Perhaps Labour doesn't need the Scottish MPs and from the 1920s until the 1950s the returns of Labour and Conservative were roughly equal. The point is that the position of the left is strengthened by the, now, large numbers of Labour MPs returned by Scotland. Irrespective of whether or not the rest of the country wishes to vote for the Labour party or not a return of 40+ MPs is a useful tool to have. For another party to gain a majority they have to win 326 at least of the 591 not Scottish seats (55%), whereas the Labour party need only 286 (48%); the Ulster, Welsh and not-Labour Scottish MPSs are not included here for simplicity as although the PC, UUU, SNP and other political parties are big enough as a bloc to influence what goes on they generally have less effect than the Scottish Labour return, even if SF will not take their seats.
The position of the left is almost non existant due to New Labour adopting much of the Conservatives policies. I would have sympathy for your argument if we had a proper Labour of the left, but we don't.
Agree, and as far as I can tell no one has been swayed by the arguments on either side. Just you wait for the recriminations whichever way the vote goes.
Labour is still to the left in politics; the fact that all political parties have moved towards the right is irrelevant, and some parties more than others. In relation to the Labour position of years ago New Labour would probably be more right wing than the Conservatives of years ago but that is a distracting arguement. The Labour party, wherever you view their current position on the political spectrum, have the inbuilt advantage of 40+ Scottish MPs. I appreciate there are areas in England theat will never return anything but Labour or Conservative MPs which will complicate my earlier statement, but if you look at Lewes in Sussex they have a Lib Dem MP who won the seat from the Consevatives and Brighton Pavillion has had Labour, Conservative and Green representation so things can change.
Spurf you latest film clip posting is utter tosh. An expense of GBP200M is not a scaling of 10% of GBP2.7bn it is less and how can the speaker just say his figure is "acceptable", he derides one source and offers nothing of his own as a response. We'll save this amount by not having this and that, we'll follow Denmark's model for defence and save x-amount. If you throw out the MoD and all their toys Scotland will need something and of course the new nation will want the best, no second hand Russian/Chinese stuff, and military equipment costs a lot of money, I know I used to work for defence contractors supplying hardware. When the Mod go they will take everything they can, Scotland's defence force will start from empty buildings, if they are even left that. The Danish defence budget has been growing steadily until 2008 when it reduced somewhat for 2009, but is still the fifth largest expense they have (social care is over five times larger), some DKK20bn still over GBP2bn and they had already financed the purchase of hardware such as aircraft and maritime ordnance. If Scotland think they can transition from the UK to independence for GBP200M I wish them luck, but is will not happen.
Scotland is going to be a horrible place to live especially if it is a No vote. The Yes voters have been up to their usual violent and antagonist and vandalistic ways. If the lose the vote there will be carnage in Scotchland and no foreigners will be safe from the Neanderthal skirt wearers of the Central Belt, high on smack.
As you say things can change and an Independent Scotland will force more change. Labour in Scotland will probably have to return to something like a pre Blair state to be electable. Already the group calling itself Labour for Independence represent about 30% of labour voters in this referendum, and it's growing, are talking about a new Labour prty. Likewise in rUK the partys would need to look at the new situation and adapt. Then of course as time goes on and the countries diverge the differences will start to cause even more change. Change is the name of this game.
I think you missed the point there what is your 2.7 billion figure. All of the tosh is backed up from gov figures.
Central Station? Watch out for the scum in skirts drinking Buckfast and bothering you for money. You will not believe the stench of the place. Weegies don't wash and rake through buckets for sustenance. Keep your wallet well hidden as well. Bunch of tinks.
being transferred to Dumfries though so should be fine around there. And i'm guessing that's a No stronghold!
GBP2.7bn is the figure quoted in the film between 14 and 18 seconds, first as GBP2,700,000,000 then as a figure in billions. Which government; the government of the United Kingdom trying to keep Scotland by quoting large figures as set up costs or the government in Scotland quoting ridiculously small ones? You can add or subtract whatever you wish to make the figures fit the argument, at the most puerile level how much will changing all the stationary cost or the name tags on office doors to include something along the lines of "Government of an Independent Scotland", its a set up cost, just like changing road signs on the border to read something similar, if indeed the English are to be welcomed to an independent Scotland.
If Scotland did gain independence it would really muck things up for Celtic and New Rangers wanting to play in the English league system. Unlikely as it is now it will never happen afterwards.
Very strange - on my admittedly infrequent visits to Central Station I've seen nothing like that at all. Presumably you're referring to somewhere other than Glasgow?
