Sorry to disagree, but disagree I must. There was no massive support for the treaty at all - the Scottish government of the day comprised of 227 members, of whom only 100 voted in favour. What swung the vote England's way was the 25 votes from the Squadron Volante - whose numbers included badly hit investors from the failed Darien Expedition, and who accepted financial favour for their support. You make it sound as thought the population of Glasgow rose as a direct result of access to colonial markets - sorry but this is just not the case. The population increase has its roots in 1792's 'Bliadhna nan Caorach' - something many a primary school pupil could tell you - Gaelic for 'Year of the Sheep'. That was when the second wave of Highland Clearances commenced, and families were forced off the land in favour of sheep farming. The worst excesses of that occurred around 1820 and, whilst many of the displaced went overseas to Canada, USA, Australia, New Zealand, by far the greater percentage could not afford to do that - they had little option but to head for Glasgow to live in slums, if they were lucky enough to find work in the city's factories and afford a slum that is.
BB. The population increase of any city is always a result of 'push' and 'pull' factors. The fact is - there were factories in Glasgow, and the Scottish industrial revolution was heavily dependent on colonial trade which was opened up by the Union. I am not trying to belittle Scotland in any way - some of my own ancestors (Ogilvies) were amongst those forced to leave the highlands. However, trade in the south of Scotland profited greatly from the British empire - whether you like it or not, Scotland was also a colonial power.
None of the figures I have seen support the fact that Scotland has put in more than it gets back. I'm sorry but of only half of two thirds- i.e one third of the voting population want something it is not a convincing case to say the population as a whole wanted it Polls this time have as far as I have seen shown a very small change over the last two years with a small increase in the Yes vote. Hardly surprising with the weight of the Scottish government supporting it. This campaign has been too high profile for Cameron to do other than accept the outcome - even if it is by one vote. The same would apply if the UK gets to vote on EU withdrawal. I feel sorry for the Scots if they vote Yes. Labour governments spend more than they earn and always fail in these islands - maybe just maybe Scots think it will be different for them - I doubt it. Pressure will be on the Scottish govenment to hand out money right left and centre and they have no City instiutions and fat cat bankers to fleece. Still Ireland prospered for a while under EU handouts and has done OK overall so I doubt Scotland will self implode - but it will end up a worse place than in the UK
Promises, promises, but then what? It seems that if we take note of what Salmond says we are following the same sorry footpath that beguiled the French voters two and a half years ago. Economic woes, record unpopularity and attacks from the left and right all await Hollande as he makes his ârentréeâ. âThe economic recovery is here,â he said a year ago, but it has proved to be a mirage. As a consequence of this non-existent growth, France is now set to once again miss its budget deficit targets, with both a government-set target of 3.8 percent of GDP in 2014 and an EU target of 3 percent for 2015 both unlikely to be realised. Europe is losing patience with the French, who have already benefited from a two-year reprieve to meet the 2015 target, and sanctions against Paris could soon be on the way. Cutting unemployment has been another major goal of the first half of Hollandeâs presidency, but here too, the figures are going in the wrong direction. June saw unemployment rise by 0.3 percent, bringing the number of jobless to an all-time high of 3.4 million, about 11 percent of the workforce. You will have greater voice in how you are governed the nation was told. Wrong! In July, the Socialist Partyâs First Secretary, Martine Aubry, launched a scathing attack over plans to change the country's regional boundaries, making the areas larger and taking them further from the people. Teachers are being told that they have to work extra hours despite it creating problems for both the staff and parents. The former Housing Minister Cécile Duflot stated that his failure to deliver on promises to fix the economy and budget deficit had just shown up that âHe talks big and delivers nothing,â I see a very similar pattern of promises between what is on offer in Scotland and the total failure of this Socialist government here. It has taken a short period for people to realise that unless business is given the right tax regime then it will not provide the tax returns to provide the social benefits that people want. As that has not happened individuals are being forced to pay more just to maintain the current levels. Beware, this could be a very expensive mistake.
Like I say, in an independent socialist Scotland I will not live. I'm fortunate to have the choice but many many will not..... So sad. Let history take its course, I have to say despite opinion polls I see Yes having a strong chance of victory looking at the sentiment but that's the sentiment here in SNP land....
1) Then you have been looking in the wrong place... 2) Yet far less support than that managed to get Cameron & his party into power. That's unfortunately the way these things work. 3) Why bring Labour into the equation? They have as much credence here as the Conservatives.
Again the question - Socialist Government?? And another question - given your comparison of Scotland to France, where does France fit into this - http://www.newsnetscotland.com/inde...uk-even-without-oil-says-credit-suisse-report
If you don't think that the SNP has Socialist tendencies, how would you describe it? Actually I was directly comparing Hollande and his campaign with that of Salmond. Lots of promises, without being able to say exactly how he was going to achieve them. Many people were suggesting that Hollande was simply hoping that things would turn out right if he got into office. There were many unknowns about how he would pay for everything and many questions, but he was elected on an anti-Paris/government vote. There I see similar thinking, but when it actually came down to what happened it he couldn't deliver, but people are stuck with it for five years. Regarding health that is mentioned, French people have a higher life expectancy than those in the UK. How comes that parts of Scotland have 10 years less than other parts of the same country?
One of your Yesers explaining it for you... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28894505
They inexplicably appear to be viewed as left wing on these boards, yet the media claim them to be right wing. To me, they are somewhere in the middle. How come the same applies to England? Compare Manchester/Liverpool to Kensington & Chelsea - you'll find the same. Something to do with wealth I'd say...
Total bollocks from beginning to end. You need to read the history. Fascist bias again Signed by a few Lords who had lost money in South America. England offered to compensate them provided they signed away the independence of Scotland. Nothing to do with the populace who protested for months to no avail. The Marquess of Queensbury (Duke of Buccleuch) signed the deal.
Good question, some parts of Glasgow have a lower life expectancy than Gaza. Labour has been in situ for 60 years, dosen't say much for them does it. It is not just about a poor diet as popularly believed, the main cause is poverty. Questions like this tell you why Scotland one of the richest countries in the world needs Independence to address issues like this. Scotland is the only country in the world to become poorer after discovering oil. Better together
Again you haven't read the full text. The Scottish industrial revolution happened because of access to colonial trade which was opened through membership of the United Kingdom - can you dispute this ? As long as Britain was a colonial power and had a strong manufacturing base there was scarcely more than a whisper asking for independence.
Interesting then that the highest life expectancy amongst European countries is found in Italy - well above Sweden, Switzerland and Germany. I agree though that wealth is a factor but not the major one. Also, who discovered that oil, was it Scotland alone ?
I'm interested to read in the report I posted that it's believed that oil is the icing on the cake and not essential for independent economics to work. Within the same report it's clear that without oil even the initial Scottish government plans proposed which are probably not a full reflection of reality (they are politicians after all) would result in a significant defecit. Also interesting is that it appears Westminster accepts the geographical split on revenue. I would love somebody to point me at the figures for the onshore tax take in Scotland and how this is split by industrial sector, need to check these numbers and how they might stack after independence. Should be another boring non informative Salmond Darling debate tonight, hope Mr D has switched his brain and debating mind on, he really could have so easily done a much better job last time. Like other folk have said it shouldn't really be about economics though I tend to focus on this as its what gives society the foundation for a good quality of life, but it should be about that feeling of being British and proud of the fact, the aristocracy and ruling classes have and will always be resented by the bulk of the population but the way to get over that resentment is to focus on personal betterment not on blame. As such we have a reasonably meritocratic system that enables individuals to prosper with a decent enough safety net though some do fall outside it.
No not disputed, Scots were at the forefront of Empire, Glasgow was built on tobacco and slavery. Those days are over the Empire has gone and nearly all of the colonies are now independent. Scottish independence is part of this process as the UK comes to terms with where it is in the world. One of the problems is the continuing desire of politicians to retain the trappings of Empire by hanging onto the coat tails of the USA. That's why a realignment of the UK is inevitable, Scotland is leading the way as it has in so many areas throughout it's history.
I understand your position you are comfortable and it works for you so change is an uneccessary risk. I too am comfortable but I consider change is needed for the good of the whole and the benefit of our grandchildren. This is a chance to make this change in a civilised way and to finally bring our democracy into the modern world. I do not dispute that the UK has been a better place to live than most of the world but that is not to say that it has major faults which will only get worse as time moves on. All Empires rise and fall and we are at the tail end of the fall of the British Empire and right now we can still effect changes in a civilised manner, this will not neccessarily always be the case.
Do you really believe it will be better apart and for what reason? My concern as I am now over the hill so to speak is for my children and beyond that their children etc etc (hopefully). There is no doubt that Scotland is currently a good place to live, good healthcare, good education, flow crime, good environment, not overcrowded etc. You talk about a more inclusive society, I tend to think we already have one, people have choice and that is the important element. There is no doubt in my mind that the independence issue is one of power grab by a certain wannabe elite who will turn dictatorial and demand more taxation strangling the economy. We have a certain weight as part of the UK, yes we are not what we were when queenie came to the throne but I believe we still punch well above our weight and should be proud of that. Its not in any small part due to our united approach and not wasting energy on internal conflicts, the elements of the Kingdom combine very well indeed I still believe the comonwealth to be a more synergistic organization that the EU, big mistake letting down our brothers in favor of our enemies. I haven't seen any credible plans that lead me to any conclusion of potential national betterment a\s separate entities only risk and potential disasters. If you take it to the who do you trust level once again there is no way on this earth I would trust Salmond to run my house let alone country whereas I believe Cameron has done a good job of turning this country around.
