Surely that would be devo-max. That's not on the table.
Since we don't really know what 'devo max' would have entailed, I can't answer that. The point remains, as an independent country, we'd still be united geographically and under the same crown. Basically it would be a scrapping of the 1707 Act of Union - look at the state of affairs between 1603 and 1707 for an idea of what it would be like (but take out the lead makeup, open sewers, enormous breeches and the word 'prithee').
Since we don't really know what 'devo max' would have entailed, I can't answer that. The point remains, as an independent country, we'd still be united geographically and under the same crown. Basically it would be a scrapping of the 1707 Act of Union - look at the state of affairs between 1603 and 1707 for an idea of what it would be like (but take out the lead makeup, open sewers, enormous breeches and the word 'prithee').
If only it was that simple. Let's not forget politicians exist to make a mockery of all things common sense and simple.
If only it was that simple. Let's not forget politicians exist to make a mockery of all things common sense and simple.
Admittedly true - and I doubt it will be straightforward, but I suppose it boils down to whether or not the Scots want the London politicians or the Holyrood ones calling the shots. The next couple of years should be interesting, at any rate, in seeing just how UNsimple and lacking in common sense the arguments can get! :eek:
Admittedly true - and I doubt it will be straightforward, but I suppose it boils down to whether or not the Scots want the London politicians or the Holyrood ones calling the shots. The next couple of years should be interesting, at any rate, in seeing just how UNsimple and lacking in common sense the arguments can get! :eek:
don't forget Brussells (or Germany as us euro sceptics like to call the EU parliament)
Do you live in Scotland yourself or are you simply watching on from the sidelines like the majority of us?
For me the most important result of independence is cutting free from Westminster.
Strasbourg, I can live with. It's a safe bet the Scottish government wouldn't copper bottom EU laws like the UK civil service is prone to do.
So you want shot of a governing body that Scottish voters have at least some influence over dictating who's in charge but don't have a problem with an EU set-up you've effectively got no influence over at all.
don't forget Brussells (or Germany as us euro sceptics like to call the EU parliament)
Do you live in Scotland yourself or are you simply watching on from the sidelines like the majority of us?
I'm Scottish and resident in Scotland. Re: Europe, I think the idea is that a Scotland within Europe would have more say than a Scotland within the UK within Europe (as is the current setup - we're in the EU but EU matters are between Brussels and Westminster). However, if we didn't automatically become members of the EU as a successor state (and the EU are being reticent in saying what will or will not happen), then I'd welcome the chance for an independent Scotland to negotiate before joining. Cameron and the Westminster lot talk a big game about renegotiation and so on, but I really doubt that they'll put their money where their mouths are. Cameron, especially, is cagey about the future and seems to think dropping crowd-pleasing hints about the UK's future in the EU will satisfy people who want a referendum, or at least to be listened to.
So you want shot of a governing body that Scottish voters have at least some influence over dictating who's in charge but don't have a problem with an EU set-up you've effectively got no influence over at all.
Wow
I was referring to an INDEPENDENT Scotland. If we're not in the EU, Strasbourg, the Council of Ministers in Brussels and the bureaucrats there will not have direct effect on Scotland.
If an independent Scotland is in the EU, her representatives will speak directly for the people of Scotland, not through people 400 miles away with very little knowledge of contemporary Scotland as happens now.
It does seem to me that the Scottish voter much like the rest of the UK wants to get as far away from Cameron and his ilk as possible. I don't think the vote would be even close if it wasn't this disastrous government in power.
An inconvenient truth for you is that despite your assertion that most of the voters in the UK want to get rid of Cameron and his ilk they did actually win the last election.
If labour hadn't become so unpopular then the SNP wouldn't have a majority in Scotland. And we wouldn't be in this mess.
Labour did not lose seats in SCOTLAND in the general election. Should Scotland vote no to independence, the electorate will probably still vote Labour in GEs to keep the Tories out. For Holyrood, they'll vote for the best party to run the devolved matters in the interests of the people of Scotland. That could still be the SNP.
So you want shot of a governing body that Scottish voters have at least some influence over dictating who's in charge but don't have a problem with an EU set-up you've effectively got no influence over at all.
For a country with a population of just four and a half million, Ireland punches well above its weight when it comes to its influence on the world stage.
Membership of the EU has given the Irish people a voice on matters of both European and global significance, and we haven’t been shy about using it.
I find the notion of Scots knocking tories in one breath and talking up independence as being financially beneficial to a selfless, more socially concerned Scotland more than a tad ironic.
I struggle to see the difference between the Scots hating the tories for supposedly having a "f**k you we're alright jack" attitude towards the poor and the pro-independence mob wanting to do the same to the rest of the UK.
We are a devolved country, and a fair one
It's not that we're saying "f**k you we're alright jack", it's that we're saying "like us, you're all big enough to make your own decisions, and we will happily let you choose what's best for your country, but while we're at it, we'd quite like the chance to choose what's best for us too"
I don't see the problem that anybody can have with that, we are different countries that run in different ways, prioritising different things for different people, why not give both countries complete control over how they make those decisions
It's not that we're saying "f**k you we're alright jack", it's that we're saying "like us, you're all big enough to make your own decisions, and we will happily let you choose what's best for your country, but while we're at it, we'd quite like the chance to choose what's best for us too"
I don't see the problem that anybody can have with that, we are different countries that run in different ways, prioritising different things for different people, why not give both countries complete control over how they make those decisions
one could make the same case for any region of the UK right. Like my house?
one could make the same case for any region of the UK right. Like my house?
Is your house a distinct region of the UK? On 1 May 1707, was a new kingdom of Great Britain created by the political union of the kingdoms of England, Scotland and flagpole's house in accordance with the Treaty of Union, negotiated the previous year and ratified by the English, Scottish and flagpolish Parliaments passing Acts of Union?
I'm Scottish and resident in Scotland. Re: Europe, I think the idea is that a Scotland within Europe would have more say than a Scotland within the UK within Europe (as is the current setup - we're in the EU but EU matters are between Brussels and Westminster). However, if we didn't automatically become members of the EU as a successor state (and the EU are being reticent in saying what will or will not happen), then I'd welcome the chance for an independent Scotland to negotiate before joining. Cameron and the Westminster lot talk a big game about renegotiation and so on, but I really doubt that they'll put their money where their mouths are. Cameron, especially, is cagey about the future and seems to think dropping crowd-pleasing hints about the UK's future in the EU will satisfy people who want a referendum, or at least to be listened to.
Don't you think that negotiating with europe on a united front (ie the UK) gives us more leverage? United we stand and all that....
No, when our representatives go in half heartedly, unprepared to listen to any argument which isn't in the inerests of the City of London, the city of London and the South East of England!
Don't you think that negotiating with europe on a united front (ie the UK) gives us more leverage? United we stand and all that....
For one, I don't think that the Westminster government is actually going to do much renegotiating with Europe (current tactics seem to be a lot of posturing and empty bluster), and for another I'm starting to doubt that the UK (through Westminster) is going to be regarded highly enough by the EU in coming years to have much sway in possible negotiations (if they ever, indeed, come about).
Trouble is that we are no longer united. The Westminster government does what is best for the SE of England and to hell with the rest of the country;)
But if the gloves come off and both entities start competing with each other which area do you think would appear more attractive to investment and new business - Scotland or the SE of England?
Assuming there isn't a race to the bottom with respective countries effectively trying to buy said investment from underneath each other there is no escaping geography. The SE has a rail link to europe. London is as commutable from northern France as it is from Cheltenham.
But if the gloves come off and both entities start competing with each other which area do you think would appear more attractive to investment and new business - Scotland or the SE of England?
Assuming there isn't a race to the bottom with respective countries effectively trying to buy said investment from underneath each other there is no escaping geography. The SE has a rail link to europe. London is as commutable from northern France as it is from Cheltenham.
But I was thinking more of the North of England, or rather any part of England other than the SE. It will be left to just rot. Scotland , if it becomes independent will have more say than it has now . As for attractiveness to investment, why do you assume the SE would be more attractive than Scotland.?
For one, I don't think that the Westminster government is actually going to do much renegotiating with Europe (current tactics seem to be a lot of posturing and empty bluster), and for another I'm starting to doubt that the UK (through Westminster) is going to be regarded highly enough by the EU in coming years to have much sway in possible negotiations (if they ever, indeed, come about).
I'm not so sure. Europe's determination to keep the single currency is moving the goalposts. One could argue that what Europe will need to become in order to preserve the euro won't resemble the europe we all signed up for so in theory all bets could be off even before you have your referendum!! Who knows?
Cameron walked away from the table last year and looks to be waiting to see what happens next before promising anything. That strikes me as the sensible thing to do at the moment.
We, the UK are a nett contributor to Europe - that must be worth something at a negotiating table. One straight beats two individual players' pairs at cards. Logic dictates we'd have to be weaker as seperate entities doesn't it?
But if the gloves come off and both entities start competing with each other which area do you think would appear more attractive to investment and new business - Scotland or the SE of England?
Assuming there isn't a race to the bottom with respective countries effectively trying to buy said investment from underneath each other there is no escaping geography. The SE has a rail link to europe. London is as commutable from northern France as it is from Cheltenham.
I think we're assuming here that England and Scotland will be unfriendly competitors. Of course, that may well be the case; certainly, a lot of the anti-Scots have been vocal in claiming they would love an independent Scotland to fail! However, I think it would make more sense for the UK and an independent Scotland to be allies - after all, we share an island with England and Wales and are under the same crown. A successful independent Scotland could be a very useful ally to the UK in European and other international matters.
Comments
Since we don't really know what 'devo max' would have entailed, I can't answer that. The point remains, as an independent country, we'd still be united geographically and under the same crown. Basically it would be a scrapping of the 1707 Act of Union - look at the state of affairs between 1603 and 1707 for an idea of what it would be like (but take out the lead makeup, open sewers, enormous breeches and the word 'prithee').
If only it was that simple. Let's not forget politicians exist to make a mockery of all things common sense and simple.
Admittedly true - and I doubt it will be straightforward, but I suppose it boils down to whether or not the Scots want the London politicians or the Holyrood ones calling the shots. The next couple of years should be interesting, at any rate, in seeing just how UNsimple and lacking in common sense the arguments can get! :eek:
don't forget Brussells (or Germany as us euro sceptics like to call the EU parliament)
Do you live in Scotland yourself or are you simply watching on from the sidelines like the majority of us?
Strasbourg, I can live with. It's a safe bet the Scottish government wouldn't copper bottom EU laws like the UK civil service is prone to do.
So you want shot of a governing body that Scottish voters have at least some influence over dictating who's in charge but don't have a problem with an EU set-up you've effectively got no influence over at all.
Wow
I'm Scottish and resident in Scotland.
I was referring to an INDEPENDENT Scotland. If we're not in the EU, Strasbourg, the Council of Ministers in Brussels and the bureaucrats there will not have direct effect on Scotland.
If an independent Scotland is in the EU, her representatives will speak directly for the people of Scotland, not through people 400 miles away with very little knowledge of contemporary Scotland as happens now.
An inconvenient truth for you is that despite your assertion that most of the voters in the UK want to get rid of Cameron and his ilk they did actually win the last election.
If labour hadn't become so unpopular then the SNP wouldn't have a majority in Scotland. And we wouldn't be in this mess.
http://ec.europa.eu/ireland/ireland_in_the_eu/impact_of_ireland_on_eu/index_en.htm
For a country with a population of just four and a half million, Ireland punches well above its weight when it comes to its influence on the world stage.
Membership of the EU has given the Irish people a voice on matters of both European and global significance, and we haven’t been shy about using it.
We are a devolved country, and a fair one
It's not that we're saying "f**k you we're alright jack", it's that we're saying "like us, you're all big enough to make your own decisions, and we will happily let you choose what's best for your country, but while we're at it, we'd quite like the chance to choose what's best for us too"
I don't see the problem that anybody can have with that, we are different countries that run in different ways, prioritising different things for different people, why not give both countries complete control over how they make those decisions
You have a devolved house?
or do you just like adding trivial straw man arguments to debates
Is your house a distinct region of the UK? On 1 May 1707, was a new kingdom of Great Britain created by the political union of the kingdoms of England, Scotland and flagpole's house in accordance with the Treaty of Union, negotiated the previous year and ratified by the English, Scottish and flagpolish Parliaments passing Acts of Union?
Don't you think that negotiating with europe on a united front (ie the UK) gives us more leverage? United we stand and all that....
For one, I don't think that the Westminster government is actually going to do much renegotiating with Europe (current tactics seem to be a lot of posturing and empty bluster), and for another I'm starting to doubt that the UK (through Westminster) is going to be regarded highly enough by the EU in coming years to have much sway in possible negotiations (if they ever, indeed, come about).
But if the gloves come off and both entities start competing with each other which area do you think would appear more attractive to investment and new business - Scotland or the SE of England?
Assuming there isn't a race to the bottom with respective countries effectively trying to buy said investment from underneath each other there is no escaping geography. The SE has a rail link to europe. London is as commutable from northern France as it is from Cheltenham.
But I was thinking more of the North of England, or rather any part of England other than the SE. It will be left to just rot. Scotland , if it becomes independent will have more say than it has now . As for attractiveness to investment, why do you assume the SE would be more attractive than Scotland.?
I'm not so sure. Europe's determination to keep the single currency is moving the goalposts. One could argue that what Europe will need to become in order to preserve the euro won't resemble the europe we all signed up for so in theory all bets could be off even before you have your referendum!! Who knows?
Cameron walked away from the table last year and looks to be waiting to see what happens next before promising anything. That strikes me as the sensible thing to do at the moment.
We, the UK are a nett contributor to Europe - that must be worth something at a negotiating table. One straight beats two individual players' pairs at cards. Logic dictates we'd have to be weaker as seperate entities doesn't it?
I'm not sure I see why being predevolved is prerequisite to your case?
I think we're assuming here that England and Scotland will be unfriendly competitors. Of course, that may well be the case; certainly, a lot of the anti-Scots have been vocal in claiming they would love an independent Scotland to fail! However, I think it would make more sense for the UK and an independent Scotland to be allies - after all, we share an island with England and Wales and are under the same crown. A successful independent Scotland could be a very useful ally to the UK in European and other international matters.