Pro-independence party poised for win (Scotland)

csk

Fratton Fred wrote:

No more so than the Scots.

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

odonnell

csk wrote:

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

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

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

Fratton Fred

odonnell wrote:

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

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

That's kind of my point.

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

odonnell

Fratton Fred wrote:

That's kind of my point.

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

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

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

luckylucky

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

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

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

ScottishDanny

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

odonnell

luckylucky wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Fratton Fred

odonnell wrote:

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

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

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

odonnell

Fratton Fred wrote:

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

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

Fratton Fred

odonnell wrote:

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

Sorry, getting my devolutions and seperations mixed up:o

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

Scotland kind of get two cracks at the whip.

ScottishDanny

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

odonnell

Fratton Fred wrote:

Sorry, getting my devolutions and seperations mixed up:o

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

Scotland kind of get two cracks at the whip.

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

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

Fratton Fred

odonnell wrote:

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

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

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

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

odonnell

Fratton Fred wrote:

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

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

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

soon.....soon we will come!

luckylucky

odonnell wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

odonnell

luckylucky wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

luckylucky

odonnell wrote:

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

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

odonnell wrote:

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

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

ScottishDanny

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

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

odonnell

ScottishDanny wrote:

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

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

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



Waaaaay OT