but will not consider it even if it is in scotlands economic benefit (which they think it is) unless england join.

My reason for being for the euro are.
1)it allows us into the single market without currency fluxatations and will encourage investment.
2)sterling has too high interest rates for scotland over a long period. This was made far worse by mirus which brown has finally got rid of. one of thatchers disasters.

the euro by contrast has a lower interest rate and hence much more inline with scottish economic needs.

yes it is not perfect none are. a separate scottish currency would have the best interest rates but we would incurr transaction costs and rishs of being an oil currency.

as such the euro is the best option.

the only downside would be the fact that would have a different currency from england. It would be better if they joined too. but i would worry we would join at a rate better for the uk than scotland locking us in at a rate too high.

so yes on balance i do believe there would be much advantage to scotland joining.


325

Alan B,

16/05/2008 17:24:47
#Border Scot

He was asked initially be a north east journalist. But re-affirmed this view for the whole of the north when asked. I remember the big deal at the time. Economics is something i follow abit. Scotland was up in arms about it.

The whole thing was inflation in the south was rising. In the north, not just the north east it was not and therefore different medicines were required. He chose the medicine to stamp out inflation in the south despite it leading to slower economic growth in the north and hence employment.

The fact is we all know, well anyone with a clue about economics that interest rates are too high for the north of britain (and wales etc). It has been this way for long while.

Do u not remember the 80s.

"I made it clear that monetary policy can only target the economy as a whole, not particular regions or sectors, however uncomfortable that reality might be."

I understand this and actually agree with where he is coming from. The problem is the government should do something for the structural problems that cuase this. they will not do that as they will not upset the south.


326

Border Scot,

16/05/2008 17:26:48
But, of course, if Scotland's economy grows as you expect it to after independence, low interest rates will be exactly what we do not need, as the Irish are finding out now.
327

Sanny,

16/05/2008 17:27:35
321 Geoff,
There is a reference to Edward not the English. Further “Flower of Scotland is NOT a National Anthem!
323 Border Scot
As previously said read History! Or better still Read the future- It’s coming yet fo a that!!
328

Alan B,

16/05/2008 17:35:33
#355 Border Scot

"But, of course, if Scotland's economy grows as you expect it to after independence, low interest rates will be exactly what we do not need, as the Irish are finding out now."

U really do not have a clue about economics.

One of the reasons for scotland slow economic growth is too high interest rates.

Yes it would help if the government would announce scottish inflation and then it would be more transparent the wrong interest rates. It is one reason i dislike the union. Rather than just publishing scottish inflation over the last 30yrs and letting us judge for ourselves. They hide the info as it would not suit them. Abit like Mcrone. Or announcing scotland fiscal position and not including oil.


The irish situation is different. They had unbelievably high growth. I am assuming scotland could match it. Just getting average of the small north european nations would be fine. Ireland should have waited till its economy had cooled before joining the euro. Having said that it has done well within the euro aswell. The issue there like here in the 2000s they have like the uk built up hugh personal debt.

329

Andrew Allan,

16/05/2008 17:36:07
#355.,Border Scot.
If you were in business or you wanted your economy to grow with businesses expanding throughout your country, a new economic model for a newly independent country and not just a different one overlayering an old one would benefit from low interest rates, the Irish model is suffering from an economic down turn in the same way as every other country, and that is unlikely to last for ever.
330

Alan B,

16/05/2008 17:38:05
#355 Border Scot

the silliness of ur post only became apparent when i re-read it.

"if Scotland's economy grows as you expect it to after independence, low interest rates will be exactly what we do not need, as the Irish are finding out now. "

so by ur logic let reject a high growing economy and be a poorer one. somehow u think it is good to have an interest rate too high for ur economy.

a union at any price spring to mind when u post.
331

Alan B,

16/05/2008 17:40:08
sorry "I am assuming scotland could match it." i meant "I am not assuming scotland could match it."
332

brownlie,

16/05/2008 17:41:11
The different versions of history bring back memories of somnolent sessions in dreary class-rooms. No wonder I failed my history exams. Let's forget the past, concentrate on the present and look forward to the future.

PS I only posted this because I'm bored. Sorry to intrude.
333

Sanny,

Upwey 16/05/2008 17:41:18
347 Border Scot
Try reading “The Great Deception” by Niall Aslen. It’s all there, in the governments own figures, with all sources quoted. When checked by the Treasury they could not fault Niall Aslen’s figures. What more proof do you need that the Myth of Scotland being subsidised by England is not only a deliberate lie but a reversal of the truth?

The GERS report is only one of the many lies that Westminster has spun to keep the Scots under control. Do we need to go into the McCrone report? That alone is cause enough to call for the abolition of this hated Union.
334

Alan B,

16/05/2008 17:45:13
Given the report Mcrone said scotland would become one of the wealthiest nations in the world and given how we have performed since.

Can even u deny that we would have been significantly better of if we went independent in the late 70s.

Before u answer remember what i posted previously

"Address this point please. In the mid 90s a question to the then tory treasure about scotland fiscal position. The answer was scotland had subsidised the rest of the uk to the tune of £27billion over 18yrs. That is a staggering amount. That is like the uk giving £270 billion to the US.

Or like every tax payer in scotland giving about a 1/3 of his/her income tax away per yr, to the rest of the uk as a wee pressie."
335

Sanny,

16/05/2008 17:45:34
361 brownlie
Perhaps you were also asleep when it was said that "Those who fail to study history are condemned to repeat its mistakes”. Just go back to sleep!
336

brownlie,

16/05/2008 17:51:22
364 Sanny

Stephen Hawkings also failed his history exam!
337

Border Scot,

16/05/2008 17:57:08
363 - The McCrone report was written in the mid-1970s at the height of the oil crisis. In fact, soon after it was put together the price of oil collapsed and so its entire premise no longer existed. However, it was a disgrace it was not published.

As for your point about interest rats, I am afraid that you are wrong. High growth combined with low interest rates takes you into an unsustainable situation, which is what has happened in Ireland. By being a member of the euro, we would ensure that if our economy became out of kilter with Germany's, there would be nothing we could do about it. We would need the Scottish economy to behave like the German economy in order for euro interest rates to make sense for us.
338

Alan B,

16/05/2008 18:02:50
#366 Border Scot

Are u having a laugh. Oil was a goldmine for the scottish economy.

I will paste again as u seem to ignore it

"Address this point please. In the mid 90s a question to the then tory treasure about scotland fiscal position. The answer was scotland had subsidised the rest of the uk to the tune of £27billion over 18yrs. That is a staggering amount. That is like the uk giving £270 billion to the US.

Or like every tax payer in scotland giving about a 1/3 of his/her income tax away per yr, to the rest of the uk as a wee pressie."

Because of oil we subsidised the rest of the uk.

The fact was if we had gone independent then we would have been a significantly richer country. We had a similar wealth to norway in the 70 and look at the difference now becuase of the oil fund.


339

Border Scot,

16/05/2008 18:05:12
Alan B, you choose to see the Scots as victims, I do not. I asked you before for a link to the information about this subsidy, can you let me have one and I can then comment.
340

Alan B,

16/05/2008 18:09:33
#Border Scot

"As for your point about interest rats, I am afraid that you are wrong. High growth combined with low interest rates takes you into an unsustainable situation"

We do not have high growth. We have suffered cronically low growth for all of my life.

Plus the fact there is not wrong with high growth and low interest rates. It is high inflation caused by low interest rates that is unsustainable.


"We would need the Scottish economy to behave like the German economy in order for euro interest rates to make sense for us."

So under that premise u support a separate scottish currency as the scottish economy does not grow at the same level as the english economy. I can understand that argument for a separate scottish currency but would still think the euro a better option.


U really do not seem to understand the concept of monetary policy.

higher interests rates in the uk than needed by the scottish economy leads to low growth. U do not want that.

Interest rates set for the scottish economy with as scottish currency is the best match but has other disadvantages.

Right put it this way.

Look at the interest rates that scotland should have had over the last 30yrs and see wether german interest rates or uk ones would be better. It is no contest.

Uk interest rates have been too high. Euro ones are much nore inline with the scottish economy. that is fact.

341

 Ayrshire Scot™,

16/05/2008 18:13:04
368. Daniel

what has cost 100,000's of jobs, and billions of pounds which could have transformed Scotland, is our poor economic performance over the last 30 years in the Union.

Perhaps you should be angry that over £200 billion in North Sea oil revenues have flowed, an amount which would have, if harnessed in Scotland, made us one of the richest countries in the world.

Maybe you should be angry that 1000's of Scotland's old have frozen to death in winter because they couldn't heat their homes, in the most energy rich country in Europe.

Perhaps you should be angry that Scotland, with massive natural resources and high value export industries, has massively underperformed countries like Ireland, Belgium, Netherlands which do not have these advantages. Underperformance and waste of potential which has and is costing us very dear.

Perhaps you should just be angry that you, and other unionists, are so stunted in their analytical capacity and thinking that they cannot raise their eyes and ambition to a bigger horizon than just accepting Scotland in the Union with all the underperformace and waste of potential. That discussion of bigger ideas and genuine ambition for Scotlland makes you angry just makes me sad.
342

 Ayrshire Scot™,

16/05/2008 18:14:41
374. Has it escaped the notice of Unionists that the UK is currently running a massive deficit?
343

Alan B,

16/05/2008 18:15:29
#370 Border Scot

"you choose to see the Scots as victims, I do not."

i do not. if u read my post for a while that is not where i come from. i look at it from mainly 2 perspectives.

1)economically we would be better of. That is not victim. It would be the height of stupidity to remain in a union if u are going to be poorer.
2)democratically scotland and england are so out of line politically. ie what happened under 17yrs of tory rule. i believe it is much better for scotland to have a government it votes for.

i have lived in london for about 9yrs on and off. also lived in ireland for a couple of short spells. back up here now. so i see what is possible and do not like settling for something that is ok but could be much better.
344

Fairfax,

16/05/2008 18:20:48
BluePict (294): "the English National Anthem expresses that so much better than I,doesn't it? It goes something like "The rebellious Scots to crush?????"

It became an addition around 1745, but was abandoned by the 1790s: in other words, not in the anthem for some 200 years. Scotland, in contrast, recently chose to sing "Flower of Scotland", with its obvious subtext for English hearers.
345

Fairfax,

16/05/2008 18:24:46
Alan B (245): "Address this point please. In the mid 90s a question to the then tory treasure about scotland fiscal position. The answer was scotland had subsidised the rest of the uk to the tune of £27billion over 18yrs."

Do you have a reference for this?
346

 Ayrshire Scot™,

16/05/2008 18:25:48
379. The numpties have been saying that for 20 years, during massive deficits for the UK. AT present the Uk is running a deficit far greater, pro rated, than any of the worst scare stories they make up about Scotland.
347

 Ayrshire Scot™,

16/05/2008 18:27:34
380. Try the Herald

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.1804171.0.scotching_the_myth.php
348

Suomi,

Salo,Finland 16/05/2008 18:29:53
scanning the comments today,I noticed that #57 pointed out that the EU had damaged Scottish Fishing interests.Of course, but that was due to the fact that Scotland cannot represent itself as Scotland in the EU.Independent countries in the EU have been more succesful in defending the interests of their fishing communities.Scotlands problem is that they are the invisable nation.By contrast Finland (5million people) and Slovenia(just under 2 million) can take the presidency of the EU and are very effective in using the opportunities provided by EU membership for the benefit of their populations.
349

Alan B,

16/05/2008 18:30:03
#Border Scot

" I asked you before for a link to the information about this subsidy, can you let me have one and I can then comment."

It was written question to the tory treasury i believe.

google could not find a good link

http://www.richardcommission.gov.uk/content/printpage.asp?ID=/content/evidence/oral/swinneyj/index-e.asp

350

Alan B,

16/05/2008 18:34:01
#380 Fairfax

"Do you have a reference for this?"

I was googling. It was as far as i remember a written question to the tory treasury. There was a huge thing at the time.

Unfortunately when i google i can find people referring to it but not a reliable link. the only ones are snp links that use it.

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:DpSZpMhYXDkJ:www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/ge97/man/snp97.pdf+snp+manifesto+%C2%A327+billion+treasury+1979+1997+written+question&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=uk

found this when googling but is snp manifesto so not exactly independent source.

351

Alan B,

16/05/2008 18:39:29
#fairfax

another link. search for "27 billion" when u open page.

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:1TUNMbH8NdgJ:www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~snpsoc/talking%2520independence.doc+snp+question+to+treasury+%C2%A327+billion+1979+1995&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=10&gl=uk

Not a good source though.
352

Alan B,

16/05/2008 18:42:06
#fairfax

another snp source.

http://gdl.cdlr.strath.ac.uk/aspect/snp/a99snphas.htm

one of these days i will find an independent source.
353

Alan B,

16/05/2008 18:46:06
#Fairfax

Atlast something that is abit more reliable. Again search for 27 billion and look for the reply to the question underneath

http://www.bbc.co.uk/politics97/forum/answers.shtml


basically it was from - BBC Scotland's Political Editor, Brian Taylor, answers your devolution questions here.


"Alex Salmond's comments refer to a written answer from the Treasury in the LAST (Tory) government which estimated, taking account of oil revenues, that there had been a net outflow of £27 billion from Scotland to London within a specified period. "

The guy asking the question was not me name is similar :)
354

 Ayrshire Scot™,

16/05/2008 18:48:00
390. Alan B

the source you are looking for, I think, were figures produced by the House of Commons library and parliamentary written answers - at the time of publication the Tories and Labour disputed the size of the Scottish surplus (or subisdy to rest of UK) - but not the fact of a surplus. Try Hansard.

355

Alan B,

16/05/2008 18:49:24
#391 Methalions

I was refering to the tory treasury saying in reply to a written question that scotland had subsidised the rest of the uk to the tune of £27 billion btween i believe 79 and 95.
356

Alan B,

16/05/2008 18:50:15
#Ayrshire Scot

It was the tory treasury that said £27 billion. That is why is was a big thing at the time.

357

roger the dodger,

16/05/2008 18:52:27
393 danielrober

I'm surprised that you expect anyone to reply to your posts. When you were demolished in your arguement by brownlee the other night you got so frustrated that you told him to go to hell and confer with hitler. If that is your attitude do not be surprised if you are ignored.
358

 Ayrshire Scot™,

16/05/2008 18:52:48
329. What economy have 'you' turned around Daniel? Scotlands GDP average growth for the past 30 years is 1.8%. Ireland's is 7.2% and the average of similar sized EU countries is 3.6%. That difference in growth is worth c. £18 billion in tax alone to Scotland, to say nothing of jobs - on a budget today of £30 billion. That difference in growth due to underperformance in and because of the Union is the difference between 1000 of our old folk freezing every year, having the best health, education and social services in Europe vs our current situation of having one of the the worst health records and areas of multiple deprivation.

Perhaps you should try a little more analytical thinking and focus your anger better.
359

 Ayrshire Scot™,

16/05/2008 18:54:48
398. Yes, you are correct. It was a budget summary produced by the SNP using the UK government's figures and stats produced by H o C library. AT the time, the Unionists could not dispute the Scottish surplus, they only argued about the size of it.
360

Alan B,

16/05/2008 18:59:27
#Methalions

consider from the £27 billion (that was 90s prices).

2 billion a yr was what 1p in the penny income tax raise for the uk in the early 90s. say scotland is roughly 10% of that (will be less as we do not have 10% of the pop) that would be 200million for 1p income tax.

U can imagine how much scottish income tax we were giving away.
361

Alan B,

16/05/2008 19:01:21
#Ayrshire Scot

Was the dispute not becuase the snp used 90% oil as scottish which was at the top end of the uk view of what scotland would get. Believe the uk said it would be somewhere between 80-90%.
362

Alan B,

16/05/2008 19:03:05
#Methalions

Thanks for the link.
363

Alan B,

16/05/2008 19:04:39
just a pity those disputing it have b******* off.
364

Alan B,

16/05/2008 19:07:49
buy guys i am off now. cannot stay in the office all night :)
365

 Ayrshire Scot™,

16/05/2008 19:08:19
406. Alan, a few things were disputed - oil revenues (the SNP used 90%), non-indentified expenditures (Miras was extant, which went 98% outwith Scotland - Unionists disputed that, same for defence procurement and transport capital projects where Unionists tried to downplay or obscure the fact these were weighted to rest of UK) - however, the best case the Tories and Labour could come up with still showed a net subsidy from Scotland to rest of UK.

366

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 16/05/2008 19:11:37
274

Sorry mate that is just a load of rubbish and you should know better.
367

 Ayrshire Scot™,

16/05/2008 19:31:44
413. Daniel

you carelessly ommitted a point, logic, or even engagement with any previous posts in your