Which ones? - the ones about most guys who go to war on behalf of the UK come from your country? And i thought Scotland had a proud fighting tradition, with its proud army units. Just like Yorkshire has its regiments. And other areas. - 2% voting for the queen? when did that vote happen? and the SNP says they want to keep the Queen! - increasing taxes on specific airports while maintaining subsidies at others to make specific airports uneconomic? where's that come from? - media - there is a BBC Scotland and other local channels, and independence will not change the BBC being on the tv - SNP said so. There is no prevention of media companies starting. - economy - there is nothing to stop the Scottish Government and Scottish industries in developing Scottish business. NOTHING! - not getting back the money you put in to the UK? Do you have the actual figures on that one? That's all propaganda and "poor little me" instead of getting off your arses and DOING IT. Nah. Not me. I was commenting that we are all in the same position with a London-centric Government that is full of Scots and Scottish MPs. Now that is an argument I have no truck with at all. As long as you have worked out the little details to prove that it is workable and your new policies have no detrimental impact on other countries (such as completely open borders with Europe). I actually think that the SNP has missed a trick by not having an equivalent party in England. It could start up the ENP as a co-partner, with exactly the same policies, both of which want Scotland to be independent (and thus England being independent of Scotland). If such politicians were to fight for power in a general election, with the same agenda of complete autonomy and freedom and equality, the power you crave could be yours much quicker Bucks - didn't see it, has it been removed? Would be good for me - is it in Control Panel?
Although I have no truck with the premise of the argument, I do not believe that that is actually the case in the scenario you describe. Scotland is NOT governed by England. Scotland is governed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom - which is wholly inclusive of Scotland and the other 3 nations - and is also governed by its own Parliament in Holyrood. This , incidentally, is NOT something that England actually has - its own Parliament. So it is fatuous and incorrect to claim that England governs Scotland. In essence, Scotland has more autonomy and independence than England has. And while MPs from England are unable to influence any of the decisions undertaken at Holyrood, Scottish MPs (including the SNP) vote and have an influence on EVERY DECISION THAT AFFECTS ENGLAND. My conclusion: I would be very happy for a YES vote in both Scotland and England to independence, but I really do think that your arguments should not be based on any idea that England is governing you. BTW - I didn't vote for these dickheads either, and if you haven't noticed, it is a coalition government - there was NO MAJORITY across the Union that voted in the Tories
LUFC 666, I have never suggested that England was governing Scotland, it is simply that the UK government is situated in London. As we all know it was the south and south east of England that gave the Tories and Liberal Democrats enough votes to form a coalition and in keeping with what I have stated throughout, I would support the south and south east independence from the rest of the England, so that they can keep their right winged middle class bastards in power and suffer on their own. I fully support England having its own government as I do for Wales and Northern Ireland. The people of England need to act as required and get their own government in position, what ever they feel they need I would support, as long as my country is independent from the others within the UK.
Alternatively, now that we have Parliamentary Bases in each of the 4 nations, why can't UK business actually travel and do 3 months in each place? You see, the "London" argument can be overcome with outside the box thinking rather than radical proposals. But it's not actually what you are arguing. What you are really arguing is that there are so many "english" constituencies that because you are a "nationalist" party that has not pull outside your own country and therefore can only ever produce a maximum of xxx MPs, you never have the ability to influence. Which is why I suggest the SNP should try to develop into a nation-wide poltiical party by starting up the equivalent of the SNP in England! What I would say though, is that those "right winged middle class bastards" (if I can use an economic term, those that follow Friedman's theiories) have only been in power for two years. Prior to that, for 13 years, it was the "left winged middle class bastards" (those that follow Keynesian economics) and who incidentally for the last 5 years were run by a Scottish MP whose constituency was in Scotland, who left us in this god-awful ****e position with a note left in HM Treasury "The money has all gone". So I'm not going to accept right wing versus left wing arguments on this one. I really don't like what is happening in Greece, Spain, Portugal or Italy and it is a damned sight worse than what is happening here in the UK. And all the regions have always complained about London having all the power. But, it brings in all the banking revenue (cue the wails of derision), and it brings in all the global tourism money, and it attracts all the media and spotlight of attention. All that income is shared out at the moment. Wouldn't be without the Union. And you've not provided any information to back up your previous "made up" arguments.
What I was wondering was If you were travelling inside a car (or a similar type of machine) at light speed and turned on the light, what would happen?
