Your reply makes no sense. The motion the Tories abstained on in the Scottish Parliament was not about any Scottish Parliamenatry domestic policies, it was a motion put forward by the Scottish government that an independendent board be appointed made up of Business, Science, Education, Health and economists to examine Scotland's future relationship with the EU. Even though Nicola Sturgeon during the debate emphatically ruled out that a second referendum would be included in the motion. Every party Labour, Lib Dems, Scottish Greens and Independents gave overwhelming support for the motion and not only that Keizia Dugdale the Labour leader gave a brilliant speech and received a huge ovation from all parties with the exception of the Conservatives.
The Tories by abstaining in the motion suffered a backlash even from those who supported Ruth Davidson in the Scottish Elections. She won seats for the Tories in Scotland because many saw her as leading a different party from that of Westminster. At the first test she failed and in the weekend that followed the fallout from the debate a poll showed that 59% in favour of Independence with a large number of thise who voted NO in the referendum changing their mind. At one of the biggest agricultural fairs held in Scotland the following week many Conservative and Unionist voters were questioned and many were disappointed in her stance on the motion and many who obviously wanted to be part of the EU felt that they would support the Scottish Parliament's motion of trying everything possible to stay within the EU.
I think you should first read my post in full before replying. The motion was about Scotland's EU policy not a domestic one that the Scottish elections were fought on. By the way all parties in Scotland including Ruth Davidson stood as one and backed staying in the EU.
Second you should pay more attention and read and listen to Scottish commentary on Scottish politics before you make stupid statements such as these: "If the Tories don't agree with what the SNP post Brexit plan was, then they're not going to vote for it are they?" As I have pointed out the majority yes that may be difficult for you to understand because Scotland does actually have a democratic process do support the Scottish government backed by the Scottish parliament in seeking to examine every possible avenue of staying involved in the EU. As for independence there has been growing support for independence post Brexit.
At first I was taken aback why you began this thread but then I shouldn't be surprised. You hate the SNP, you hate the SNP being involved at Westminster, you probably hate the fact that they are seeking and winning more power for the Scottish people. Let's face it you do not understand Scottish politics but just love to continually run Scotland down and comment on it. Here's a suggestion try going there and seeking first hand what the majority actually think.
Do you consider how the English think? Do you concern yourself with the way the English are constantly being sidelined in favour of Scottish demands? No? Well, perhaps you should before you make such self righteous claims. Yes, I don't like the SNP, but hate is too strong a word. I don't hate anyone, I leave that to the xenophobes and bigots.
Give it a rest, I have already pointed out to you how Scotland would have been a far richer and better independent country had lies and deceit not been used to stop the independence debate in the early 70's. You instead continue to debate independence from a stance of the present day position and from a sheer biased and hatred of everything the SNP stand for.
Your reply makes no sense. The motion the Tories abstained on in the Scottish Parliament was not about any Scottish Parliamenatry domestic policies, it was a motion put forward by the Scottish government that an independendent board be appointed made up of Business, Science, Education, Health and economists to examine Scotland's future relationship with the EU. Even though Nicola Sturgeon during the debate emphatically ruled out that a second referendum would be included in the motion. Every party Labour, Lib Dems, Scottish Greens and Independents gave overwhelming support for the motion and not only that Keizia Dugdale the Labour leader gave a brilliant speech and received a huge ovation from all parties with the exception of the Conservatives.
The Tories by abstaining in the motion suffered a backlash even from those who supported Ruth Davidson in the Scottish Elections. She won seats for the Tories in Scotland because many saw her as leading a different party from that of Westminster. At the first test she failed and in the weekend that followed the fallout from the debate a poll showed that 59% in favour of Independence with a large number of thise who voted NO in the referendum changing their mind. At one of the biggest agricultural fairs held in Scotland the following week many Conservative and Unionist voters were questioned and many were disappointed in her stance on the motion and many who obviously wanted to be part of the EU felt that they would support the Scottish Parliament's motion of trying everything possible to stay within the EU.
Just a thought but why does Scotland need to examine its future relationship with the EU?
Scotland can't stay in the EU as the UK is leaving it. If it wishes to be in the EU it will have to leave the UK and apply to join the EU. The SNP can pretend otherwise but it is pie in the sky.
Your reply makes no sense. The motion the Tories abstained on in the Scottish Parliament was not about any Scottish Parliamenatry domestic policies, it was a motion put forward by the Scottish government that an independendent board be appointed made up of Business, Science, Education, Health and economists to examine Scotland's future relationship with the EU. Even though Nicola Sturgeon during the debate emphatically ruled out that a second referendum would be included in the motion. Every party Labour, Lib Dems, Scottish Greens and Independents gave overwhelming support for the motion and not only that Keizia Dugdale the Labour leader gave a brilliant speech and received a huge ovation from all parties with the exception of the Conservatives.
The Tories by abstaining in the motion suffered a backlash even from those who supported Ruth Davidson in the Scottish Elections. She won seats for the Tories in Scotland because many saw her as leading a different party from that of Westminster. At the first test she failed and in the weekend that followed the fallout from the debate a poll showed that 59% in favour of Independence with a large number of thise who voted NO in the referendum changing their mind. At one of the biggest agricultural fairs held in Scotland the following week many Conservative and Unionist voters were questioned and many were disappointed in her stance on the motion and many who obviously wanted to be part of the EU felt that they would support the Scottish Parliament's motion of trying everything possible to stay within the EU.
I think you should first read my post in full before replying. The motion was about Scotland's EU policy not a domestic one that the Scottish elections were fought on. By the way all parties in Scotland including Ruth Davidson stood as one and backed staying in the EU.
Second you should pay more attention and read and listen to Scottish commentary on Scottish politics before you make stupid statements such as these: "If the Tories don't agree with what the SNP post Brexit plan was, then they're not going to vote for it are they?" As I have pointed out the majority yes that may be difficult for you to understand because Scotland does actually have a democratic process do support the Scottish government backed by the Scottish parliament in seeking to examine every possible avenue of staying involved in the EU. As for independence there has been growing support for independence post Brexit.
At first I was taken aback why you began this thread but then I shouldn't be surprised. You hate the SNP, you hate the SNP being involved at Westminster, you probably hate the fact that they are seeking and winning more power for the Scottish people. Let's face it you do not understand Scottish politics but just love to continually run Scotland down and comment on it. Here's a suggestion try going there and seeking first hand what the majority actually think.
BIB1 - It wasn't everything possible, as it didn't extend to independence.
Give it a rest, I have already pointed out to you how Scotland would have been a far richer and better independent country had lies and deceit not been used to stop the independence debate in the early 70's. You instead continue to debate independence from a stance of the present day position and from a sheer biased and hatred of everything the SNP stand for.
We've no idea if we would have been richer, unless you know what our spending plans would have been.
Looking at independence now, I'll look at the current economics and not what was or wasn't said in the 70s.
Do you consider how the English think? Do you concern yourself with the way the English are constantly being sidelined in favour of Scottish demands? No? Well, perhaps you should before you make such self righteous claims. Yes, I don't like the SNP, but hate is too strong a word. I don't hate anyone, I leave that to the xenophobes and bigots.
I think more regional mayors would help with making English peoples voices heard, something like this:
(apologies for the Guardian link, I know that makes some people queasy round these parts).
More regional mayors fighting for the needs of their particular regions and grasping some powers from Westminster will hopefully mean a better deal for everyone.
Just a thought but why does Scotland need to examine its future relationship with the EU?
Scotland can't stay in the EU as the UK is leaving it. If it wishes to be in the EU it will have to leave the UK and apply to join the EU.
Because the SNP are delusional. They believe they have the same clout as the UK Government. They don't. The EU more or less told them so too.
I watched the BBC News on Sunday and an elderly Scottish gentleman who was a lifelong Independence campaigner, told of his anger towards the SNP for using the EU as a tool to get Scots involved in the Independence movement. He said it is bonkers why a party advocating Independence would want to be swallowed up as an insignificant region in a European Superstate where Independence would never be realised. He said it isn't about Scotland vs. the UK, but purely about Scotland as an Independent country, free from all unions, working together with other countries, including the UK and EU member states, but not as part of them.
To me that is pure independence. Not the SNP's version of it.
Do you consider how the English think? Do you concern yourself with the way the English are constantly being sidelined in favour of Scottish demands? No? Well, perhaps you should before you make such self righteous claims. Yes, I don't like the SNP, but hate is too strong a word. I don't hate anyone, I leave that to the xenophobes and bigots.
I am married to an English girl with two English born chidren and two English born grandchildren and a large extended English family. Even though I live in Hampshire surrounded by my immediate family much of my extended family lives in the North east, Yorkshire and the Midlands. As I have pointed out in numerous replies to you and in other threads I feel just as strongly about the injustice served on large parts of the country outside of London and the home counties.
When answering your points however I am answering specific points that you continue to state about Scotland and I have to repeatedly point out the historical implications of how Scotland was treated by successive Westminster governments. What the SNP are doing is trying to redress the balance and inequality that has existsed for a very long time. No other party in Scotland has done so whether under Westminster or devolution.
On the point of my extended "English" family who either come or still live in the northern part of England, they keep being promised a northern powerhouse but promises aren't followed through but instead they have to live with the consequences as Scotland did with successive Westminster governments making the north a poor house. Believe me they wish that they had a party such as the SNP who actually fight their cause.
(apologies for the Guardian link, I know that makes some people queasy round these parts).
More regional mayors fighting for the needs of their particular regions and grasping some powers from Westminster will hopefully mean a better deal for everyone.
Yes, had England been offered some kind of solid and practical devolution at the same time as Scotland, Wales and NI, then a lot of this divisiveness might have been avoided. Whether it was controversial or not, Cameron actually, at long last, recognising the English discontent the morning after the Indy Ref was a boon for me. The Scots took it personally and the Labour Party shit themselves, but for a UK-wide PM to actually consider England as a country at long last, meant a lot to me. I understand why those English cities rejected devolution a decade or so ago, the plans were scribbled on the back of an envelope and were not solid devolution plans.
But, I agree with regional English assemblies that can actually represent the local population. I would support that wholeheartedly.
Just a thought but why does Scotland need to examine its future relationship with the EU?
Scotland can't stay in the EU as the UK is leaving it. If it wishes to be in the EU it will have to leave the UK and apply to join the EU. The SNP can pretend otherwise but it is pie in the sky.
How is it anymore pie in the sky than the UK wanting to stay in the single market but without free movement of people, for example. The way I see it is that everything is up for discussion and negotiation. There's already precedents for parts of some territories to be in the EU while are others aren't.
I am married to an English girl with two English born chidren and two English born grandchildren and a large extended English family. Even though I live in Hampshire surrounded by my immediate family much of my extended family lives in the North east, Yorkshire and the Midlands. As I have pointed out in numerous replies to you and in other threads I feel just as strongly about the injustice served on large parts of the country outside of London and the home counties.
When answering your points however I am answering specific points that you continue to state about Scotland and I have to repeatedly point out the historical implications of how Scotland was treated by successive Westminster governments. What the SNP are doing is trying to redress the balance and inequality that has existsed for a very long time. No other party in Scotland has done so whether under Westminster or devolution.
On the point of my extended "English" family who either come or still live in the northern part of England, they keep being promised a northern powerhouse but promises aren't followed through but instead they have to live with the consequences as Scotland did with successive Westminster governments making the north a poor house. Believe me they wish that they had a party such as the SNP who actually fight their cause.
The "Northern Powerhouse" plan was stalled by Labour Lords was it not? It hasn't been shelved or dropped. Andy Burnham even stood for the Manchester mayoral candidacy.
How is it anymore pie in the sky than the UK wanting to stay in the single market but without free movement of people, for example. The way I see it is that everything is up for discussion and negotiation. There's already precedents for parts of some territories to be in the EU while are others aren't.
The simple fact is the UK is the member of the EU not Scotland and the UK will be leaving the EU. The SNP in effect want to take over the UK's membership and it ain't going to happen.
There might be an appetite for radical changes to English governance.
"England dominates" but individual counties or regions have no say at all - except London
If 5.3m in Scotland or 3m in Wales can have their own government to represent their interests, so can the similar populations in each English region IMO
I agree. They should be offered similar powers within a federal structure.
The "Northern Powerhouse" plan was stalled by Labour Lords was it not? It hasn't been shelved or dropped. Andy Burnham even stood for the Manchester mayoral candidacy.
The "Northern Powerhouse" plan was stalled by Labour Lords was it not? It hasn't been shelved or dropped. Andy Burnham even stood for the Manchester mayoral candidacy.
Tell me of the time you have spent living on this earth and as a native of the UK. In your eyes how do you see the north south divide from a "South" perspective? Descibe how much has been invested in London and the home counties compared to the north since 1979?
At first I was taken aback why you began this thread but then I shouldn't be surprised. You hate the SNP, you hate the SNP being involved at Westminster, you probably hate the fact that they are seeking and winning more power for the Scottish people. Let's face it you do not understand Scottish politics but just love to continually run Scotland down and comment on it. Here's a suggestion try going there and seeking first hand what the majority actually think.
Game, set and match I'd say.
You won't get through to someone with such a Berkshire-esque view of the world.
Tell me of the time you have spent living on this earth and as a native of the UK. In your eyes how do you see the north south divide from a "South" perspective? Descibe how much has been invested in London and the home counties compared to the north since 1979?
Simplistically, (and I expect an avalanche of "ignorant, uneducated and how very dare you's) the North is run by Labour and the South is run by the Tories. The Tory areas are predominantly wealthy and the Labour areas are often run down shit holes. But Labour voters keep voting Labour because they are told Labour represent them but all Labour do is cling onto the "Tories are in Government so blame them" rhetoric. Meanwhile, down South, the Tory areas are running along quite nicely because the Tories actually know how to run things properly.
How's that? Now it's up to you to decide if you think I'm being serious or not.
Simplistically, (and I expect an avalanche of "ignorant, uneducated and how very dare you's) the North is run by Labour and the South is run by the Tories. The Tory areas are predominantly wealthy and the Labour areas are often run down shit holes. But Labour voters keep voting Labour because they are told Labour represent them but all Labour do is cling onto the "Tories are in Government so blame them" rhetoric. Meanwhile, down South, the Tory areas are running along quite nicely because the Tories actually know how to run things properly.
How's that? Now it's up to you to decide if you think I'm being serious or not.
You really either do not understand what is posted or you choose to ignore the post altogether and come up with some other delusional argument.
First of all in every post I have used the term "successive" Westminster governments since 1973. I have stated that it was Edward Heath who commissioned the McCrone report but it was the Callaghan who decided to keep the report secret and successive government whether they be Tory or Labour who kept it secret.
It was under a Thatcher government who accelerated the de-industrial and manufacturing base of Britain and who invested heavily in London and the home counties through the financial sector whilst at the same time using £75 billion of oil revenue to pay down Britain's deficit.
Who represents who in the north or south is immaterial, which government whether it be Labour or Conservative is irrelevant. Since 1979 there hasn't been a slither of difference from Conservatives and Labour. Perhaps you missed the whole "New Labour" project.
You readily discount the historical perspective I have included in my posts such as not only Scotland but I have said many times over and over many parts of England who drove the industrial revolution and wealth of Britain. Contrast that with how much of that wealth was re-invested in those areas compared to London and the south during the period of the late 70's under successive "Westminster" governments. The gap of inequality between north and south, the rich and poor and the end of democratic capatalism that had propelled so much success for Britain after the second world war.
I don't post simplistic views of the difference between Scotland and England, about the north south divide, my views are based on fact and with a historical perspective something you continue to ignore.
You really either do not understand what is posted or you choose to ignore the post altogether and come up with some other delusional argument.
First of all in every post I have used the term "successive" Westminster governments since 1973. I have stated that it was Edward Heath who commissioned the McCrone report but it was the Callaghan who decided to keep the report secret and successive government whether they be Tory or Labour who kept it secret.
It was under a Thatcher government who accelerated the de-industrial and manufacturing base of Britain and who invested heavily in London and the home counties through the financial sector whilst at the same time using £75 billion of oil revenue to pay down Britain's deficit.
Who represents who in the north or south is immaterial, which government whether it be Labour or Conservative is irrelevant. Since 1979 there hasn't been a slither of difference from Conservatives and Labour. Perhaps you missed the whole "New Labour" project.
You readily discount the historical perspective I have included in my posts such as not only Scotland but I have said many times over and over many parts of England who drove the industrial revolution and wealth of Britain. Contrast that with how much of that wealth was re-invested in those areas compared to London and the south during the period of the late 70's under successive "Westminster" governments. The gap of inequality between north and south, the rich and poor and the end of democratic capatalism that had propelled so much success for Britain after the second world war.
I don't post simplistic views of the difference between Scotland and England, about the north south divide, my views are based on fact and with a historical perspective something you continue to ignore.
I just can't see how "historical perspective" is going to pay for anything in an independent Scotland. Unless your one of those indy at any cost delusionals who think all with be well cos NS said so.
I just can't see how "historical perspective" is going to pay for anything in an independent Scotland. Unless your one of those indy at any cost delusionals who think all with be well cos NS said so.
It is baffling how "historical perspective" is being used as a device inwhich to persuade me to change an opinion. You could say the same about why black people have issues with white people by using the slave trade as an example. Yet none of these are relevant to people who were born 30 years ago. The situation is as per today. The SNP do not have Scotland's interests at heart because if they did they would be considering the views of all Scottish voters - in the same way as the UK Government is. For example, Brexit means Brexit but the views of the very large minority must also be considered. The SNP are not considering the views of over a million Scots who voted leave. The SNP are not considering the views of the opposition parties voters who are predominantly unionists. The SNP have one goal - Scottish Independence, and they do not care who they alienate or annoy to get it.
I could if I wanted, study many elements of politics, from the 1950's to now. But we don't live in the past so therefore the way people feel now is not necessarily how they felt 50 years ago. The SNP wanted Independence long before the EU was founded. But since the EU was created, Independence seems to have changed in substance and rather than campaign for pure Independence, they seem to have become a mischief making entity, as if deliberately trying to get the backs up of their opposers in order to make noise, which ironically, is being ignored on the issues that they should be being heard on.
I just can't see how "historical perspective" is going to pay for anything in an independent Scotland. Unless your one of those indy at any cost delusionals who think all with be well cos NS said so.
My replies were made to wizzywicks posts and had nothing to do with a future independent Scotland whether it is viable presently or in the near future. Perhaps you should go back to the first post and read my reply follow the debate I have with wizzywick and you will understand the context in how it was made.
The main debate is his view of the SNP and Scotland. From my viewpoint and obviously the majority of Scots believe that the SNP is the only party representing Scotland's best interests, the only party despite having a Scottish Parliament since 1997 which has won more power and control over Scottish affairs.
He also continues to bring up how Scotland is subsidised and in other threads states that England subsidises Scotland under the Barnet Formula. These are myths and you have to look at "historical" funding between Westminster and Scotland since 1980 when the Barnett formula was introduced.
As regards a "historical perspective" it may be worth reading my earlier replies to wizzywick and you will see a timline of how Scotland failed to be given the opportunity of becoming independent because of successive Westminster governments both Conservative and Labour from as early as 1973. You cannot evaluate the present circumstances without a "historical perspective" It goes to the heart of the SNP's current stance on Independence. More importantly it is why the SNP has transformed from a protest party into a party of government and an important player not only in Scottish politics but UK wide.
If Scottish people had known the facts of the 1974 McCrone report and had successive Westminster governments not lied about the true value of oil revenue and called the SNP's estimates of oil revenue as fantasy then we probably would have seen a completely different picture today. Westminster would never have voluntarily granted an independence referendum in 1974-1980 period had the McCrone report been published but that in itself would have led to huge unrest and ultimately may have had to grant one anyway.
The argument that people continue to put forward today is that Scotland is subsidised by England and would be poor if Independent. In 2014 the NO campaign was one of Fear and threats just as the same for the recent EU debate by the remain camp. It is a point which fuels the divide between Scotland and England and the resentment felt in many of the threads and posts on both sides. Many of those posting about the current Scottish Independence debate do so without any "historical perspective" but instead continue to ignore it and use supposed English subsidy to back their argument.
We can't turn the clock back but if we did and the full facts were known, the UK would present a very different picture to the world. Scotland would be independent, be a far richer country, it's population would be 70% better off per head of population. Scotland would have had a large oil fund in the same way Norway has today but it is likely that the oil fund would have been set up much earlier than Norway's if Scotland had followed George Reid's vision and backed by a second report by Lord McCrone in 1977 that an oil fund was neccessary to deal with devaluation of oil revenues.
Comments
Do you consider how the English think? Do you concern yourself with the way the English are constantly being sidelined in favour of Scottish demands? No? Well, perhaps you should before you make such self righteous claims. Yes, I don't like the SNP, but hate is too strong a word. I don't hate anyone, I leave that to the xenophobes and bigots.
Give it a rest? I think not.
Just a thought but why does Scotland need to examine its future relationship with the EU?
Scotland can't stay in the EU as the UK is leaving it. If it wishes to be in the EU it will have to leave the UK and apply to join the EU. The SNP can pretend otherwise but it is pie in the sky.
BIB1 - It wasn't everything possible, as it didn't extend to independence.
BIB2 - Is this statement based on one poll?
We've no idea if we would have been richer, unless you know what our spending plans would have been.
Looking at independence now, I'll look at the current economics and not what was or wasn't said in the 70s.
I think more regional mayors would help with making English peoples voices heard, something like this:
https://www.theguardian.com/public-leaders-network/2016/mar/03/english-mayors-power-bureaucracy-devolution
(apologies for the Guardian link, I know that makes some people queasy round these parts).
More regional mayors fighting for the needs of their particular regions and grasping some powers from Westminster will hopefully mean a better deal for everyone.
Because the SNP are delusional. They believe they have the same clout as the UK Government. They don't. The EU more or less told them so too.
I watched the BBC News on Sunday and an elderly Scottish gentleman who was a lifelong Independence campaigner, told of his anger towards the SNP for using the EU as a tool to get Scots involved in the Independence movement. He said it is bonkers why a party advocating Independence would want to be swallowed up as an insignificant region in a European Superstate where Independence would never be realised. He said it isn't about Scotland vs. the UK, but purely about Scotland as an Independent country, free from all unions, working together with other countries, including the UK and EU member states, but not as part of them.
To me that is pure independence. Not the SNP's version of it.
I am married to an English girl with two English born chidren and two English born grandchildren and a large extended English family. Even though I live in Hampshire surrounded by my immediate family much of my extended family lives in the North east, Yorkshire and the Midlands. As I have pointed out in numerous replies to you and in other threads I feel just as strongly about the injustice served on large parts of the country outside of London and the home counties.
When answering your points however I am answering specific points that you continue to state about Scotland and I have to repeatedly point out the historical implications of how Scotland was treated by successive Westminster governments. What the SNP are doing is trying to redress the balance and inequality that has existsed for a very long time. No other party in Scotland has done so whether under Westminster or devolution.
On the point of my extended "English" family who either come or still live in the northern part of England, they keep being promised a northern powerhouse but promises aren't followed through but instead they have to live with the consequences as Scotland did with successive Westminster governments making the north a poor house. Believe me they wish that they had a party such as the SNP who actually fight their cause.
Yes, had England been offered some kind of solid and practical devolution at the same time as Scotland, Wales and NI, then a lot of this divisiveness might have been avoided. Whether it was controversial or not, Cameron actually, at long last, recognising the English discontent the morning after the Indy Ref was a boon for me. The Scots took it personally and the Labour Party shit themselves, but for a UK-wide PM to actually consider England as a country at long last, meant a lot to me. I understand why those English cities rejected devolution a decade or so ago, the plans were scribbled on the back of an envelope and were not solid devolution plans.
But, I agree with regional English assemblies that can actually represent the local population. I would support that wholeheartedly.
How is it anymore pie in the sky than the UK wanting to stay in the single market but without free movement of people, for example. The way I see it is that everything is up for discussion and negotiation. There's already precedents for parts of some territories to be in the EU while are others aren't.
The "Northern Powerhouse" plan was stalled by Labour Lords was it not? It hasn't been shelved or dropped. Andy Burnham even stood for the Manchester mayoral candidacy.
The simple fact is the UK is the member of the EU not Scotland and the UK will be leaving the EU. The SNP in effect want to take over the UK's membership and it ain't going to happen.
I agree. They should be offered similar powers within a federal structure.
For Greater Manchester, to be accurate.
Tell me of the time you have spent living on this earth and as a native of the UK. In your eyes how do you see the north south divide from a "South" perspective? Descibe how much has been invested in London and the home counties compared to the north since 1979?
Game, set and match I'd say.
You won't get through to someone with such a Berkshire-esque view of the world.
What? There's a world outside Berkshire? Never! Perhaps Scots might start realising that there's a world outside Scotland too! ;-)
Simplistically, (and I expect an avalanche of "ignorant, uneducated and how very dare you's) the North is run by Labour and the South is run by the Tories. The Tory areas are predominantly wealthy and the Labour areas are often run down shit holes. But Labour voters keep voting Labour because they are told Labour represent them but all Labour do is cling onto the "Tories are in Government so blame them" rhetoric. Meanwhile, down South, the Tory areas are running along quite nicely because the Tories actually know how to run things properly.
How's that? Now it's up to you to decide if you think I'm being serious or not.
I can't imagine someone from Newbury recognising the fact that Slough is in the same county as them!
That's why West Berkshire was created, so we can be seperate from Slough! Or Sloff as we call it here.
You really either do not understand what is posted or you choose to ignore the post altogether and come up with some other delusional argument.
First of all in every post I have used the term "successive" Westminster governments since 1973. I have stated that it was Edward Heath who commissioned the McCrone report but it was the Callaghan who decided to keep the report secret and successive government whether they be Tory or Labour who kept it secret.
It was under a Thatcher government who accelerated the de-industrial and manufacturing base of Britain and who invested heavily in London and the home counties through the financial sector whilst at the same time using £75 billion of oil revenue to pay down Britain's deficit.
Who represents who in the north or south is immaterial, which government whether it be Labour or Conservative is irrelevant. Since 1979 there hasn't been a slither of difference from Conservatives and Labour. Perhaps you missed the whole "New Labour" project.
You readily discount the historical perspective I have included in my posts such as not only Scotland but I have said many times over and over many parts of England who drove the industrial revolution and wealth of Britain. Contrast that with how much of that wealth was re-invested in those areas compared to London and the south during the period of the late 70's under successive "Westminster" governments. The gap of inequality between north and south, the rich and poor and the end of democratic capatalism that had propelled so much success for Britain after the second world war.
I don't post simplistic views of the difference between Scotland and England, about the north south divide, my views are based on fact and with a historical perspective something you continue to ignore.
I just can't see how "historical perspective" is going to pay for anything in an independent Scotland. Unless your one of those indy at any cost delusionals who think all with be well cos NS said so.
It is baffling how "historical perspective" is being used as a device inwhich to persuade me to change an opinion. You could say the same about why black people have issues with white people by using the slave trade as an example. Yet none of these are relevant to people who were born 30 years ago. The situation is as per today. The SNP do not have Scotland's interests at heart because if they did they would be considering the views of all Scottish voters - in the same way as the UK Government is. For example, Brexit means Brexit but the views of the very large minority must also be considered. The SNP are not considering the views of over a million Scots who voted leave. The SNP are not considering the views of the opposition parties voters who are predominantly unionists. The SNP have one goal - Scottish Independence, and they do not care who they alienate or annoy to get it.
I could if I wanted, study many elements of politics, from the 1950's to now. But we don't live in the past so therefore the way people feel now is not necessarily how they felt 50 years ago. The SNP wanted Independence long before the EU was founded. But since the EU was created, Independence seems to have changed in substance and rather than campaign for pure Independence, they seem to have become a mischief making entity, as if deliberately trying to get the backs up of their opposers in order to make noise, which ironically, is being ignored on the issues that they should be being heard on.
My replies were made to wizzywicks posts and had nothing to do with a future independent Scotland whether it is viable presently or in the near future. Perhaps you should go back to the first post and read my reply follow the debate I have with wizzywick and you will understand the context in how it was made.
The main debate is his view of the SNP and Scotland. From my viewpoint and obviously the majority of Scots believe that the SNP is the only party representing Scotland's best interests, the only party despite having a Scottish Parliament since 1997 which has won more power and control over Scottish affairs.
He also continues to bring up how Scotland is subsidised and in other threads states that England subsidises Scotland under the Barnet Formula. These are myths and you have to look at "historical" funding between Westminster and Scotland since 1980 when the Barnett formula was introduced.
As regards a "historical perspective" it may be worth reading my earlier replies to wizzywick and you will see a timline of how Scotland failed to be given the opportunity of becoming independent because of successive Westminster governments both Conservative and Labour from as early as 1973. You cannot evaluate the present circumstances without a "historical perspective" It goes to the heart of the SNP's current stance on Independence. More importantly it is why the SNP has transformed from a protest party into a party of government and an important player not only in Scottish politics but UK wide.
If Scottish people had known the facts of the 1974 McCrone report and had successive Westminster governments not lied about the true value of oil revenue and called the SNP's estimates of oil revenue as fantasy then we probably would have seen a completely different picture today. Westminster would never have voluntarily granted an independence referendum in 1974-1980 period had the McCrone report been published but that in itself would have led to huge unrest and ultimately may have had to grant one anyway.
The argument that people continue to put forward today is that Scotland is subsidised by England and would be poor if Independent. In 2014 the NO campaign was one of Fear and threats just as the same for the recent EU debate by the remain camp. It is a point which fuels the divide between Scotland and England and the resentment felt in many of the threads and posts on both sides. Many of those posting about the current Scottish Independence debate do so without any "historical perspective" but instead continue to ignore it and use supposed English subsidy to back their argument.
We can't turn the clock back but if we did and the full facts were known, the UK would present a very different picture to the world. Scotland would be independent, be a far richer country, it's population would be 70% better off per head of population. Scotland would have had a large oil fund in the same way Norway has today but it is likely that the oil fund would have been set up much earlier than Norway's if Scotland had followed George Reid's vision and backed by a second report by Lord McCrone in 1977 that an oil fund was neccessary to deal with devaluation of oil revenues.