As to why the Scottish people might actually want Independence, this is a link to quite a good video. Precious Few Heroes. The Case For Scottish Independence. http://vimeo.com/12458284
Yes it was a very sad day back in 79 when the SNP formed an alliance with Margaret Thatcher and tabled a motion of no confidence in the Labour government. Who knows how different things might have been if the SNP had backed Callaghan instead of Thatcher. One thing is for certain though, change would have still come, Britain could no longer compete as an industrial nation because their workers would not work for the same rates as workers in developing countries. People in Britain were buying cars made in Japan because they were better and cheaper than cars made in Britain, they were buying clothes made in the east because they were so much cheaper. That was democracy in action, the people got to vote, not once every four years they got to vote every day, they got to vote every time they walked into a shop and chose what to buy, they made their choice. So if Scotland gets independence will the residents of Leith Walk all be wearing Harris Tweed to support Scottish industry or can we expect more of the same?
Aye right, and why would Scotland ever have been under financial duress...nothing to do with constantly having to fight off pain in the arse England, I suppose. Our economy exploded and the enlightenment kicked off because we got peace from war. Peace to think and create and produce. You keep missing the point and I keep restating it. So I'm addressing this to everyone again. Please discuss the OP. I have shown reasonable forbearance, but the thread is to discuss the Scottish Independence Consultation Paper and Scottish politics, not for English people to be waffling on and on about alleged, irrelevant, tediously inaccurate schoolboy history. I have no interest whatsoever in English propaganda and actually very little in English opinion at all in this thread. The thread is about Scotland and current affairs, not for people to dump a big pile of made up rubbish about how great England is. I don't give a tinker's curse about England or its history, which we all know is entirely propaganda hogwash from beginning to end. I'm not interested in suffering arrogant fiction about how great England used to be ( "the older you get, the faster you could swim as a boy", not known for playing things down, rather for over exaggerating at every turn). You're forgetting, I'm Scottish. I know what happened in real history and I know when people are talking total crap. Talking crap is not against forum rules, but derailing threads, is. Seriously, can I ask people to please discuss the OP or take tall tales of England to a different thread...13 pages of it is beyond the call of duty.
Please feel free to talk about your consultation paper all you want, I'm not stopping you. However when someone posts things factually incorrect I do reserve the right to point this out and in your above tirade you got absolutely nothing right whatsoever.
Scottish Fred, honest and accurate as possible. The above is not a tirade (is that an insult as well as an off topic post?) it is an honest request to discuss the OP. You can spin your anti-Scottish lines in the other thread. To the person who repped me, I can't see your name so if you want to pm me instead...
This is the first of 2 comments. The first comment is in response to comments about the UK Supreme Court and Scots Law. The second comment will hopefully direct comments to the subject of the title of this thread. The following is a comment which was made some time ago to a blog post regarding the UK Supreme Court - 'Ask a Lawyer said... Bear in mind that the legal system of Scotland is regarded as predominantly Romano-Dutch. It is based on principle not precedent. The Law of England is Common Law, and founds upon precedent, not principle. Whilst it is correct to say that the Supreme Court is a British institution and there are some Scots lawyers there, it is not satisfactory to have decisions of the Scottish judiciary overturned by an organ which is mainly composed of people untrained in Scots Law. The point about the House of Lords is only partially correct, in that the House of Lords could not retrospectively unpick decisions of the Scottish Courts (or the English Courts) but it seems the Supreme Court can. In fairness to all concerned, it would appear that this was not the intention behind the setting up of the Supreme Court, as it was intended only to look at "constitutional" matters, eg disputes between devolved legislatures, or between them and Westminster. Using it for Human Rights issues is an accident of circumstances, arising from the fact that Human Rights is not a devolved matter and so is reserved to Westminster, and so is under the Supreme Court. Finally can I point out that it is not Scotland which has a "different" legal system. It is England. Every other country in Europe uses a legal system broadly similar to Scotland, based on Roman Law. Except England. England is the only country in Europe to use Common Law. That is why it would be infinitely preferable to have human rights appeals heard in Strasbourg by lawyers trained in broadly similar legal disciplines to Scots Law than in England by a majority of Common Law judges. Every other jurisdiction in Europe has Strasbourg as the ultimate court of appeal in this regard. It is our basic right to have the same for Scotland, not as an independent country, which it is not, but as a separate jurisdiction with a separate legal system (which it is).' At the present moment appeals from Scotland can be made direct to the UK Supreme Court regardless of any decision by the High Court of Justiciary. In England any appeal to the UK Supreme Court must firstly be given approval by the High Court. In his review Lord McCluskey made recommendations that would bring the Scottish legal system into line with the English legal system regarding the UK Supreme Court - in other words PARITY. Now as Viv has written "the thread is to discuss the Scottish Independence Consultation Paper and Scottish politics" Michael Follon
In answer to your second point, I think if anyone was actually interested in discussing the consultation paper they would have done it by now. Even the OP posted a link without comment on the content. In answer to your second point I think you may have missed the point I was originally making. Let me explain. Someone said that England had been taking Scotland's oil. I replied that Britain had been taking British oil. Someone replied that because the waters in the North Sea come under Scottish jurisdiction and Scotland has a separate legal system that makes it Scottish oil. I pointed out that Scottish law is still a part of British law so it is still British oil.
This is the second comment referred to in my previous comment: There was an article titled 'Holyrood has authority over referendum' which was published in The Herald newspaper on Saturday 11 February 2012. The following are excerpts from it - Seven senior Scottish constitutional experts have challenged the UK Government view that only Westminster has the legal authority to call an independence referendum. ...the intervention by the academics...is significant as it challenges the UK view that Holyrood does not have the legal authority to call a referendum. They claim it is simply wrong to argue only Westminster is in charge of constitutional issues, arguing instead the law is not nearly as clear-cut as the UK Government says. They say the argument Holyrood holds power through separate Scottish traditions of popular sovereignty can equally be made. ... ...in a contribution to the UK Constitutional Law Group the experts say allowing Westminster to grant the referendum power should not be an acknowledgment of sovereignty. "It is important any such agreement should be not taken as an unequivocal endorsement of the view Westminster alone is entitled to authorise a referendum on the constitutional future of any part of the UK," they say. The constitutional experts are Gavin Anderson, Sarah Craig, Aileen McHarg and Professor Tom Mullen from Glasgow University, and Professor Christine Bell, Professor Stephen Tierney and Professor Neil Walker from Edinburgh. "Contrary to the views of the UK Government and a number of influential commentators, we believe the legality of a referendum Bill passed under the Scotland Act as it currently stands is a more open question than has been generally acknowledged." "In other words, we believe a plausible case can be made that such a Bill would be lawful, and believe it is important these arguments are clearly set out." ... The experts say recent arguments advanced by the Advocate General, Lord Wallace, rest on a literal interpretation of the Scotland Act's bar on Holyrood doing anything which "relates to" a reserved matter, and the broad purpose of a referendum Bill would be to dissolve the Union. ...the relevant section of the Scotland Act which tells courts they should interpret Holyrood Bills "as narrowly as required to allow them to be upheld"... They also argue: "The legal effect of a referendum Bill is indisputably simply to seek the views of people in Scotland," adding: "If this is the correct approach to the identification of the Bill's purpose, then the precise wording of the referendum question would appear to be a red herring; the legal effect of the referendum is not altered by asking an indirect rather than a direct question about whether Scotland should become independent." Michael Follon
They may well be right. Who knows? There are many opinions. The question is whether Alex Salmond wants to go ahead with a referendum the legality of which may be challenged in the courts at a later date or does he want a secure watertight victory or defeat at the close of the polling?
No, the question is what factual information do you have to share regarding the Scottish Independence Consultation Paper? If you are intent on kicking off another 13 pages of irrelevant baiting, please maybe take it to another thread?
This is a discussion forum you know. You are attempting to use it for a purpose for which it was never intended. You are doomed to failure. Now please read the forum rules.
And what you don't know is, the thread was a continuation of a different discussion. I started this thread to avoid polluting the other with off topic posts. If you can please do the same, it will be much appreciated. And please note, flamebait is against the TOS you are quoting.
What flame bait? We were having an interesting discussion on the legality of the referendum till you started throwing your weight about. If you have a problem take it up with the moderators.
No if you have a problem you take it up in private with a moderator. You haven't made a relevant or accurate post in the entire thread. Or maybe you could let us know where you are actually coming from. You don't come across as Scottish obviously and you don't seem to have any knowledge or understanding of Scottish politics. So what is your actual stance on the UK union and Scottish people in general?
My stance on this is the same as my stance on much of world politics. Throughout history the people of both Scotland and England have been dumped upon by a ruling elite of psychopaths who have manipulated them with things like patriotism, fear and lies. When the people stand together we can start moving forward to a better world but while they divide and conquer we are destined to remain slaves. I have always opposed slimeballs like Salmond and Souter and I always will. They might have you in their pocket but they don't have me. At the moment revenue from North Sea oil amounts to one or two percent of the total British revenue, if the prices fluctuate it doesn't affect the economy too much. In an independent Scotland oil would constitute over an eighth of the economy, if we get peace in the Middle East Scotland goes broke.
Yet you totally ignore that Scottish devolution which has led to the referendum was a consequence of that lack of democracy particularly in Scotland and the North of England. You ignore the real politics. You ignore what this is really about so in reality you shut your eyes to the political. Scottish people are choosing democracy. English chose Corporate Globalism. Your decision. though this is as usual off topic.
Right, I'm giving in and making an off topic post in my own thread. So to summarize you are unionist. We agree on ruling psychopaths and manipulation and one such leader tied Scotland into the UK union without its consent. We don't agree that life for people in Scotland is good because we are united, so how much do you know about Scotland and the economy here? From my perspective, London is ok but there are no decent jobs up here. The UK provides a financial safety net for the unemployed, but that is no good to me. The people have no responsibility or desire to create their own wealth under UK. My personal feeling is they are subconsciously against the union and immobilised by the psychological effects of being part of the UK. In other words, until they exit the union, the national psyche will not be right and they will not take ownership of their own economy. You view Salmond as one of those psychopathic leaders, while I don't view him through rose tinted glasses but I view UK political leaders as much more likely to dump on this country than he is, perhaps because in a smaller country there is more scrutiny and direct accountability than there is in the UK set up. At the moment, being part of the UK feels very much like slavery to me. I don't like the culture, I don't like how the family has evolved into a non-family because of all the focus on materialism and when there was enough work people worked all hours in pursuit of the materialist dream and forgot about life inside the home, which has to be detrimental to both children and the elderly who are not exactly cared for within the family. I don't like UK employment policy of allowing globals to pick up investment incentives and employ people on short term contracts, then bugger off elsewhere leaving people high and dry. I don't like UK policy regarding energy on any level. Nuclear waste, nuclear weapons, nuclear power and bills through the roof while energy companies rake in astronomical profits. Who the f does that benefit, Monte Carlo banks? The pursuit of oil and how we are held to ransom over it by those countries who have it, is ridiculous. Going to war over oil is worse than ridiculous. It is criminal. We should be moving to renewables, throwing money into development short term to extricate the country from very stupid dependence on oil. Oil is a by product of the debate for me. It's transient. Scotland is innovative and will become more so unleashed from UK culture, because we are creative people and enjoy creating and working hard, we will always produce new ideas. I don't have any fear at all on that score, the people by their nature will produce if the culture supports it. Returning to Salmond, I don't see him in any idealist light. At best, he is a capable politician and more capable than any UK politician at the moment but he is human and makes mistakes. I also remember an interview when the devolved Parliament was being set up, Salmond absented himself to work elsewhere and effectively intimated he was glad to be going elsewhere as it was a terrible prospect having to set it all up. Not impressive. I personally think he is well aware of the pitfalls and it is a poisoned chalice, but he is the best man for the job and better for the country than UK and where you may see him as corrupt, I see him as Henri Quatre..."Paris is worth a mass". If he extricates Scotland from UK enslavement and releases the country's potential, his flaws are acceptable for that return.
It's not the political I shut my eyes to, I shut my eyes to the irrational. Once Scotland's economy is hydrocarbon based the Corporations have you by the short and curlies, right where they want you. Doesn't matter who you elect they'll do as they are told or else.
But he does have a wonderful intellectual understanding of your bias and more to the point...... concise! Regards Highlander
Aah...I now see your colours! You wish to sit on the fence and bat for both sides! Well you'll never lose an argument...you'll always be right! But you have no political principles nor honour.....! Regards Highlander
He's batting for the slimeball UK politicians rather than the slimeball Scottish politicians, so he has chosen sides in this at least. I can see why anyone can be a Unionist, just as I can see why anyone can be a conspiracy theorist or a religious person...its how their minds work...but it is the irrationality and virulence which gets me. It is akin to talking to a born again evangelising Christian who hears only the voices in his own head which tell him he is right and everybody else is wrong.
Their attitude to Religion leaves much to be desired . Outside the main Church in Glasgow there is a large Advertisement Board which says "Drink is your enemy " Underneath , a Jock has scribbled , " Love your Enemy "
