The end of the United Kingdom ???

Dirk Gently

robinph

clown bag wrote: »

Is that the guy from Heroes behind the Aussie with the blue paint on his face?

Dirk Gently

robinph wrote: »

Is that the guy from Heroes behind the Aussie with the blue paint on his face?

nah, That's ziggy and his mates waiting for Mike65 in a field down in waterford.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

A Dub in Glasgo

mike65 wrote: »

Its a term I saw many years ago and I'm afraid it stuck.

The Scottish used to be world beaters but these days are content to leech off England and the English esp all those Tartan politicians and resident drunks in London.

Mike.

Interesting map showing Scotland is almost breaking even. Please show where you get your leeching figures from?



Interestingly from that map, it is NI, Wales & a lot of England who do most of the leeching

mike65

Damn you and your statisics! NI is worse than I thought, I thought peace was supposed to close that gap.

Mike.

Fratton Fred

I think you'll find it is pretty much all of the UK leaching off London (and maybe even other "non UK" countries close by).

Ironic isn't it. Scotland and Wales (apart from the sons of somewhere who took it upon themselves to burn down a few holiday homes) have not had a terrorist organisation, yet they are argueably closer to autonomy than Northern Ireland.

Mick86

Voipjunkie wrote: »

I think you are missing the point

Scottish MPs get to vote on issues that just affect England or England and Wales whilst those decisions are made for Scotland by their own parliament. So for example the Scots brought in their own smoking ban which the English MPs had no hand act or part in whilst the Scots MPs to Westminister then had a say in the English smoking ban.

I'm not missing the point at all. The Scottish "Parliament" has limited powers. Smoking Bans.:rolleyes: A County Council could do that if it chose to do so. Holyrood has no power over Scotland's economic policies, foreign affairs or defence. English MPs can send Scottish soldiers to war, for instance, by virtue of a vote in Westminster. Scottish MSPs cannot do the same. It is misleading of David Cameon to say that English MPs cannot vote on Scottish affairs.

A Dub in Glasgo

That map is just taxes raised vs spending, it does not take into account the value of the North Sea oil

Mick86

robinph wrote: »

So what was the point you were trying to make about Scottish MP's not getting to vote on Scottish issues then? I think you've missed where the disagreement over who gets to vote on which issues actually is.

I think you should re-read my posts.

Dirk Gently

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Ironic isn't it. Scotland and Wales (apart from the sons of somewhere who took it upon themselves to burn down a few holiday homes) have not had a terrorist organisation, yet they are argueably closer to autonomy than Northern Ireland.

Had northern Ireland been a fuctioning free and fair democracy I don't think the national question would even have been mentioned, save for economic reasons should they wish to join the south at some point. Mass nationalism was spawned from a desire to free themselves from a failed and oppressive unionist state. The resulting tit for tat terrorism polarised the community to such a point that joint nationalist and unionist devolution is the only real answer, one side not accepting British rule, the other not accepting Dublin rule for fear of being seen to give in to terrorist demands. In time I would hope to see actual politicians elected, not neccessarily national question, unionist or nationalist politicians.

Should devolution work we will see the national question take a back seat as people once again become concerned with real politics, like economy, jobs, housing, health and so on. In the end, like all things, stability and economics will dictate whether the north will be Irish or British in 50 years time. While wounds are still open and families still affected by the troubles London or Dublin rule wont be acceptable. After a generation or two of peace and some sort of functioning democracy a less painful decision may be reached, in conditions like wales or scotland today were people are making an economic / political choice rathar than a decision off the back of a bitter war. Once there is equality and democracy in place of sectarianism and exclusion I don't mind what way the people of the north decide their national question. Nice that London is paying that spending bill though

Not really ironic so, more a direct result of the troubles, which was a direct result of an oppressive state, that Irish unity is less likely than Scot or Welsh at this point in time. Although Unity can mean a lot of different things, and a peaceful and mutually respectful north and south is a united Ireland in my eyes.

oscarBravo

ziggy wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Between two instances of personal abuse and an implicit threat of violence, I think a week to cool off is called for.

Voipjunkie

Mick86 wrote: »

I'm not missing the point at all. The Scottish "Parliament" has limited powers. Smoking Bans.:rolleyes: A County Council could do that if it chose to do so. Holyrood has no power over Scotland's economic policies, foreign affairs or defence. English MPs can send Scottish soldiers to war, for instance, by virtue of a vote in Westminster. Scottish MSPs cannot do the same. It is misleading of David Cameon to say that English MPs cannot vote on Scottish affairs.

The smoking ban was an example of where law is being made for Scotland by Scotland and then law is being made for England by the UK.
UK MPs can send UK soldiers to war English MPs can not just send Scottish soldiers to war.
And the UK going to war is not just a Scottish affair it would be a UK affair what Cameron in fairness is talking about is specific Scottish and English votes so for example the Scots have their own minister for education and decided against fees for universities which the English MPs did not have a say in but the Scots MPs had a say in university fees for English students in English colleges.

This has nothing to do with wars it is to do with Specific English legislation in areas where the Scots are legislating for themselves should they be allowed to legislate for the English as well as themselves.

The obvious conclusion is that the UK will come to an end as it currently exists it is fascinating that the Conservative and Unionist party are the ones that will bring about the end of the Union admittedly for there own selfish reasons.

Voipjunkie

Mick86 wrote: »

I think you should re-read my posts.

I think you should re-read what Cameron said .

LordSutch

McArmalite wrote: »

I see that David Cameron is reported to be considering proposals to cut the power of non English MPs in Westminster and allow only English MPs to vote on matters affecting old Blighty . Is this the beginning of the end for the UK ( Here's hoping :D )

Why do you say "Here's hoping?" that its the end of the UK?

What possible benefit would it have on anybody here in the Republic? I cant see the benefit to anybody in the short term, except for England & the English, who 'might' probably grow into a Massive "Anglo~Saxon Tiger" leaving the Scots to slowly build up a new and progressive country, no harm in that then, but it wouldnt all be fun & games for the Scots, (not in the short term anyway), and as regards Northern Ireland leaving the UK!
I just cant see that happening anytime soon . . . .

dublinscot

murphaph wrote: »

I'd say the UK will survive in a looser federal state with the reigning monarch as head of state for all constituents.

I don't think a loose federal arrangement would last 5 minutes.

How could you ever expect a federal system to work when one member (ie England) dominates all the others by such a large magnitude?

Nah, a federal UK would be even more unstable than the current centralised setup.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Ahh, the West Lothian Question. The English refused to go for devolved regional assemblies therefore this brings it home to people.

I don't think people were concerned when more people in Scotland voted Labour but the Tories took England therefore they ruled the UK. Thatcher then used Scotland as a guinea pig.

Indeed, the English should try 300 years of having another nation dictate policy/choose their government.

mike65 wrote:

If the UK part of the North Sea is divided up, Scotland will not be getting it all, there would have to be an equitable agreement subject to international law.

Yes, and according to international law 90% of the oil is in Scottish waters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_Scotland%27s_oil#Reality_of_the_claim

not that I'd be basing my economy on a depleting resource anyway.

An independent Scotland's economy wouldn't just be based on oil. There's more to it than oil and Whisky y'know!

The oil shouldn't be ignored however.

moe_sizlak wrote:

support for scottish independance in scotland is not nearly as high as we are often led to believe

According to polls i've seen it seems to vary anywhere between 45 to 55 percent. It also depends a lot on how the question is asked (postive words like 'independence' produce higher figures than phrases with negative connotations like 'break up Britain' for example).

You can see poll results from 1998 to February this year here: http://www.independence1st.com/content/polls.shtml

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

That map is just taxes raised vs spending, it does not take into account the value of the North Sea oil

Yep, the 'leeching Scots' debate ended when the British government was forced to release the McCrone Report via the freedom of information act. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=KH0EEnLpYP8

Voipjunkie wrote:

The smoking ban was an example of where law is being made for Scotland by Scotland and then law is being made for England by the UK.
UK MPs can send UK soldiers to war English MPs can not just send Scottish soldiers to war.
And the UK going to war is not just a Scottish affair it would be a UK affair what Cameron in fairness is talking about is specific Scottish and English votes so for example the Scots have their own minister for education and decided against fees for universities which the English MPs did not have a say in but the Scots MPs had a say in university fees for English students in English colleges.

This has nothing to do with wars it is to do with Specific English legislation in areas where the Scots are legislating for themselves should they be allowed to legislate for the English as well as themselves.

It's true that there's a democratic deficit that should be corrected.

My favoured solution is to reduce the number of Scottish MPs at Westminster.... to zero!

Voipjunkie wrote:

The obvious conclusion is that the UK will come to an end as it currently exists it is fascinating that the Conservative and Unionist party are the ones that will bring about the end of the Union admittedly for there own selfish reasons.

Yep....amusing, init?

For years Unionists have told us Scots that we're too wee, too poor, too stupid to make a success of independence and how we should be happy to live cap-in-hand on the English Dole.

But all this does now is stir up English nationalism and anti-Scottish 'sponging Jocks' sentiment in the English right-wing press.


Daily Telegraph poll:




A second front has been opened... it's just a matter of time now.

ScottishDanny

The West Lothian question is easily answered. Give Scotland the independence she deserves and Scottish MPs have no right to vote on English matters!

I believe Scotland should be independent within the EU. So as a nation they can sit at the bargaining table and represent themselves.

A bit concerned about the emphasis on Oil though. I'd hate to see an independent Scotland being 'liberated' by the US!

Fratton Fred

Newspaper opinion polls are great, but when push comes to shove I dare say it will be different.

There is a long way to go before full independance though, the three countries are so intertwined in everything from defence to electricity to water supplies. Whilst the process may have already started, I can't see Scotland and to a lessor extent Wales, being seperate within the next 50 years.

ScottishDanny

the three countries are so intertwined in everything from defence to electricity to water supplies.

What about Czechoslovakias velvet revolution?
Lithuania,Latvia, Estonia and Russia?

Just because a country is independent doesn't mean that the leccy has to be turned off. Multinationals don't care about borders.
Defence - part of NATO like most of Europe.
I see power being consolidated in Brussels going forward (eroding the independence of all member states to some degree) I don't think most Scots want to be out on their own completely. Where would we push our porrige then?

robinph

This is all a cunning plan, probably thought up by Baldrick, that will result in the current UK ending up with four times the power they currently have in the European paliament once they are able to then claim that they are all seperate countries really and will then each want equal voting rights. I'm pretty sure that even with the new allocations of votes in the EU, four smaller countrires would get more power than the one combined larger country.

Edit: Woot, 2000 posts.

Fratton Fred

ScottishDanny wrote: »

What about Czechoslovakias velvet revolution?
Lithuania,Latvia, Estonia and Russia?

I thought we might be able to do it without any blood being shed, but if that's the way you want it...:D

ScottishDanny wrote: »

Just because a country is independent doesn't mean that the leccy has to be turned off. Multinationals don't care about borders.

No, but there are things t like the national grid, who pays for it and to whom that would need t be sorted out, anyway, I didn't think you guys used electricity, don't you fry everything:D

ScottishDanny wrote: »

Defence - part of NATO like most of Europe.

maybe, but I bet they complain when England closes it's RAF and submarine bases in Scotland;)

ScottishDanny wrote: »

I see power being consolidated in Brussels going forward (eroding the independence of all member states to some degree) I don't think most Scots want to be out on their own completely. Where would we push our porrige then?

and what would you have to moan about:D

ScottishDanny

maybe, but I bet they complain when England closes it's RAF and submarine bases in Scotland

Fred I assume you are a Pompey man. You are more than welcome to relocate the ageing RN Nuclear Sub fleet in Portsmouth docks!

Seriously though most Scots just want a fair crack of the whip. I think our neighbours to the South would be amused to see a day when Scots can't blame everything wrong in the country on the f*@king English I'd look forward too it to.

Mr.Micro

Scotland should have full independence but I suspect there are many who would oppose that in Scotland probably about half I guess.

Fratton Fred

ScottishDanny wrote: »

Fred I assume you are a Pompey man. You are more than welcome to relocate the ageing RN Nuclear Sub fleet in Portsmouth docks!

Seriously though most Scots just want a fair crack of the whip. I think our neighbours to the South would be amused to see a day when Scots can't blame everything wrong in the country on the f*@king English I'd look forward too it to.

I am a Pompey man and there was a lot of talk quite recently about Portsmouth docks closing because they wanted to invest more in Faslane, to keep the Scottish nationalists happy Fortunately we have now been given the new carriers, so Portsmouth RN base is safe.

I don't k now of anybody who does not want to see Scotland making a go of it, I know I do, but I don't think it will be as quick as some might like.

Maybe an independant Scotland will see the return of your greatest patriot, or maybe Sean prefers his Vodka Martinis next to his Barbados swimming pool:D

ScottishDanny

Shean can Shtay where he ish,
The SNP are pushing for a no nuclear Scotland so that would be at odds with the Faslane thing.

Its a complicated issue though, if the union did break up, would you keep 'The Chuckle Brothers'? Would Scotland keep 'The Krankies'? [witters on off topic into the night...]

A Dub in Glasgo

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I am a Pompey man and there was a lot of talk quite recently about Portsmouth docks closing because they wanted to invest more in Faslane, to keep the Scottish nationalists happy .

Most Scottish people want rid of the Weapons of Mass Destruction that are located in Faslane & Coulport

The Scottish Government are looking to use their powers to ensure a rocky trip for the new Trident.

Fratton Fred

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Most Scottish people want rid of the Weapons of Mass Destruction that are located in Faslane & Coulport

The Scottish Government are looking to use their powers to ensure a rocky trip for the new Trident.

if it means jobs in Portsmouth then good luck to them:D

Will they also be shutting down the nuclear power stations, or throwing out the RAF bases?

Fratton Fred

ScottishDanny wrote: »

Shean can Shtay where he ish,
The SNP are pushing for a no nuclear Scotland so that would be at odds with the Faslane thing.

Its a complicated issue though, if the union did break up, would you keep 'The Chuckle Brothers'? Would Scotland keep 'The Krankies'? [witters on off topic into the night...]

You can have the lot and you can keep Nigel Quashie as well (He is very good at clearing the pigeons off the stadium roof by the way):D

ScottishDanny

Saw Quashie play during the Vogts era :rolleyes:- I dont think Scotland needs to exploit the 'Granny Rule' at the moment

A Dub in Glasgo

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Will they also be shutting down the nuclear power stations, or throwing out the RAF bases?

Nuclear power stations are not weapons of mass destruction

If Scotland becomes independent I doubt they would need a large airforce anyway