Scottish Independence

deise go deo

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You may as well say the Dáil is Dublin or Leinster dominated.

It is,

Thus Dublin wanting a Reginal Assembly just because (In an alternate reality) Connemara has one, would seem a little pedantic to me, but if its what they want, I would not particularly oppose it. Same as I feel about England and the UK.;)

Iwasfrozen

deise go deo wrote: »

It is,

Thus Dublin wanting a Reginal Assembly just because (In an alternate reality) Connemara has one, would seem a little pedantic to me, but if its what they want, I would not particularly oppose it. Same as I feel about England and the UK.;)

Yeah 47, I think, seats out of 166 is 28 percent. Compared to my county, Monaghan, which hasn't even got it's own members. But I accept there's nothing wrong with this because Dublin has a much bigger population then Monaghan. Same with the United Kingdom.

By the way why does Connemara have a regional assembly? I hope they aren't planning to secceed.

A Dub in Glasgo

Scotland is not a county of the UK, it is a nation and sometimes the people of nations want to rule themselves for their own best interests. This is why the devolved parliament is a success in Scotland. I am not sure that will translate into full independence.

Map from a few years ago showing various areas of the UK showing spending versus income

slimjimmc

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Yeah 47, I think, seats out of 166 is 28 percent. Compared to my county, Monaghan, which hasn't even got it's own members. But I accept there's nothing wrong with this because Dublin has a much bigger population then Monaghan. Same with the United Kingdom.

By the way why does Connemara have a regional assembly? I hope they aren't planning to secceed.

I agree with your view, but I have to point out that 3 out of the 5 seats in the constituency are held by Monaghan TDs.

Connemara doesn't have a regional assembly, at least not in this reality, he said

because (In an alternate reality) Connemara has one

Fratton Fred

Exile 1798 wrote: »

Pretending to be obtuse Fred? Not very edifying, if you have to pretend to be thick to make a point then the point isn't worth making

that's a bit of an over reaction isn't it?

dlofnep

Batsy wrote: »

The Government Expenditure and Review Scotland (GERS) calculates how much money is raised through taxes in Scotland and the level of public spending in Scotland.

GERS figures for the financial year 2008/09 showed that the UK Treasury spent about £54 billion on Scotland and only received £43.5 billion in revenue.

Treasury figures on total government expenditure on public services show that over the last decade the British Government has shelled out about £1000 a year more on the average Scottish person than the average English person.

That is incorrect. The expenditure you have posted excludes North-Sea revenue. The North-Sea revenue from the same time period was almost £13 billion.

So no - The British Government has not shelled out about £1000 on each person in Scotland. In fact, in comparison to the rest of Britain - spending in Scotland is much more balanced.

dlofnep

Regarding an English parliament, while I'm not opposed to such an idea - People need to understand why the other states have a devolved administration. It is because the majority of power within Westminster is held by English MP's. The North, Wales and Scotland felt that England had far too much control over their own affairs - hence devolution. If they were content with the status quo, there would never have been a drive for devolution or independence.

If you look at previous elections - The overwhelming majority of the Conservatives' support comes from England. With regards to percentage of seats won:

2010:

England: 56%
Wales: 20%
Scotland: 1.7%

2005 which was a poor year for the Tories played out as follows:

England: 36.5%
Wales: 7.5%
Scotland: 1.7%

Scotland and Wales often have to live under Tory policies, despite the fact the majority of their electorate have no desire to vote in the Tories. So the countries of Britain as a whole rarely, if ever.. votes in the same pattern. So even if you disagree that the system is undemocratic - you cannot disagree that England's sway over the Union may not be in the best interests of the other countries/states.

Iwasfrozen

slimjimmc wrote: »

I agree with your view, but I have to point out that 3 out of the 5 seats in the constituency are held by Monaghan TDs.

Connemara doesn't have a regional assembly, at least not in this reality, he said

I ment in the fact it has to share a constiuency with another county. I don't mind this though because members should be elected based on populations to represent a population, not geography like some here think should apply in Britain.

And I must have missed that Connemara bit.

Dlofnep wrote:

Regarding an English parliament, while I'm not opposed to such an idea - People need to understand why the other states have a devolved administration. It is because the majority of power within Westminster is held by English MP's. The North, Wales and Scotland felt that England had far too much control over their own affairs - hence devolution. If they were content with the status quo, there would never have been a drive for devolution or independence.

If you look at previous elections - The overwhelming majority of the Conservatives' support comes from England. With regards to percentage of seats won:

2010:

England: 56%
Wales: 20%
Scotland: 1.7%

2005 which was a poor year for the Tories played out as follows:

England: 36.5%
Wales: 7.5%
Scotland: 1.7%

Scotland and Wales often have to live under Tory policies, despite the fact the majority of their electorate have no desire to vote in the Tories. So the countries of Britain as a whole rarely, if ever.. votes in the same pattern. So even if you disagree that the system is undemocratic - you cannot disagree that England's sway over the Union may not be in the best interests of the other countries/states.

But isn't that all the more reson for an English parliment? To allow the english people proper representation in areas which only effect them and finally slove the west lothian problem? It would also benifite the Tories who are presently suffering from their unpopularity in the celtic home countries.

A Dub in Glasgo

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

But isn't that all the more reson for an English parliment? To allow the english people proper representation in areas which only effect them and finally slove the west lothian problem? It would also benifite the Tories who are presently suffering from their unpopularity in the celtic home countries.

There is nothing other than the will of the English people stopping them from resurrecting their own parliament

dlofnep

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

But isn't that all the more reson for an English parliment? To allow the english people proper representation in areas which only effect them and finally slove the west lothian problem?

Like I said, in theory - I don't object to an English parliament. I stated that you need to understand the motivation as to why devolution occurred. It occurred because Scottish, Welsh and Irish representation was insignificant in Westminster. English representation on the other hand is very strong, which means that in the majority of cases - the English people are represented.

If there is a will in England however for devolution, I say go for it. Why not. But from what I can see - they aren't really bothered because they know their representation in Westminster is strong.

djpbarry

dlofnep wrote: »

The expenditure you have posted excludes North-Sea revenue. The North-Sea revenue from the same time period was almost £13 billion.

How much did Scotland spend extracting said revenue from the North Sea?

T runner

The IRgAy wrote: »

I would say this has absolutely nothing to do with the honourable members for Ireland; this is a United Kingdom matter and, quite frankly, none of your business!

Trolling on Politics now that youre banned from trolling on afterhours?

Fratton Fred

dlofnep wrote: »

Like I said, in theory - I don't object to an English parliament. I stated that you need to understand the motivation as to why devolution occurred. It occurred because Scottish, Welsh and Irish representation was insignificant in Westminster. English representation on the other hand is very strong, which means that in the majority of cases - the English people are represented.

If there is a will in England however for devolution, I say go for it. Why not. But from what I can see - they aren't really bothered because they know their representation in Westminster is strong.

The desire for an English parliament is gathering pace and obvious inequalities such as the NHS prescription farce and the student fees discrimination will only add to its momentum.

interesting that you don't support the call for an English parliament but you do a Scottish or Welsh one and by the sounds of it even a Northern England assembly.

Can I read it therefore that any area with out a Tory majority would have your support?

gigino

Manach wrote: »

Post-independence Scotland might then have to deal with further separatist with parts of the Highlands or Orkneys (which historically have been different entities from the Lowlands) seeking greater autonomy from Edinburgh.

In todays world nations need to have economies of scale. Scotland is not big enough to have its own defence forces, currency, embassies , various government departments etc. To have any hope of competing with big blocks like China, USA etc the UK should remain.

ardmacha

In todays world nations need to have economies of scale. Scotland is not big enough to have its own defence forces, currency, embassies , various government departments etc.

Nonsense. Scale was a 19th century concept. Modern states cooperate in the likes of the EU. Even the UK does not have an army of any international consequence, without supranational cooperation in NATO, UN etc.
Scotland would be about the same size as Denmark, a perfectly successful country. Just as Denmark retains close ties with Sweden and Norway, an independent Scotland should retain ties with England and Wales and hopefully a single independent Ireland too.

djpbarry

ardmacha wrote: »

Even the UK does not have an army of any international consequence...

I’d love to hear your definition of “consequence”, because from where I’m standing the inconsequential Ministry of Defence eats up £35 billion of taxpayers’ money every year.

ardmacha wrote: »

Scotland would be about the same size as Denmark, a perfectly successful country.

Scotland and Denmark might be similar in terms of size and population, but economically, they couldn’t be more different.

Fratton Fred

ardmacha wrote: »

Nonsense. Scale was a 19th century concept. Modern states cooperate in the likes of the EU. Even the UK does not have an army of any international consequence.

Second only to the US in its ability to project power and the fourth largest spender on military globally?

Cú Giobach

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The desire for an English parliament is gathering pace and obvious inequalities such as the NHS prescription farce and the student fees discrimination will only add to its momentum.

Brilliant, the sooner the better I say.
Scotland, Wales and NI have theirs, it would be nice to see England go the same way.
This doesn't look good for the strength of The Union.

Fratton Fred

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Brilliant, the sooner the better I say.
Scotland, Wales and NI have theirs, it would be nice to see England go the same way.
This doesn't look good for the strength of The Union.

Doesn't it? Or will the union just become federalist?

shadowninty

I think it would be interesting. The UK would only lose ¹/12th of its population but the psychological impact would likely be much bigger, certainly on the English populace. A lot of England still seems to think they are a great power, that they still have their empire. That the Commonwealth means something. In reality their government is sharing aircraft carriers with the French, and the currency is sinking slowly.
Perhaps if Scotland leaves they will realise that they need the EU, that they benefit from it. That they have to cooperate rather then stall.

Who knows.

Fratton Fred

shadowninty wrote: »

I think it would be interesting. The UK would only lose ¹/12th of its population but the psychological impact would likely be much bigger, certainly on the English populace. A lot of England still seems to think they are a great power, that they still have their empire. That the Commonwealth means something. In reality their government is sharing aircraft carriers with the French, and the currency is sinking slowly.
Perhaps if Scotland leaves they will realise that they need the EU, that they benefit from it. That they have to cooperate rather then stall.

Who knows.

That adds nothing to the conversation and is just an excuse to show off a grudge to be honest.

shadowninty

Fratton Fred wrote: »

That adds nothing to the conversation and is just an excuse to show off a grudge to be honest.

eh?

shadowninty

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Brilliant, the sooner the better I say.
Scotland, Wales and NI have theirs, it would be nice to see England go the same way.
This doesn't look good for the strength of The Union.

I wouldve thought a good solution wouldve been regional devolution leading to a federation but the people of North East England put that on the rocks, and London is still the only region of England to have an assembly. It makes governing quite complicated, this situation where bits of the UK have devolved governments and others dont

Cú Giobach

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Doesn't it? Or will the union just become federalist?

It doesn't. The very fact of devolution shows a weakening of the union.
Who knows.

shadowninty wrote: »

I wouldve thought a good solution wouldve been regional devolution leading to a federation but the people of North East England put that on the rocks, and London is still the only region of England to have an assembly. It makes governing quite complicated, this situation where bits of the UK have devolved governments and others dont

Indeed, the status quo is becoming increasingly untenable, and unfair for quite a sizeable number of people.

LondonIrish90

shadowninty wrote: »

I think it would be interesting. The UK would only lose ¹/12th of its population but the psychological impact would likely be much bigger, certainly on the English populace. A lot of England still seems to think they are a great power, that they still have their empire. That the Commonwealth means something. In reality their government is sharing aircraft carriers with the French, and the currency is sinking slowly.
Perhaps if Scotland leaves they will realise that they need the EU, that they benefit from it. That they have to cooperate rather then stall.

Who knows.

Britain still is a significant world power across many fields. Militarily (as you decided to pick up on this) spending is very high, and ability for power projection will increase dramatically in the next decade. Still a member of the UN security council.

Nobody thinks an empire exists.

The commonwealth clearly means quite a lot when nations are trying to join it still, and the leaders of powerful commonwealth members are often quick to speak of the unity and the benefits that it brings.

But anyway, Scotland won't leave the union.

Why do people get so annoyed that many in Britain are so Eurosceptical?

Nobody is trying to influence other nations into leaving the EU. Its not of concern. I want Britain out of the EU, but if the Irish population think it is best for them, then good luck truly. Sure it would be better off without such a number of people who are massively anti-EU anyway wouldnt it?

Maybe a vast number of British people dont want to be an EU member. Is this anger at Brits wanting to leave stemming from a feeling that they are needed as a political and economic powerhouse of Europe for it to succeed? I genuinely think it comes from people being fearful and insecure about the future of an organisation they believe they rely on so heavily.

Bloody English getting above their station again eh?

shadowninty

Thats what I mean. People think the UK can do well outside the EU. You look at UKIP and BNP (the only two anti-EU parties) who's idea is to revive the empire and use that as a market instead of the EU. Which cant happen as its not a single market. Anyway my point was that if the English lose Scotland, they may realise that they aren't the economic and military power they were and actually think about what leaving would mean.

And I thought you were Irish :pac:

Fratton Fred

shadowninty wrote: »

Thats what I mean. People think the UK can do well outside the EU. You look at UKIP and BNP (the only two anti-EU parties) who's idea is to revive the empire and use that as a market instead of the EU. Which cant happen as its not a single market. Anyway my point was that if the English lose Scotland, they may realise that they aren't the economic and military power they were and actually think about what leaving would mean.

And I thought you were Irish :pac:

England would still be a G7 if it were independent, what's difficult to understand about that.

England would be little different and would still be the destination of choice for the a sizeable proportion of the graduates from Scotland and Ireland.

And basing your assumptions of England on the BNP and UKIP is a bit lame tbh, they have very little support.

shadowninty

Fratton Fred wrote: »

England would still be a G7 if it were independent, what's difficult to understand about that.

Sure, but economies like Brazil and India will overtake, and the UKs voice is already falling in importance.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

England would be little different and would still be the destination of choice for the a sizeable proportion of the graduates from Scotland and Ireland.

I'm sure it would. If its still in the EU I dont see how that would change.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

And basing your assumptions of England on the BNP and UKIP is a bit lame tbh, they have very little support.

I dont base my assumptions on them. But a large portion of England at least, wants out of the EU. The only two bigish anti-Europe parties are the BNP and UKIP
They would also be very against Scotland leaving the Union (of GB&NI)

LordSutch

shadowninty wrote: »

A lot of England still seems to think they are a great power, that they still have their empire. That the Commonwealth means something. In reality their government is sharing aircraft carriers with the French, and the currency is sinking slowly.

Most English people buy newspapers or watch TV news, so I guess most English people know what the score is re Empire & the Commonwealth, they also know the price they are paying for the two new carriers, (and the link up with the French) apart from maybe those English people who still live in caves, or on Lindisfarne? Whether or not Scotland leaves the Union, England needs its own Parliament, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland & Wales already have theirs, time for an English Assembly, run by English people to deal solely with English matters > http://www.voteenglish.org/campaign-for-english-parliament/

If Salmond persuades Scotland to leave, then Scotland leaves, end of . . .

Fratton Fred

shadowninty wrote: »

Sure, but economies like Brazil and India will overtake, and the UKs voice is already falling in importance.
I'm sure it would. If its still in the EU I dont see how that would change.
I dont base my assumptions on them. But a large portion of England at least, wants out of the EU. The only two bigish anti-Europe parties are the BNP and UKIP
They would also be very against Scotland leaving the Union (of GB&NI)

They are less popular than the euro sceptic Sinn Fein to be honest. Could we then claim that Ireland wants out of the EU, or only if membership meant abortions and conscription to an eu army.