It's slightly ironic that the thing holding up devomax in Scotland is the English question, when that question wasn't even on the agenda pre-Scottish Referendum, something which most English were vehemently opposed to. Few people were that aware of the Scottish MPs in Westminster anomaly and those who were weren't too bothered. I do personally think that the Tories are rushing into English devolution, it is the right thing to do of course, but it does not require immediate action in the same manner as Scottish powers do.
1. The pound question was purley political an arrangement would have been made that was in the interests of both sides. IT WAS ANSWERED MANY TIMES. 2 Again it was ridiculous to think that Scotland would be excluded from the EU I have no doubt they would have found a way to include Scotland without a vote. Otherwise they would have had to expell 5.5 million Scottish members, 160,000 EU citizens would have had to leave SCotland along with with 60'000 students plus many Scots would have been expelled from working in the EU. This is just nonsense. 3 RBS was only considering moving it's brass palque HQ to comply with law. There was never any talk of moving jobs/business and RBS wrote to it's staff to tell them just that. The chance that was missed was yourself and millions of others not being informed because of the Westminster propaganda machine. All 3 of your points are complete Westminster /MSM bullshit, but you are far from alone in believing this guff.
No it's complety right but once again you believe the bullshit from Westminster /MSM You still don't get it NSIS you are being fed garbage stop eating it.
They will not be able to deliver more powers to Scotland because their backbenchers will oppose it. Therefore their strategy to include England and the rest of the UK. They have painted themselves into this corner thus ensuring that Independence is far from the dead issue they had hoped it would be.
Spurf I am absolutely impartial on this. I can see good and bad in both arguments. The Yes campaign was dynamic vocal and focussed. The Nos thought they had it in the bag months ago and rested on their laurels. As we all know, political campaigns have everything to do with perception and very little to do with the truth or what actually happens after the matter is decided. It is a classic case of fooling most of the people at a certain moment in time. As for making an argument, I can't really. Just as I couldn't make an argument for Cornwall or East Anglia or Yorkshire to stay, except they are part of a United Kingdom as is Scotland. Still a great country and on the whole, a better place to live than a great many others.. I.6 million people is a lot Spurf. But it is a fraction of the population of the UK. Besides which, a lot more Scots decided they were a part of the UK and that is the only argument that matters. One thing occurs to me though; If the result had been reversed, the No's would have been expected to bite the bullet and knuckle down to a brave new Scotland. No dissent or you would risk being called a traitor to your country (indeed many have anyway) or somehow not Scottish. This doesn't seem to be a reciprocal thing does it?
It it is not reciprocal Chirpy. The Independence of your country cannot be something you give back. None of the former British colonies/protectorates want to return to being governed by Britain. It is fundamental, what IS so surprising, surely, is that people would vote against their own Independence. Would you like England to be governed from Edinburgh? or Brussels or Berlin or even Belfast. It requires a little leap of understanding from many English people, who, as enlightened as they think they are, just cannot get there head around Scotland being a country seperate from England. If this union consisted of 4 equal countries joined together for mutual benefit then there would be no argument, it is not. Scotland , Wales and Northern Ireland can never be equal with England simply because of size. Imagine the UK joining the USA in a union, we would swallowed up and our values, needs, aspirations, etc would never be seen again. That is the position that Scotland is in. It is a different country with it's own values and cuture, whatever it votes for will always be submerged by the union. Yes I know the same might apply to Yorkshire or Cumbria etc, and perhaps they need seperate representation as well but they are not countries they are parts of a country. I would like to see all regions everywhere with a grreater measure of democracy, but we have to start by recognisning that countries should be self governing. There is only one way to go, the No's have held this up but in the end Scotland will be Independent, it is inevitable.
Every part of the UK is governed from Westminster Spurf. That's where the seat of government is. I would feel the same if it was in Belfast or Edinburgh. The practical problem with giving out powers to the regions is it puts yet another layer of bureaucracy into the mix. It's pretty academic anyway. We are actually ruled from Brussels and Strasbourg right now, with every move we make requiring an EC rubber stamp, if only we knew it.
I don't really understand why you deem the minority desires of people from a country (which Scotland hasn't been in the conventional sense for 300 years), to be any more significant than the desires of people from A.N. Other geographical region. The countries of the world were drawn up, in essence, hundreds of years ago in a world which bears little resemblance to the world of 2014. They are primarily random accidents of history, politics and combat where the subjugated people in neighbouring countries have more in common than the differing national institutions which come to separate them. This in my opinion is why the union makes sense, a (largely) common people governed by common institutions. I don't believe you can tell me why 'countryship' is at all significant when it comes to the popular desires of a geographical region. Why do the people of Scotland, who already have a large degree of autonomy, have more right to increased autonomy than the people of Cornwall, who have zero autonomy?
Where have I said that The people of Cornwall should not have autonomy. I equally do not understand why you oppose Democracy. Once again I have to bring you back to the basics. The UK is one of the least democratic countries in the developed world. We have an unelected House of Lords consisting of cronies, retired Mp's and an elite who stretch back to William the Conqueror. We have an electoral system that favours the powerful over the weak. We have cabinets consisting of the old boy network from public schools. This is after 1000 years, at this rate of progress we might get a modern progressive democracy in the year 3000. There is no advantage to Scotland in the present arangement although if you believe the lies of Westminster you might think so, as of course did our over 65's. They believed they would lose their pensions and the NHS if they voted YES because that is what they were told by Labour canvassers. This blatant lie has cost us our Independence. The advantage is very much with Westminster with Scotland's 10% of Europes fishing resources, 25% of Europes Renewable Energy, and 60% of Europes Oil. Not only does Scotland subsidise the rUK it sends more to Westminster than it gets back and what's more Westminster then borrows money on behalf of Scotland, which it does not need, and charges the interest to Scotland. WestWonga dot.com with bells on. That is the true situation which YES established through it's research. It is of course the opposite of what Westminster tells the world. I can hear you now building up to refute this as you have before, don't bother I have seen the figures and done the maths, these are facts not opinions.
Let me at this stage throw in a figure just to highlight how most of us are shafted by the Westminster elite. UK Basic State Pension is £5,881. Germans get £26,000. The French get 50% of their retiring income up to a max of 35000 Euros. How do people live on £5881 per annum?
Where did I suggest you did? What I didn't ask was for you to go over already well trodden ground in this thread, was hoping you could answer the point I made which hasn't been broached yet in the thread. What you did say is: This suggests that you think people who live in 'countries' have a greater right to autonomy than those who live in regions of countries. I thought it was quite clear from my post that I would like to know why, democratically, you believe this to be the case?
I can't answer for Spurf but imo Scotland going would have been a needed start to fairer representation which would then possibly lead to counties getting 'freedom' too.
Again, I recall nothing from Salmond on the problem that has arisen now. As for "eating garbage" that is completely nonsensical!... This has nothing to do with your usual sinister "Westminster plots" It's to do with the question of English devolution, which is being used by Cameron to try to marginalise Labour's Scottish MP's. Labour, of course, are baulking at the idea. Once again, Salmond is being wise after the event.
England in part is governed by Edinburgh, Belfast and what Cardiff is it with devolution Spurf. You mentioned about not giving your country back to the former rulers after independence but it doesn't count in the case of Scotland because it too was part of the empire building and is not ruled exclusively by England and never has been in modern times and is part of a UNION and was never a colony or protectorate. So Scotland would not have "GIVEN BACK" anything to England or Britain should I say. The Scots Nats used to have a box at Speakers Corner to "Allay English fears" about independence, strange because we never had any fears. A couple of Scots told me that they moved out of Scotland because it was so parochial up there. They didn't have to move too far to escape it did they?
Press reports saying Salmond is going to write a book, sure to be a bestseller. I know King will pre order it.
His book will be the biggest biased load of crap ever written with extreme criticism of England plastered onto the pages all the way through it.
I grow weary of Salmond and the Yes campaign's bitterness and graceless refusal to accept defeat. As for Salmond suggesting that Scotland could declare unilateral independence, words fail me!! The Yes campaign may get another chance sometime in the future. However, this time around, you lost. Get over it!!...
Get over it? Scots get over a defeat? They're still mourning Cullodden ffs. Let them declare unilateral independence, oh the hell they'd live in for decades to come, I'd laugh my whatsits off. I'd also like to know which authority is going to declare it.
My mistake, I'm obviously an idiot for having a view contrary to you and Alex salmond. Your responses, are typical of the SNP rhetoric. No facts to back up the argument, just shout it a bit louder and be a bit more aggressive. Best of luck in your sea of bitterness.
Regions are not self sufficient by definition, if they were they would be countries they are therefore not capable of Independence. However they should have clear representation the greater the better IMO. In the UK we have 1 MP for every 92,000 people, in Norway for example they have 1 MP for every 3,300. Once again the UK compares badly. People in the North of England recently rejected the chance of more local democracy, another difference to Scotland that want's more.
