If you are basing on PR then the views of Scotland would get about 10% weight in any argument - seems that the 90% view that is Westminsters would always carry the day.
Depends on how you look at it. For example current polling shows Labour would have an 84 seat majority in the next GE. If that's true then they don't need Scottish seats to win. If anything it's only due to scottish votes that the conservatives aren't free to run riot in this parliament, although you could have fooled me. The point is that there will be times when that 10% will be enough to swing the day.
The three main parties are acting in the best interests of Scotland by making it clear that a Sterling union will not take place. Our economy would be too dependent on petrolium products exports and any large drop in the cost of oil would leave us very exposed since we will have no ability to vary our own interest rates or spending, without tax rises. Neither of these things would go down well with employers.
Most of all though, I just dont think that the main parties will want Salmond continualy blaming 'The English' or 'The Westminster Government' or 'The London Government' if things go rapidly down hill. They will want a clean break from Salmond in order to avoid him continually picking fault with them which he does habitually.
So Wales was not a conquest and Ireland was not a conquest? Whom is rewriting history here?
Ireland was indeed colonised, but it was colonised by a lot of Scots on the will of a Scottish monarch. In fact, Scotland has a pretty rich history of being a bully to fellow Scots (Statuates of Iona, Killing Times, Reformation to name a few) and abroad in the name of Scottish interests (opium in China, plantations in the Caribbean, Panama). If you're going to bring up historical conquests in the context of an independence debate, I suggest you take a closer look at Scotland's behaviour in the past.
Labour a willing sacrifice in Osborne campaign of terror
Chancellor George Osborne appears to hope you are in what doctors call a right old state. He has threatened to deny you the pounds in your pocket. Danny Alexander, dutiful Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the son the Tory Party never had, has been quick to agree. Curiously, the Shadow Chancellor, Ed Balls, has completed the harmonising trio
"In case there was ever any doubt, Scots must now realise the union has never been an equal partnership. Vote 'yes', run, and never look back. Imagine what Westminster has in mind if Scots actually vote 'no' to keep them in permanent submission, keep the oil money flowing to the UK treasury, and have a place to park their WMD's. Apparently, Scots aren't good for anything else, and don't deserve the pound if they seek a better future.
The Sterling zone is currently comprised of the UK, Ascension and Tristan de Cunha, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, and the British Indian Ocean Territory. The Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey are in formal currency union with the UK, and are 'Crown Dependencies'. Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands, and St. Helena use a currency board to peg their pound to the UK pound. Unofficial users include Uganda, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Rwanda, Malawi, Botswana, and Mirpur in Kashmir Pakistan.
If Zimbabwe and Sierra Leone can use the pound, so can an independent Scotland."
If Zimbabwe and Sierra Leone can use the pound, so can an independent Scotland."[/I]
Its interesting when you argue against a position that has never been uttered in the first place, you are bound to win the argument.
None of those countries (the ones that are in union are protectorates, not seperate countries) are in a monetary union with the UK.
Scotland can use sterling, but as a foreign country, they wont have any control over it.
So Wales was not a conquest and Ireland was not a conquest? Whom is rewriting history here?
Where did I even say that, your just making it up. Ireland was invaded by Scotland at one point too. Most of the north of Ireland are Scottish decent as well.
Scotland despite what people would like us to believe wasn't conquered.
Labour a willing sacrifice in Osborne campaign of terror
Chancellor George Osborne appears to hope you are in what doctors call a right old state. He has threatened to deny you the pounds in your pocket. Danny Alexander, dutiful Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the son the Tory Party never had, has been quick to agree. Curiously, the Shadow Chancellor, Ed Balls, has completed the harmonising trio
Campaign of terror.
Just had to write that unbelievable line again. So a few UK politicians spell out the truth and it's likened to some terrorist bombing campaign? FFS get real.
there are loads of groups allied to political parties for independence (not found a tory one;-)) & many others not allied to a political party
But being allied to a political party isn't the same as being a political party I think when people talk about the two campaigns being "cross party", it's political parties they're referring to.
Just had to write that unbelievable line again. So a few UK politicians spell out the truth and it's likened to some terrorist bombing campaign? FFS get real.
I certainly don't feel terrorised by Westminster. Throwing words like "terror" and "fear" and around only serves to trivialises them
Business for Scotland isn't a party - it's a think tank and business network.
unlike better together, yes scotland increasingly isn't a party driven campaign -- it's gone grass roots/viral -- local group driven with many other non political groups/parties involved
unlike better together, yes scotland increasingly isn't a party driven campaign -- it's gone grass roots/viral -- local group driven with many other non political groups/parties involved
Not everyone who is going to vote for independence is part of the Yes movement, just as there's a lot of people voting no who aren't part of Better Together. Personally, I'm not really fussed by what either has to say since neither will be doing any negotiating in the event of a Yes. I'm more concerned by what the people who actually will be negotiating the terms of independence are currently saying. Yes and Better Together simply seem like middle men to me.
Just had to write that unbelievable line again. So a few UK politicians spell out the truth and it's likened to some terrorist bombing campaign? FFS get real.
Are you under the impression I wrote that article?
She didn’t think much of Business Secretary Vince Cable describing London “rather unkindly” as a huge suction machine draining the life out of the rest of the country. “I want Scotland to seek to emulate not resent the best you have to offer.”
Nicola Sturgeon with the SNP anti English rhetoric we've heard so much about from Better Together and their supporters.
Comments
Depends on how you look at it. For example current polling shows Labour would have an 84 seat majority in the next GE. If that's true then they don't need Scottish seats to win. If anything it's only due to scottish votes that the conservatives aren't free to run riot in this parliament, although you could have fooled me. The point is that there will be times when that 10% will be enough to swing the day.
Most of all though, I just dont think that the main parties will want Salmond continualy blaming 'The English' or 'The Westminster Government' or 'The London Government' if things go rapidly down hill. They will want a clean break from Salmond in order to avoid him continually picking fault with them which he does habitually.
This is conflating Welsh and Irish history with Scottish:
Ireland was indeed colonised, but it was colonised by a lot of Scots on the will of a Scottish monarch. In fact, Scotland has a pretty rich history of being a bully to fellow Scots (Statuates of Iona, Killing Times, Reformation to name a few) and abroad in the name of Scottish interests (opium in China, plantations in the Caribbean, Panama). If you're going to bring up historical conquests in the context of an independence debate, I suggest you take a closer look at Scotland's behaviour in the past.
DAILY MAIL COMMENT: Is Union sleepwalking towards poll disaster?
Funny how the article says "figures such as Sir Alex Ferguson...must start making their voices heard". Are his politics that well known?
Labour a willing sacrifice in Osborne campaign of terror
Chancellor George Osborne appears to hope you are in what doctors call a right old state. He has threatened to deny you the pounds in your pocket. Danny Alexander, dutiful Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the son the Tory Party never had, has been quick to agree. Curiously, the Shadow Chancellor, Ed Balls, has completed the harmonising trio
"In case there was ever any doubt, Scots must now realise the union has never been an equal partnership. Vote 'yes', run, and never look back. Imagine what Westminster has in mind if Scots actually vote 'no' to keep them in permanent submission, keep the oil money flowing to the UK treasury, and have a place to park their WMD's. Apparently, Scots aren't good for anything else, and don't deserve the pound if they seek a better future.
The Sterling zone is currently comprised of the UK, Ascension and Tristan de Cunha, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, and the British Indian Ocean Territory. The Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey are in formal currency union with the UK, and are 'Crown Dependencies'. Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands, and St. Helena use a currency board to peg their pound to the UK pound. Unofficial users include Uganda, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Rwanda, Malawi, Botswana, and Mirpur in Kashmir Pakistan.
If Zimbabwe and Sierra Leone can use the pound, so can an independent Scotland."
Its interesting when you argue against a position that has never been uttered in the first place, you are bound to win the argument.
None of those countries (the ones that are in union are protectorates, not seperate countries) are in a monetary union with the UK.
Scotland can use sterling, but as a foreign country, they wont have any control over it.
Where are all the others then? Why aren't they on show?
Where did I even say that, your just making it up. Ireland was invaded by Scotland at one point too. Most of the north of Ireland are Scottish decent as well.
Scotland despite what people would like us to believe wasn't conquered.
I think the other parties behind Yes are the SSP and Scottish Greens.
He as much said it on TV. There will be no plan B as the UK government will have a currency union.
How can anyone vote Yes before knowing what they will do. Even after he is told NO he still says it will happen.
Campaign of terror.
Just had to write that unbelievable line again. So a few UK politicians spell out the truth and it's likened to some terrorist bombing campaign? FFS get real.
But being allied to a political party isn't the same as being a political party
Then maybe they need to get in front of a camera occasionally as it plainly looks like Yes is run from SNP HQ.
I certainly don't feel terrorised by Westminster. Throwing words like "terror" and "fear" and around only serves to trivialises them
And Labour will rue the day. Effectively siding with Tories against Scotland - John Smith & Donald Dewar must have turned in their graves.
Business for Scotland isn't a party - it's a think tank and business network.
Not everyone who is going to vote for independence is part of the Yes movement, just as there's a lot of people voting no who aren't part of Better Together. Personally, I'm not really fussed by what either has to say since neither will be doing any negotiating in the event of a Yes. I'm more concerned by what the people who actually will be negotiating the terms of independence are currently saying. Yes and Better Together simply seem like middle men to me.
Are you under the impression I wrote that article?
She didn’t think much of Business Secretary Vince Cable describing London “rather unkindly” as a huge suction machine draining the life out of the rest of the country. “I want Scotland to seek to emulate not resent the best you have to offer.”
Nicola Sturgeon with the SNP anti English rhetoric we've heard so much about from Better Together and their supporters.