If we had PR I honestly don't think this referrendum would be happening. We don't. Scotland on the other hand does have PR. I look at this Union and it's inequalities and it's failures, it's way of behaving like a world policeman, it's hanging on to the trappings of Empire, it's lack of a modern democracy and I can't wait for Scotland to leave and show Britain how a proper modern democracy treats it's citizens.
Because Scottish politicians are going to be completely different, because... Anyone would think that they hadn't had anything to do with running the UK. Gordon Brown and Tony Blair mustn't have existed.
No because Scottish people will be deciding their own future. Government up here is quite different from London. I have already met and spoken to the Ministers of Transport, Education, Finance, Children, that is four Scottish cabinet ministers plus the presiding officer, plus at least 6 MPs and 4 MSPs. All in informal manner. Anybody in Scotland can take a question/idea into the Scottish parliament and they will look at it. Anybody can sit in on the debates AND the committees. PNP you are still thinking in terms of Westminster and its corridors of privilage and elitism. Politicians are what they are everywhere, that is why the democratic suystems are so important and that's why Scotlands needs it's Independence. On this issue PNP I am not interested in point scoring, this is the most important political issue in my lifetime, this is history and whatever happens the UK will never be the same again.
PNP is right. Salmond, and his acolytes are politicians, pure and simple. Like all politicians, they want power. I honestly don't think that Salmond, or the Yes campaign have given enough straight, understandable, or believable answers to the big questions. As I'm not Scottish, nor do I live there ( or ever plan to - far too cold and wet!) I have no axe to grind one way or the other. However, were I Scottish, Salmond and his campaign have not provided anywhere near enough compelling evidence for me to be convinced to vote for them. Which brings me to what I still believe may greatly influence the final outcome. As I have said, nowhere near enough compelling evidence has been provided for me. I suspect that may be what is in the minds of many Scots too. When it comes down to voting time, many may feel that if they vote No now, they will probably get another chance to change their minds sometime in the future - especially if the result is close. If however they vote Yes and Salmond's promised Nirvana doesn't materialise, there will almost certainly be no going back.
Do you really want me to answer your daft question. Do you really not understand the concept of Scotland being a country? Do you really not understand the difference between a country and a city within that country? Incodently Glasgow has it's own council just as Edinburgh has and to that extent they are Independent of one another.
I have linked a number of videos for those that are really interested. People who are interested may find them useful, because the ony way to find the answers to questions is on the internet. The media does not publish 90% if not 99% what YES says. You have to find it. It wont be on the tele or in the papers because they are fronting the NO position. This is a rebellion that establishment is trying to squash, they control or own the media, but we have the internet. Be prepared for a big surprise on 18th September.
It's not daft at all. The difference between a union and a country is merely a semantic one. There's no practical change. Nationality doesn't offer a binding that will force Scottish politicians to look after their citizens any more than being British would. England has been equally mistreated by those who are supposed to have it's best interests at heart. Glasgow having a council hasn't made any difference to the politicians in London, so why would it make any difference to those in Edinburgh? London has a larger population than Scotland, so should it declare independence from the rest of England? Would that be better for the people of London or the whole of the current union? Should the Basque region leave Spain? Should Belgium stay as one country, as that's what it currently is? The distinction seems entirely arbitrary. I notice that you entirely avoided the point about the EU, too. If having distant and non-national politicians influencing the country is a negative thing, then why join it? Presumably there's some benefit to it, much as there is to the union. At what point does a measure of self-determination become less important than combined bargaining power. Scottish people are already deciding their own future and that of the entire union, which is why I mentioned two of them that had been PM. The current system that you're hailing might well change if the vote calls for it to. Those ministers would take on a lot more responsibility, for a start. They also wouldn't be looking to win a referendum.
At what point does a measure of self determination become MORE important than collective bargaining power? When you're a politician desperately keen to get elected!....
Believe me PNP I am not trying to avoid any questions at all. There is as always logic to your answer but logic is not to be an end in itself here is it. Should Basque be Independent of course it should, Should Belgium be seperated into Flemish and Waloon? yes of course, that is the 'logic' of my position. These are all hangovers from empires. The EU? I have very mixed feelings about the EU personally. The idea is good the practice atm is in my view sadly not so good. It's far to big a question to deal with now. I don't really care at this stage, what is important to me is Scotland being Independent. A union of equals is one thing and that might work if both side are in agreement a union of England a country of 55 million people with Scotland and 5.5million people is never going to be equal. Incidently PNP on the question of Democracy, I like the idea of smaller is better. I would like to see Englland with greater democracy with less emphasis on London and the people of the the rest of Britain to have greater democracy, wouldn't you?
This is about the people of Scotland, not Scottish people. Yes the current system might change and that would be best decided by the people of Scotland. Scotland would also have a written constitution making sure that power stays with people and NOT politicians.
As usual I have loads of people telling me what Scotland wont have and the irony is that it does not have it atm neither does England. The UK is old fashioned undemocratic, unequal, elitist, with corrupt government and politicians, and yet you all defend it.
And, I suppose that a shiny new independent Scotland won't ever have any nasty, corrupt politicians? As governments are made up of politicians, one makes the other. Is there any other sort of politician, by the way?
So is Scotland. All countries are formed in the same way that empires are. What's the distinction? And the same logic would apply to joining the EU or Glasgow leaving a united, independent Scotland. I'd like to have an actual democracy where there are respectable alternatives to vote for and the whole thing isn't about maintaining the status quo and stripping away the rights of the average person. I'd also like to see the current corporate favouritism greatly diminished, political corruption largely eradicated and an efficient system of cooperation between countries. I don't see how any of this is aided by a Yes vote, though.
Who's defending it? The system could do with a drastic overhaul. Splitting up the system and maintaining it doesn't seem helpful, to me. Dodgy politicians will still be dodgy, despite feigning allegiance to a different flag.
OK we want the same things. My reasoning as to why a Yes vote will help this is as follows:The UK is an old democracy with a 1000 year old elite still in control through the house of lords and public schools. Although this has of course changed over the years the rate of progress is extremely slow because of these built in constraints. Only at the last election we had a chance (at last) to go for PR which in my view would change things dramatically but the Liberals who had been campaigning for this for years sold out as soon as they were handed a whiff of power. PR would have changed the dynamic and turned the UK into a progressive state. The appetite for Independence in Scotland would have been greatly diminished if PR has happened. It didn't. Not only did it not happen but the UK in the last 35 years has moved from being one of the most equal countries in the developed world to the 4th most unequal and this process continues with a vengance. I see little hope of the UK becoming a progressive society like the one you describe any time in the near future. So what difference the YES vote? If Scotlands goes it alone; first on the basis of voting patterns in Scotland over the last 50 years it will probably elect a very different government from the UK. A constitution will be drawn up. Debates are already taking place throughout Scotland of how it will be governed. Nobody I know is voting YES because they want a mini Westminster, change is the order. Projects like the Common Weal are already well under way, this may become a new political party, A Scottish Labour Party a Scottish Conservative Party will both be quite different from their UK counterparts. Land Reform acts are already being drawn up. (This is why the wealthy are supporting NO so strongly) I know you are all cynical about politicians and rightly so, I am too. A constitution provides the control to keep them in order to keep the power with the people (depending of course how it is drawn up) We have the worst of all world in the UK in that sense, we have followed the American model but without what they have (A constitution). Scotland is likely to look at Scandinavia as its model and this will produce a very different country, more like the one you describe PNP. My hope is that with a successful and more fair country on it's doorstep the people of England will start to demand the same. In my view the only way to get serious change in the UK is to back Scotland in it's bid for Independence.
I hope that you're right, Spurf. The Scandinavian model seems to be the most sensible way to go, but it would be a hard sell in the UK. A lot of people would have an issue with the justice system and the media would jump all over the tax and union issues. The fact that they're supposedly the happiest countries in the world would become a very small sidebar to the overall debate. It's ok, SD. It's not your fault and we'll always love you. Honest.
