I hope in all seriousness that you don't let a single exchange with anndra_w convince you. There are better arguments on both sides - social media is perhaps not the best place to form an opinion. Both Yes Scotland and Better Together's Websites are probably a better place to start than a forum where things can get a little heated.
But to summarise the arguments, as I see them from outside:
On the one hand, the Unionists will tell you that the Union has been very successful, and on the whole good for Scotland - and that devolution allows Scotland to have the best of both worlds, a considerable degree of autonomy with some of the benefits that accrue from being a part of a larger entity. They note that we have a great deal of shared history and culture. They also point to the very large amount of cross-border traffic in terms of trade and movement of people. As part of the UK, Scotland's interests are represented on the World stage in a manner that allows it to "punch above its weight" and secure deals that a smaller, independent State may not be able to reach with foreign countries and international institutions on its own. They point to the UK's membership of the UN Security Council, NATO, the G8. They point to the economies of scale offered by being a part of the Union, including defense, administration (Government bodies such as the DVLA), telecommunications (such as the BBC).
On the other, the Nationalists will tell you that Scotland doesn't need the Union, that it would be wealthy in its own right as a State, that it has vast natural resources, and that there are European States of comparable size that do very well for themselves; and that independence would add Scotland's unique voice to the international stage, and give you politicians and diplomats who were there in the World councils standing up specifically for Scotland, rather than for the UK as a whole of which Scotland is only a part. They point out that independence would enable Scotland to set up institutions more suited to Scotland (a nuclear-free defence capability, Government bodies that operate in ways the Scottish people think they should instead of Whitehall-imposed solutions, and broadcasting that is more centred on what's of interest to people in Scotland).
I think that pretty much sums up the core arguments. There's a mix of the visceral and the rational in there: some arguments will be more compelling than others. Generally, I think it's fair to say that there's not a lot of room for manoeuvre on those: both sets of arguments pretty much stand on their own merits, neither of them are provably untrue, and trying to argue them is something that pretty much takes on the aspect of a holy war - it's like arguments about whether the Xbox 360 is better or worse than the PlayStation 3, there are never any winners, only a lot of tribalism and harsh words. People will come down on one side or the other depending on what set of arguments, on the whole, feels more right to them. Some may agree with bits of the arguments from both sides, but consider the balance of the strength of arguments to fall more heavily on one side than the other. And still others may consider it to be a bit of a crap-shoot.
Alongside these, there are some points around what the transition to independence and a post-independence Scotland might look like. Personally, I doubt any of them on their own provide a compelling case to alter any view towards which one might be inclined based on the arguments above; but for those who are genuinely unconvinced either way, they might have an impact.
This is where arguments about what currency Scotland would use, how Scotland would transition to full EU membership, where the nuclear subs will go and when, what will happen to UK-wide institutions in Scotland, and things we take for granted by dint of Scotland's position within the UK - among other arguments - become more relevant. And those arguments range from the serious to the spurious. There are uncertainties about what the transition to independence would look like; that much is undeniable (and inevitable, since independence will be a negotiated settlement), I think it's a general truism that nationalists are optimistic that these issues - or at least all the important ones - will be resolved to the general satisfaction and benefit of the residents of Scotland, whereas unionists are concerned that some of these issues may not be resolved to Scotland's satisfaction, or may not be resolved at all within the interim period between a Yes vote and independence day.
I hope that's a reasonable summary of both positions, but I'm sure others will chime in with views they consider to be important that I may have missed.
I think that's a fair assessment but I'd like to add something you missed out. And since you know I'm pro-independence, obviously it's going to be biased towards the Yes camp
Basically I think that Westminster will never be able to cater to the needs of Scotland. It's not because they don't care, but I truly think they don't quite understand the subtle differences between Scotland and England. At the end of the day, Scotland is bound by the will of Westminster/Whitehall/whatever you want to call it. All the decisions concerning Scotland should be made inside Scotland.
I think that's a fair assessment but I'd like to add something you missed out. And since you know I'm pro-independence, obviously it's going to be biased towards the Yes camp
Basically I think that Westminster will never be able to cater to the needs of Scotland. It's not because they don't care, but I truly think they don't quite understand the subtle differences between Scotland and England. At the end of the day, Scotland is bound by the will of Westminster/Whitehall/whatever you want to call it. All the decisions concerning Scotland should be made inside Scotland.
Everything.
And only independence will do that.
I honestly don't think I've really missed that out. As I see it, what you write above is simply a more strongly-worded and specific case of "independence would enable Scotland to set up institutions more suited to Scotland" - prefaced in a negative phraseology and in a more absolute way ("Westminster will never be able to cater to the needs of Scotland"). I deliberately tried to avoid negative and absolute language because that obviously makes the claims more contentious. That might mean that some points are disguised, or phrased in a way that you might not find easily recognizable, rather than missed.
Edit to add - I bought PS4 last weekend.
I'm still holding back - not yet enough games on either platform to really draw me (and no RPGs of note), and £349 or thereabouts is too much to drop on a new toy right now, especially since our income took a dive when my wife's maternity leave ran out and everything she earns when she goes back to work is likely to disappear in childcare costs. Still, I've heard good things about both consoles. I suspect an PS4 vs. Xbox One argument would be another of those "holy wars", though...
I honestly don't think I've really missed that out. As I see it, what you write above is simply a more strongly-worded and specific case of "independence would enable Scotland to set up institutions more suited to Scotland" - prefaced in a negative phraseology and in a more absolute way ("Westminster will never be able to cater to the needs of Scotland"). I deliberately tried to avoid negative and absolute language because that obviously makes the claims more contentious. That might mean that some points are disguised, or phrased in a way that you might not find easily recognizable, rather than missed.
I'm still holding back - not yet enough games on either platform to really draw me (and no RPGs of note), and £349 or thereabouts is too much to drop on a new toy right now, especially since our income took a dive when my wife's maternity leave ran out and everything she earns when she goes back to work is likely to disappear in childcare costs. Still, I've heard good things about both consoles. I suspect an PS4 vs. Xbox One argument would be another of those "holy wars", though...
What I said wasn't too negative. Scotland is bound by Westminster. Westminster has the power to overrule Holyrood. It's unlikely that they would do so, but the noose is there. Correct me if I'm wrong but those are facts. I don't believe for a second that the folks in Whitehall are rubbing their hands together and wondering how they'll screw Scotland over. However, I do feel a disconnect has been created by the Westminster machine. What makes it more sad is that all of this didn't need to happen. I mean, I agree with you that Cameron would be thrown to the wolves if he debated with Salmond. But when you think about it, how freaking pathetic is that it's turned out this way? For the record, I'm a lib/dem so I cringe at the red map of Scotland. Pffffffft.
Maybe things would have been different if Agricola wasn't recalled. But that's not how it turned out.
As I see it, the phrase "Westminster will never be able to cater to the needs of Scotland" - is phrased negatively, and in absolute terms. It's also subject to challenge on the grounds that - arguably - Westminster can cater to the needs of Scotland, by way of the Scottish Office and devolved institutions within the Union, and/or any other mechanism that is within Westminster's power to institute in order to achieve that goal. Maybe not perfectly, and maybe not as well as the institutions of an independent Scotland might be able to do; but that's another matter. The phrased as stated invites disagreement and lengthy argument.
If one were to phrase it thus - "Independent Scottish institutions will be able to cater better to the needs of Scotland" - it is the same core idea, it says much the same thing, but it is cast in positive and relative terms, the language is less confontational (why mention Whitehall if you don't need to?) and it is far more resistant to any kind of challenge on the substance of the statement.
Scotland is bound by Westminster. Westminster has the power to overrule Holyrood. It's unlikely that they would do so, but the noose is there. Correct me if I'm wrong but those are facts.
As you say, it's unlikely to happen: it would take an Act of Parliament to amend the Scotland Act (or pass another Act "notwithstanding" that Act) and to do so would be politically toxic and hasten Scotland towards the exit door. So to what extent is this an academic talking point, rather than a real danger?
What makes it more sad is that all of this didn't need to happen. I mean, I agree with you that Cameron would be thrown to the wolves if he debated with Salmond. But when you think about it, how freaking pathetic is that it's turned out this way?
The Tories have an image problem. This is true to at least some degree across large swathes of the UK, but it seems to be most marked in Scotland. This wasn't always the case; they used to have MPs in the double-digits as a matter of course in Scotland. Not living in Scotland I'm not at all qualified to figure out why it is, but they have never recovered from their 1997 wipe-out, despite the improvement in the fortunes of their compatriots in England and Wales.
As a consequence, we are in a rather peculiar (and it has to be stressed, uncommon) situation where we have a Conservative Prime Minister of the UK - who ended up in that situation by the skin of his teeth, it is worth noting, and largely by the will of the Lib Dems, whom a lot of their (now former) supporters still don't forgive for that particular move, and what came after - who is a particularly unwelcome figure in Scotland, and whose party holds only one Parliamentary seat out of 59 in Scotland, with only 4,194 votes separating them from electoral oblivion.
This situation is a perfect storm for the pro-independence campaign, of course.
For the record, I'm a lib/dem so I cringe at the red map of Scotland. Pffffffft.
I thought the map was more SNP yellow nowadays; but It'll be interesting to see how that is affected by the referendum result, whichever way it goes.
Maybe things would have been different if Agricola wasn't recalled. But that's not how it turned out.
There has been an awful lot of history, and a lot more defining moments, since then. We could be here all day wondering if maybe things would be different if....
I'm curious. I didn't discuss it earlier because it isn't my argument, but I'm intrigued by your comment and I'd like to understand precisely what you're trying to convey by it. Earlier you said that...
... rational choice theory demonstrates why economies of scale are not applicable to bureaucratic structures. In essence public bodies do not benefit from economies of scale, just the opposite. A bureaucrat has one aim - to maximise the size of his budget regardless of efficiency and societal benefit.
I have at least a vague notion of the concept of rational choice theory, and I accept the point that mandarins will seek to increase their own power regardless of efficiency and societal benefit.
However, I don't think it logically follows that "public bodies do not benefit from economies of scale". How so? Would it would be equally as efficient or more so if, instead of having one DVLA office in Swansea (say), we had a dozen regional bodies across the UK doing the same work? If so, how exactly?
As I see it, the phrase "Westminster will never be able to cater to the needs of Scotland" - is phrased negatively, and in absolute terms. It's also subject to challenge on the grounds that - arguably - Westminster can cater to the needs of Scotland, by way of the Scottish Office and devolved institutions within the Union, and/or any other mechanism that is within Westminster's power to institute in order to achieve that goal. Maybe not perfectly, and maybe not as well as the institutions of an independent Scotland might be able to do; but that's another matter. The phrased as stated invites disagreement and lengthy argument.
If one were to phrase it thus - "Independent Scottish institutions will be able to cater better to the needs of Scotland" - it is the same core idea, it says much the same thing, but it is cast in positive and relative terms, the language is less confontational (why mention Whitehall if you don't need to?) and it is far more resistant to any kind of challenge on the substance of the statement.
The way I see it, Westminster has been a big part of why this has all came about. It's hard to talk about them in positive terms. I said I wasn't too negative, and I wasn't. I'm kinda tame compared to most.
As you say, it's unlikely to happen: it would take an Act of Parliament to amend the Scotland Act (or pass another Act "notwithstanding" that Act) and to do so would be politically toxic and hasten Scotland towards the exit door. So to what extent is this an academic talking point, rather than a real danger?
Nah, not a real danger but like I said, Westminster can overrule anything that Holyrood does. They just couldn't bring themselves to give up that power. It's a small irritation, like a gnat.
The Tories have an image problem. This is true to at least some degree across large swathes of the UK, but it seems to be most marked in Scotland. This wasn't always the case; they used to have MPs in the double-digits as a matter of course in Scotland. Not living in Scotland I'm not at all qualified to figure out why it is, but they have never recovered from their 1997 wipe-out, despite the improvement in the fortunes of their compatriots in England and Wales.
As a consequence, we are in a rather peculiar (and it has to be stressed, uncommon) situation where we have a Conservative Prime Minister of the UK - who ended up in that situation by the skin of his teeth, it is worth noting, and largely by the will of the Lib Dems, whom a lot of their (now former) supporters still don't forgive for that particular move, and what came after - who is a particularly unwelcome figure in Scotland, and whose party holds only one Parliamentary seat out of 59 in Scotland, with only 4,194 votes separating them from electoral oblivion.
This situation is a perfect storm for the pro-independence campaign, of course.
I actually feel sorry for Cameron and the Tories of today. They've been tarred by the Tories of the 80s.
I thought the map was more SNP yellow nowadays; but It'll be interesting to see how that is affected by the referendum result, whichever way it goes.
I hope it's a substantial majority one way or the other - preferably my way of course. But I feel it's gonna be a close one.
There has been an awful lot of history, and a lot more defining moments, since then. We could be here all day wondering if maybe things would be different if....
The way I see it, Westminster has been a big part of why this has all came about.
Well, everything in UK politics is inevitably linked to Westminster and Whitehall in some way, so this is a kind of universal truism, but not necessarily especially useful.
I said I wasn't too negative, and I wasn't. I'm kinda tame compared to most.
I'll grant you that, though I think I prefer the more positive version.
Nah, not a real danger but like I said, Westminster can overrule anything that Holyrood does. They just couldn't bring themselves to give up that power. It's a small irritation, like a gnat.
BIB: I'm not entirely sure it's fair to say that Westminster "just couldn't bring themselves to give up that power" - that suggests that the situation is merely because those in Westminster are control-freaks and feel some desperate need to retain the right to override Holyrood. Whilst that may be true (and I don't care to argue that), it is incidental. The way our country is constituted, there is no available mechanism by which Westminster can give up that power. Everything done by Westminster is by way of an Act of Parliament, which any Parliament can amend or repeal as it sees fit. That includes the various Representation of the People Acts, the European Communities Act, the Human Rights Act, the Septennial Act, Parliament Acts, the Magna Carta (what's left of it), the Bill of Rights, the Scotland Act, the Acts of Union, you name it. We are, at any given time, a handful of Parliamentary votes away from the abolition of representative democracy and civil rights and the reintroduction of legalized slavery - in theory.
I actually feel sorry for Cameron and the Tories of today. They've been tarred by the Tories of the 80s.
Yet bizarrely, the Tories didn't do that badly in Scotland in 1992. In fact, they gained a seat and increased their vote share in Scotland. It was the period between 1992-7 that appears to have done for them, and something appears to have prevented their recovery north of the border, though I am not sure what.
The problem there is that the union has no logical argument for its continuation.
Want your pension to be at risk as the UK can't afford them - vote No.
Want your interest rates jacked up to stop London bubbles - vote No.
Want to send your sons and daughters to die in illegal wars - vote No.
Want the NHS destroyed and charged at all levels - vote No.
Want out the European Union - vote No.
Want endemic poverty - vote No.
Want inequality second only to the United States - vote No.
Want to pay £36k to go to University - vote No.
Want to heavily subsidise another nation - vote No.
We've now been waiting two years for the "positive case for the Union". It still isn't forthcoming because it does not exist.
It really is that simple.
That is a heap of.......................................reasons.
The trump card is always going to be military spending. It's hard to stomach ever deepening austerity measures when the government making them is committed to spending on WMDs. Especially when they insist on them being based near a major population centre in Scotland. Not the only consideration of course but certainly indicative of the type of priorities remaining in the UK will mean.
The trump card is always going to be military spending. It's hard to stomach ever deepening austerity measures when the government making them is committed to spending on WMDs. Especially when they insist on them being based near a major population centre in Scotland. Not the only consideration of course but certainly indicative of the type of priorities remaining in the UK will mean.
added to that UK would need permission of USA (president level I believe) to use these WMD's - trident system in UK is privatised & run by US companies - even the warheads are under control of US company. Why pay all that money for a system that UK can't use without US agreeing, is insignificant globally, is located alarmingly close to Glasgow .. it only serves to make westminster feel 'big' & prevent economic activity/growth in west of Scotland !!
The trump card is always going to be military spending. It's hard to stomach ever deepening austerity measures when the government making them is committed to spending on WMDs. Especially when they insist on them being based near a major population centre in Scotland. Not the only consideration of course but certainly indicative of the type of priorities remaining in the UK will mean.
I don't agree I don't think that most Scots think about spending on nuclear weapons or their location.
As we have discussed several,times, the military budget is a drop in huge ocean and down the list by a fair margin on where we spend money which would be pensions followed by NHS. Military spending doesn't even come third.
If you look at the armed forces numbers today compared with 1994 you would see that they have shrunk considerably but there is little sign of the peace dividend that the Cold War saved us. Where has all,of the money saved on the difference between equipment and personnel over the last 20 years gone?
added to that UK would need permission of USA (president level I believe) to use these WMD's - trident system in UK is privatised & run by US companies - even the warheads are under control of US company. Why pay all that money for a system that UK can't use without US agreeing, is insignificant globally, is located alarmingly close to Glasgow .. it only serves to make westminster feel 'big' & prevent economic activity/growth in west of Scotland !!
I think you really need to prove this statement,otherwise it's just scaremongering.
The US do not control our weapons.
It's also a wrong to believe that Glasgow would somehow not be targeted in a nuclear war as long as it didn't have nuclear weapons.
Your whole statement above is based on unsubstantiated stories.
Derek Bateman caught up with First Minister Alex Salmond before an audience at Ayr College’s Kilmarnock campus this week."
Hmm, ask no real questions and let the man simply repeat everything that has already been said, evil Tories, democratic deficit and let's not forget.........Mrs Thatcher.
A fireside chat with the FM........... References to Braveheart abound.
Mildly interesting episode of blowing smoke..........................
It undermines his story about the Bruce being French so must be wrong. Not that it's entirely relevant but the single english born ancestor was in the first generation after 1066 and the first Robert de Brusse. His dad would have been 15ish and was born in Scotland, his son took over Anandale. That single "english" ancestor was about 6 generations prior.
Nor does he take on board that the west and north of Scotland were different, or that our vikings were Norwegian rather than Danish. Nor that he's talking about the nobility rather than the people.
Wallace one the other hand, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_(surname), an adaption of an existing scottish name originating in Strathclyde. Elderslie is entirely consistent as his place of birth.
Just a wee update as I've just listened to the Salmond interview by Derek Bateman link and in it Salmond states the following.
Robert de Brus was a French immigrant and Wallace means from Wales apparently and he claims that he was from welsh stock.
Seems like even the FM thinks that were all more alike than we are different.
Both campaigns do it, the pro-union do it more than the other IMO
The pro-independence campaign relies very much on prejudice and spreading fear to influence the Scottish electorate - about the NHS, the EU, pensions, hatred of the Tories etc. etc. a mixture of wild allegations and simple prejudice.
Not forgetting Salmond's attacks on Osborne and Cameron "lecturing" Scotland and that they are Tory toffs - childish and immature you might say.
However, that the SNP is unable to provide answers to legitimate questions should set alarm bells ringing for those who look at indepence from a pragmatic and practical viewpoint and ignore the "bluff and bluster" of Salmond and Sturgeon.
added to that UK would need permission of USA (president level I believe) to use these WMD's - trident system in UK is privatised & run by US companies - even the warheads are under control of US company. Why pay all that money for a system that UK can't use without US agreeing, is insignificant globally, is located alarmingly close to Glasgow .. it only serves to make westminster feel 'big' & prevent economic activity/growth in west of Scotland !!
Ah so that's why 16 and 17yos have the vote. So the children can rise up and throw off the shackles of their oppressive overlords addicted to the fuel from their ground.
Our name is Freedom. It is a killing word.
Keep these fun posts coming they brighten my day no end.
As we have discussed several,times, the military budget is a drop in huge ocean and down the list by a fair margin on where we spend money which would be pensions followed by NHS. Military spending doesn't even come third.
And your point is? If cuts are to be made then surely they should be made to a weapons system that has seen no use in all the time we've had it. As I said the priorities seem all wrong. You'd as well point to the annual budget for MPs salaries and suggest that they too are way down on the budget so could be doubled.
And your point is? If cuts are to be made then surely they should be made to a weapons system that has seen no use in all the time we've had it. As I said the priorities seem all wrong. You'd as well point to the annual budget for MPs salaries and suggest that they too are way down on the budget so could be doubled.
I have an insurance policy protecting my home but have never claimed have I wasted my money?
Comments
He scaremongering which is a well known tactic of the pro-independence campaign.
I think that's a fair assessment but I'd like to add something you missed out. And since you know I'm pro-independence, obviously it's going to be biased towards the Yes camp
Basically I think that Westminster will never be able to cater to the needs of Scotland. It's not because they don't care, but I truly think they don't quite understand the subtle differences between Scotland and England. At the end of the day, Scotland is bound by the will of Westminster/Whitehall/whatever you want to call it. All the decisions concerning Scotland should be made inside Scotland.
Everything.
And only independence will do that.
Edit to add - I bought PS4 last weekend.
I honestly don't think I've really missed that out. As I see it, what you write above is simply a more strongly-worded and specific case of "independence would enable Scotland to set up institutions more suited to Scotland" - prefaced in a negative phraseology and in a more absolute way ("Westminster will never be able to cater to the needs of Scotland"). I deliberately tried to avoid negative and absolute language because that obviously makes the claims more contentious. That might mean that some points are disguised, or phrased in a way that you might not find easily recognizable, rather than missed.
I'm still holding back - not yet enough games on either platform to really draw me (and no RPGs of note), and £349 or thereabouts is too much to drop on a new toy right now, especially since our income took a dive when my wife's maternity leave ran out and everything she earns when she goes back to work is likely to disappear in childcare costs. Still, I've heard good things about both consoles. I suspect an PS4 vs. Xbox One argument would be another of those "holy wars", though...
What I said wasn't too negative. Scotland is bound by Westminster. Westminster has the power to overrule Holyrood. It's unlikely that they would do so, but the noose is there. Correct me if I'm wrong but those are facts. I don't believe for a second that the folks in Whitehall are rubbing their hands together and wondering how they'll screw Scotland over. However, I do feel a disconnect has been created by the Westminster machine. What makes it more sad is that all of this didn't need to happen. I mean, I agree with you that Cameron would be thrown to the wolves if he debated with Salmond. But when you think about it, how freaking pathetic is that it's turned out this way? For the record, I'm a lib/dem so I cringe at the red map of Scotland. Pffffffft.
Maybe things would have been different if Agricola wasn't recalled. But that's not how it turned out.
As I see it, the phrase "Westminster will never be able to cater to the needs of Scotland" - is phrased negatively, and in absolute terms. It's also subject to challenge on the grounds that - arguably - Westminster can cater to the needs of Scotland, by way of the Scottish Office and devolved institutions within the Union, and/or any other mechanism that is within Westminster's power to institute in order to achieve that goal. Maybe not perfectly, and maybe not as well as the institutions of an independent Scotland might be able to do; but that's another matter. The phrased as stated invites disagreement and lengthy argument.
If one were to phrase it thus - "Independent Scottish institutions will be able to cater better to the needs of Scotland" - it is the same core idea, it says much the same thing, but it is cast in positive and relative terms, the language is less confontational (why mention Whitehall if you don't need to?) and it is far more resistant to any kind of challenge on the substance of the statement.
As you say, it's unlikely to happen: it would take an Act of Parliament to amend the Scotland Act (or pass another Act "notwithstanding" that Act) and to do so would be politically toxic and hasten Scotland towards the exit door. So to what extent is this an academic talking point, rather than a real danger?
The Tories have an image problem. This is true to at least some degree across large swathes of the UK, but it seems to be most marked in Scotland. This wasn't always the case; they used to have MPs in the double-digits as a matter of course in Scotland. Not living in Scotland I'm not at all qualified to figure out why it is, but they have never recovered from their 1997 wipe-out, despite the improvement in the fortunes of their compatriots in England and Wales.
As a consequence, we are in a rather peculiar (and it has to be stressed, uncommon) situation where we have a Conservative Prime Minister of the UK - who ended up in that situation by the skin of his teeth, it is worth noting, and largely by the will of the Lib Dems, whom a lot of their (now former) supporters still don't forgive for that particular move, and what came after - who is a particularly unwelcome figure in Scotland, and whose party holds only one Parliamentary seat out of 59 in Scotland, with only 4,194 votes separating them from electoral oblivion.
This situation is a perfect storm for the pro-independence campaign, of course.
I thought the map was more SNP yellow nowadays; but It'll be interesting to see how that is affected by the referendum result, whichever way it goes.
There has been an awful lot of history, and a lot more defining moments, since then. We could be here all day wondering if maybe things would be different if....
I'm curious. I didn't discuss it earlier because it isn't my argument, but I'm intrigued by your comment and I'd like to understand precisely what you're trying to convey by it. Earlier you said that...
I have at least a vague notion of the concept of rational choice theory, and I accept the point that mandarins will seek to increase their own power regardless of efficiency and societal benefit.
However, I don't think it logically follows that "public bodies do not benefit from economies of scale". How so? Would it would be equally as efficient or more so if, instead of having one DVLA office in Swansea (say), we had a dozen regional bodies across the UK doing the same work? If so, how exactly?
Nah, not a real danger but like I said, Westminster can overrule anything that Holyrood does. They just couldn't bring themselves to give up that power. It's a small irritation, like a gnat.
I actually feel sorry for Cameron and the Tories of today. They've been tarred by the Tories of the 80s.
I hope it's a substantial majority one way or the other - preferably my way of course. But I feel it's gonna be a close one.
Indeed.
Well, everything in UK politics is inevitably linked to Westminster and Whitehall in some way, so this is a kind of universal truism, but not necessarily especially useful.
I'll grant you that, though I think I prefer the more positive version.
BIB: I'm not entirely sure it's fair to say that Westminster "just couldn't bring themselves to give up that power" - that suggests that the situation is merely because those in Westminster are control-freaks and feel some desperate need to retain the right to override Holyrood. Whilst that may be true (and I don't care to argue that), it is incidental. The way our country is constituted, there is no available mechanism by which Westminster can give up that power. Everything done by Westminster is by way of an Act of Parliament, which any Parliament can amend or repeal as it sees fit. That includes the various Representation of the People Acts, the European Communities Act, the Human Rights Act, the Septennial Act, Parliament Acts, the Magna Carta (what's left of it), the Bill of Rights, the Scotland Act, the Acts of Union, you name it. We are, at any given time, a handful of Parliamentary votes away from the abolition of representative democracy and civil rights and the reintroduction of legalized slavery - in theory.
Yet bizarrely, the Tories didn't do that badly in Scotland in 1992. In fact, they gained a seat and increased their vote share in Scotland. It was the period between 1992-7 that appears to have done for them, and something appears to have prevented their recovery north of the border, though I am not sure what.
That is a heap of.......................................reasons.
If I had a vote, I would be quaking.
"Episode 4: An Audience with Alex Salmond
Derek Bateman caught up with First Minister Alex Salmond before an audience at Ayr College’s Kilmarnock campus this week."
Both campaigns do it, the pro-union do it more than the other IMO
I don't agree I don't think that most Scots think about spending on nuclear weapons or their location.
As we have discussed several,times, the military budget is a drop in huge ocean and down the list by a fair margin on where we spend money which would be pensions followed by NHS. Military spending doesn't even come third.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UKExpenditure.svg
If you look at the armed forces numbers today compared with 1994 you would see that they have shrunk considerably but there is little sign of the peace dividend that the Cold War saved us. Where has all,of the money saved on the difference between equipment and personnel over the last 20 years gone?
I think you really need to prove this statement,otherwise it's just scaremongering.
The US do not control our weapons.
It's also a wrong to believe that Glasgow would somehow not be targeted in a nuclear war as long as it didn't have nuclear weapons.
Your whole statement above is based on unsubstantiated stories.
Hmm, ask no real questions and let the man simply repeat everything that has already been said, evil Tories, democratic deficit and let's not forget.........Mrs Thatcher.
A fireside chat with the FM........... References to Braveheart abound.
Mildly interesting episode of blowing smoke..........................
Just a wee update as I've just listened to the Salmond interview by Derek Bateman link and in it Salmond states the following.
Robert de Brus was a French immigrant and Wallace means from Wales apparently and he claims that he was from welsh stock.
Seems like even the FM thinks that were all more alike than we are different.
The pro-independence campaign relies very much on prejudice and spreading fear to influence the Scottish electorate - about the NHS, the EU, pensions, hatred of the Tories etc. etc. a mixture of wild allegations and simple prejudice.
Not forgetting Salmond's attacks on Osborne and Cameron "lecturing" Scotland and that they are Tory toffs - childish and immature you might say.
However, that the SNP is unable to provide answers to legitimate questions should set alarm bells ringing for those who look at indepence from a pragmatic and practical viewpoint and ignore the "bluff and bluster" of Salmond and Sturgeon.
Can we assume that London, Manchester and Birmingham would not be attacked as none have nuclear weapons?
in which case it's imperative that we con the Scots into keeping them up there lets
us off the hook down here.
You have made all of that up.
Keep these fun posts coming they brighten my day no end.
So we should let the French rule the UK then?
And your point is? If cuts are to be made then surely they should be made to a weapons system that has seen no use in all the time we've had it. As I said the priorities seem all wrong. You'd as well point to the annual budget for MPs salaries and suggest that they too are way down on the budget so could be doubled.
I have an insurance policy protecting my home but have never claimed have I wasted my money?