aderdeen you and I will not agree on this. You talk of a power grabbing elite. My reaction to that is WHAT! What is it 22 out of the 26 of the current cabinet are public schoolboy millionaires coming from a 1000 year old elite in a land where 70% of that land is owned by 3% of the people. That is an elite, the House of unelected Lords getting £300 per day PLUS expenses, that is an eilite. My basic reason for wanting Independence is to have a chance of getting away from this elite and in the long run helping England to do the same. In Scotland there has been a Labour elite running Glasgow for 60 years for example. The Labour party of the people lost its way whan Thatchers greatest achievement (Blair) took office. An Independent Scotland would see a realignment of all the political parties. I hear this about Salmond mostly from Labour party members who are miffed that he had the cheek to take their ordained place as the rulers of Scotland. What exactly has he done to deserve your contempt I ask, this is never answered. I am not an SNP member btw in fact I have never been a member of any political party like many of the people working in this referrendum for a YES vote.
I think that wherever people obtain power they tend to use it to their own benefit. The very left wing PS party is no different to the right wing UMP in that respect. Sarko lost the presidential election it is thought because he ruffled too many feathers in the political classes around Paris trying to bring some measures forward that would help people in general. Now people wish they could bring him back. I do not see that if there is a yes vote that it will make any difference in 'giving power to the people'. All politicians want to be in power and not opposition, so when they get there they will do and say whatever they think will earn them votes at the next election. When you see that the Scotland police force carries out stop and search operations three times as often as the Met in London, you can tell that something is wrong with the idea of leaving people to get on with their own business, unless of course crime rates are three times higher north of the border. On the health issue, the poorest region here down in the SW also has the worst diet, lots of fatty food, and the highest rate of wine consumption. It also has the highest rate of longevity. To say that poverty and diet are the issue is an over simplification.
It is. Genetics plays a part too and lifestyles,housing etc, you are right there are many factors. What is clear though is that the Labour party with a clear run of 60 years has not made the situation better, in fact in some areas it is worse. This is the party that should be looking after the interests of the poorest in society and clearly has not. Scotland is not going to become Independent just to be a smaller version of the UK. There is already huge discussion and debate on the chance for new politics a constitution and realignment of current parties. It's much easier to effect change in a country of 5.5 million people than large countries of 50 million plus. Another reason for Independence.
Sorry but I don't believe that the SNP are any different to other political parties. As I said above, they will say what they think the people want to hear now, but all these dreams will vanish like a puff of smoke when they are faced with hard decisions about where to make cuts or increase taxation.
You have missed the point, this is not about the SNP they may or may not get elected after Independence. The discussion is going on throughtout politics in Scotland. All will have to change in the new Scotland, Tories and Labour in particular the SNP will also have to redefine itself. If you had the full picture of Scotland now (which you clearly don't) it would be easier for you to understand. Unless you are in Scotland it is very difficult to appreciate what is going on as the media is 100% supporting the NO position. Even in Scotland of 39 newspapers only one weekly is supporting the YES case (Herald on Sunday).
If Scotland is a success as an independent nation the new independent government will take the credit. If they make Scotland a mess will they blame England for their errors?
OK, so after "Independence" where is this magical party of alternatives to the SNP going to appear from? What is its agenda to be? I really think you're pushing into Alice in Wonderland territory now. This is very much an SNP issue and you can bet that there would be at least two terms of unhindered SNP government post independence. A bit patronising to say that those outside Scotland do not have the full picture, I know I don't have the full picture and neither does anybody to be honest as the Yes campaigners refuse to give it. All anybody has is a perspective and that's based on each individuals environment and ability to process information.
aberdeen to say YES campaigners refuse to give answers is neither true nor fair. The whole YES campaign is based on finding the facts and passing them on. It is because of the one sided media that this is neccessary. My position is clear as an individual and what I seek to do along with whole YES movement is get the facts to the people. Let's not play politics there are quite enough politicians doing that.
In case you accuse me of not answering it's funny how you are the one making predictions and yet you accuse ME of being in Wonderland. Unlike you I don't know who will be the party in power in the next two elections in Scotland. Who are the alternatives? There are at least a quarter of a million Labour voters saying they will vote YES and Labour for Independence is a group already talking of a new Labour Party. The Common Weal is producing blueprints for a new Scotland and could become a new party. Then there are the Greens, various Radical Groups, and of course The Conservatives and Liberals. All of whom you must know will be a little different from their English parties in an Independent Scotland. Don't forget that Scotland has PR giving smaller parties a chance.
The party of the people no longer has a government. Today Mr Hollande dissolved it because some ministers were critical of his policies. Typical really, unless you agree you will be removed. Politicians can be quite ruthless when it comes to staying in office. I see the leadership of the SNP as exactly the same, no different, and where all this new people power is to come from is bizarre as it is not seen anywhere else in the world that I can think of. Maybe you have been influenced by repeats of Citizen Smith.
This debate is interesting - there are two main advocates of "Yes" - one is English and the other spent a period of childhood in England and if I remember correctly about 30 years in Australia. Am I roughly right on this? In Scotland there are only 4 parties that count. The Liberals average about 15% of the vote in UK 's last 5 elections and 13% in the 4 Scottish Parliamentary elections. The Conservatives 18% and 17% respectively Labour 42% and 33% SNP 20% and 27% Voter turnout averaged 66% (UK) and 52% (Scot) So in UK elections Labour average more than double the next highest party in votes - note not seats so no PR bias in these figures. SNP average only 2% more than the Tory party they so often deride. In Scottish election where turnout is only half the voting population the SNP have done better scoring an average 27% to Labour's 33% - but still only about a quarter of the vote. There is also a big "Salmond" factor in the SNP vote - when he was not their leader they fared less well. It is clear that the SNP and vote Yes are riding the crest of a wave of popularity following the mess made of the British economy in 2008 and the subsequent austerity. What a shame for the general population of Scotland if they are bounced into Independence and a miserable "Leftish" future by the charismatic Alex Salmond. The SNP follow a broadly left wing agenda - so in an Independent Scotland the 18% of the population who support the Tories will effectively be disenfranchised - yet Spurf thinks this is a new Democracy.
I think it may be time to change the course of this debate - Scotland will do what it wants, and most of us on here are English. So....my fellow sons and daughters of Albion - what will the consequences be for Ingerland ? I can already here the old Tory duffers exclaiming that what began with the loss of the Punjab has finally come down to this - only Cardiff left ! Others will see new possibilities for England. Will other areas get the same idea ? The North East, Wessex, Cornwall, Wales etc. - will Merseyside return to Ireland ? Will the remaining UK lose prestige in the World because 'only instable countries break up don't they`? Will we see a rebirth of old England culminating in the adoption of morris dancing to frighten the death out of New Zealand rugby teams ? For all of us England means something different - and I have learned to value England more through spending the last 25 years surrounded by Krauts (sorry Germans). What does Ingerland mean to you ? I am proud that my country was the first to fight a war against the absolute right of monarchs (time of Cromwell) - proud of the tradition of rural radicalism, from Wat Tyler through to Gerrard Winstanley and later the Tolpuddle martyrs. I am also proud that my country was the first to have suffragettes and the first to have such a thing as a workers cooperative. Maybe this is a chance to view some aspects of our history in a different light. Some people (my own family included) think I am unpatriotic because I refuse to acknowledge the people collectively calling themselves 'the monarchy' in any way - yet hereditary aristocracy was imposed upon the free Saxon English by force. So, who then is the patriot ? So, will we see a new era of soul searching looking to answer the question 'what is Englishness' now ? And..more importantly , can England learn anything from this breakup (if it happens)?
More to the direct point - what happens to the Union Flag - do we replace the blue with Welsh green as they are not really represented on our flag at the moment?
As far as I know Leo an alternative Union Jack has been designed simply removing the blue. Whether Australia and New Zealand would also have to change their flags I don't know.
Why? The Union Jack is included on their flags to represent their roots, and their roots were the Union as was - not what it may becomes if there is a change.
..and anywhere else that has the Union Flag (not Jack - it's only the Union Jack when flown at sea) as part of its flag - Hawaii being the most interesting one given that it's a state of the USA. Most of the other places are members of the Commonwealth and could (I think) put the Commonwealth flag in its place.
