|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51326 Posts
On September 20 2014 00:05 SCkad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2014 23:41 Pandemona wrote:On September 19 2014 23:28 SCkad wrote:On September 19 2014 21:54 Pandemona wrote:On September 19 2014 21:51 heliusx wrote: I'm interested in how this vote will effect scotland. Nearly half want out the UK and I can't blame them. 2 Million people voted no 1.6 Million voted yes 4 "constituencies" out of 32 had a majority vote of yes. The capital of Scotland was a 61-39 in favor of No. I don't see how people can write nearly half Glasgow, the second biggest city voted 53-47% in favor of yes. 194,000 Yes 169,000 No. One more, Dundee the "biggest" yes campaign city/constituency of them all, had a 57% Yes 42% No swing. 53,000 Yes 39,000 No. Pretty sure they want to stay a part of the UK. Also don't forget 16 year olds were allowed to vote in this election, with "according to experts" the majority were voting Yes. The older generation are the ones who votes no. Nitpicking here but your technically wrong about Glasgow. This Source highlights something not everyone realises, but Glasgow is actually the Biggest city in Scotland, Edinburgh is only the capitol due to it being the location of Scottish monarchy. Living in Dundee though there are a fair amount of disappointed faces, especially amongst the younger voters. I think the British government really has no choice but to go through with the campaign promises now or another referendum will be held in the future and Scotland will move away Oh ok fair enough. Yeah wasn't it most of the young voters like i addressed in my first post today that they were the ones who majority voted yes? Older generation where the no voters? It is interested to see how fucked up the government gets now due to how angry ALL the MPs are not justs the tory back benchers lol. I don't know if saying "ALL" the MP's are angry, i think it's more likely that the proposals are going to be delayed as area's like the North of England, NI and Wales especially try and use the opportunity to get themselves a deal that's closer to Scotland's in terms of power. The 2010 General Election was dominated by the Financial Crisis, I don't think I'm being presumptuous by saying that the 2015 General Election will be Dominated by the devolution debate, already there are comments by nearly all the party leaders towards answering the "West Lothian Question". Although realistically unlikely if parties want to make any big inroads into opposition Strongholds then this next election will probably be the best chance they get for a long time. If for example neither Labour nor Conservatives can put a viable and acceptable plan into their manifesto, then the Liberal Democrats could gain a lot of ground
Well this is true that the question is now going to be on that. UKIP will still gain most of the voters via immagration and EU regulations. The vote will also see a fewer amount of people turn out % wise so i don't know. General elections are stupid in this country because everyone is so fucking naive about voting that they don't even bother, yet still have the audacity to complain xD
But yeah i will be looking at devolution when choosing my vote, but like we discussed in the office today, Conservatives pretty much dragged us out of recession unlike labour who pretty much dug us deeper. That is pretty good in my books, everything big DC has done has been good. However the immigration side of things still worries me and if it means dropping out of the EU to fix it then so be it. However i can't come to vote for UKIP due to if you looked passed there impressive immigration policy you then come up short on the economical side of things :s
It's all crazy, i feel like started my own party where i take little bits of everything and just say, yep common sense prevails XD So much decisions to make in a short amount of time.
|
On September 20 2014 00:11 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2014 23:58 heliusx wrote:On September 19 2014 23:38 SatedSC2 wrote:On September 19 2014 23:08 heliusx wrote: If it helps your fragile English ego I'll say 45% instead. No. 45% is 45%. Saying "nearly half" is just like me saying "nearly 40%". 5% is a significant amount. Go read some stats textbooks. Weird thing. The US census repeatedly uses the phrase "nearly half" to refer to 45%. They probably need to go read some stats texts right? Its actually called a figure of speach. Go read some common sense textbooks. Americans also think the Imperial system makes sense. Anyway, one side had over 50% and that is what counted in the end. Whatever the case people in England, Wales and NI should be infuriated with Westminster and those three political parties for signing that 'pact' to make Scotland a special snowflake if a no vote went through. Looking at their reactions online I'm sure Nigel Farage will get a massive boost in support just in time for the 2015 elections.
We learn both metric and imperial. Then go ahead and use the stupid one.
|
On September 20 2014 00:11 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2014 23:58 heliusx wrote:On September 19 2014 23:38 SatedSC2 wrote:On September 19 2014 23:08 heliusx wrote: If it helps your fragile English ego I'll say 45% instead. No. 45% is 45%. Saying "nearly half" is just like me saying "nearly 40%". 5% is a significant amount. Go read some stats textbooks. Weird thing. The US census repeatedly uses the phrase "nearly half" to refer to 45%. They probably need to go read some stats texts right? Its actually called a figure of speach. Go read some common sense textbooks. Americans also think the Imperial system makes sense. Anyway, one side had over 50% and that is what counted in the end. Whatever the case people in England, Wales and NI should be infuriated with Westminster and those three political parties for signing that 'pact' to make Scotland a special snowflake if a no vote went through. Looking at their reactions online I'm sure Nigel Farage will get a massive boost in support just in time for the 2015 elections.
What? I'm not furious at all and I'm English. I'm all FOR devolution if it helps keep the Union together. I want devolution for other parts of the country too, and it's looking really optimistic at the moment. Probably just another moment of naivety but I do tend to get excited when proper political reform is on the agenda.
News just in the Salmond is stepping down as First Minister and as leader of the SNP. Shame really, was hoping he could drive for political change across the country... but I suppose it shows he was genuinely committed and it wasn't a cynical ploy for more devolution (which I'm sure the SNP had been accused of).
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51326 Posts
On September 20 2014 00:15 3Form wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2014 00:11 zeo wrote:On September 19 2014 23:58 heliusx wrote:On September 19 2014 23:38 SatedSC2 wrote:On September 19 2014 23:08 heliusx wrote: If it helps your fragile English ego I'll say 45% instead. No. 45% is 45%. Saying "nearly half" is just like me saying "nearly 40%". 5% is a significant amount. Go read some stats textbooks. Weird thing. The US census repeatedly uses the phrase "nearly half" to refer to 45%. They probably need to go read some stats texts right? Its actually called a figure of speach. Go read some common sense textbooks. Americans also think the Imperial system makes sense. Anyway, one side had over 50% and that is what counted in the end. Whatever the case people in England, Wales and NI should be infuriated with Westminster and those three political parties for signing that 'pact' to make Scotland a special snowflake if a no vote went through. Looking at their reactions online I'm sure Nigel Farage will get a massive boost in support just in time for the 2015 elections. What? I'm not furious at all and I'm English. I'm all FOR devolution if it helps keep the Union together. I want devolution for other parts of the country too, and it's looking really optimistic at the moment. Probably just another moment of naivety but I do tend to get excited when proper political reform is on the agenda. News just in the Salmond is stepping down as First Minister and as leader of the SNP. Shame really, was hoping he could drive for political change across the country... but I suppose it shows he was genuinely committed and it wasn't a cynical ploy for more devolution (which I'm sure the SNP had been accused of).
Or was it just a ploy for him to be "the guy" who made Scotland independent and go down in history etcetc. Why step down when like others have said it was a "win win" situation for Scotland. They either go on their own and set their own powers up, or stay together and still get new powers. Why step down when you made that change? Because he didn't want that, he wanted everything or nothing. He has had his moment in the spotlight and failed thus he goes and crawls off into the sunset again.
|
On September 20 2014 00:15 3Form wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2014 00:11 zeo wrote:On September 19 2014 23:58 heliusx wrote:On September 19 2014 23:38 SatedSC2 wrote:On September 19 2014 23:08 heliusx wrote: If it helps your fragile English ego I'll say 45% instead. No. 45% is 45%. Saying "nearly half" is just like me saying "nearly 40%". 5% is a significant amount. Go read some stats textbooks. Weird thing. The US census repeatedly uses the phrase "nearly half" to refer to 45%. They probably need to go read some stats texts right? Its actually called a figure of speach. Go read some common sense textbooks. Americans also think the Imperial system makes sense. Anyway, one side had over 50% and that is what counted in the end. Whatever the case people in England, Wales and NI should be infuriated with Westminster and those three political parties for signing that 'pact' to make Scotland a special snowflake if a no vote went through. Looking at their reactions online I'm sure Nigel Farage will get a massive boost in support just in time for the 2015 elections. What? I'm not furious at all and I'm English. I'm all FOR devolution if it helps keep the Union together. I want devolution for other parts of the country too, and it's looking really optimistic at the moment. Probably just another moment of naivety but I do tend to get excited when proper political reform is on the agenda. I'm talking about the general feeling in the rest of the UK that Scotland is holding everybody ransom, demanding free things, everything better than anybody else and more money or they will fuck everybody over.
It's not about whether technically speaking all of what I said was true, but people see their politicians on their knees, groveling... begging Scotland to stay and handing away money that isn't theirs. That is going to be the easiest message to sell during the upcoming elections: Look at how pathetically incompetent these guys are, look how they fucked it all up.
EDIT: And could somebody explain what freedoms Scotland now doesn't have as a part of the UK and yet would gain if they became a member of the EU? And how it affects the population in a negative way?
|
|
On September 20 2014 00:26 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2014 00:15 3Form wrote:On September 20 2014 00:11 zeo wrote:On September 19 2014 23:58 heliusx wrote:On September 19 2014 23:38 SatedSC2 wrote:On September 19 2014 23:08 heliusx wrote: If it helps your fragile English ego I'll say 45% instead. No. 45% is 45%. Saying "nearly half" is just like me saying "nearly 40%". 5% is a significant amount. Go read some stats textbooks. Weird thing. The US census repeatedly uses the phrase "nearly half" to refer to 45%. They probably need to go read some stats texts right? Its actually called a figure of speach. Go read some common sense textbooks. Americans also think the Imperial system makes sense. Anyway, one side had over 50% and that is what counted in the end. Whatever the case people in England, Wales and NI should be infuriated with Westminster and those three political parties for signing that 'pact' to make Scotland a special snowflake if a no vote went through. Looking at their reactions online I'm sure Nigel Farage will get a massive boost in support just in time for the 2015 elections. What? I'm not furious at all and I'm English. I'm all FOR devolution if it helps keep the Union together. I want devolution for other parts of the country too, and it's looking really optimistic at the moment. Probably just another moment of naivety but I do tend to get excited when proper political reform is on the agenda. I'm talking about the general feeling in the rest of the UK that Scotland is holding everybody ransom, demanding free things, everything better than anybody else and more money or they will fuck everybody over. It's not about whether technically speaking all of what I said was true, but people see their politicians on their knees, groveling... begging Scotland to stay and handing away money that isn't theirs. That is going to be the easiest message to sell during the upcoming elections: Look at how pathetically incompetent these guys are, look how they fucked it all up. EDIT: And could somebody explain what freedoms Scotland now doesn't have as a part of the UK and yet would gain if they became a member of the EU? And how it affects the population in a negative way?
That feeling is being overblown, and promoting hostility between partners is counter-productive at this point and i think everyone knows it.
to your question: The Scottish parliament makes a LOT of the policy decisions by itself but several big areas are known as reserved powers and the Scottish parliament has no control or authority to vote on matters regarding them. Although there are specific powers in other sections of government that are withheld some of the big areas are Defence, International Relations and constitution, which are reserved to westminister. a more complete list can be found here
|
Northern Ireland20730 Posts
On September 20 2014 00:46 SatedSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2014 00:15 3Form wrote:On September 20 2014 00:11 zeo wrote:On September 19 2014 23:58 heliusx wrote:On September 19 2014 23:38 SatedSC2 wrote:On September 19 2014 23:08 heliusx wrote: If it helps your fragile English ego I'll say 45% instead. No. 45% is 45%. Saying "nearly half" is just like me saying "nearly 40%". 5% is a significant amount. Go read some stats textbooks. Weird thing. The US census repeatedly uses the phrase "nearly half" to refer to 45%. They probably need to go read some stats texts right? Its actually called a figure of speach. Go read some common sense textbooks. Americans also think the Imperial system makes sense. Anyway, one side had over 50% and that is what counted in the end. Whatever the case people in England, Wales and NI should be infuriated with Westminster and those three political parties for signing that 'pact' to make Scotland a special snowflake if a no vote went through. Looking at their reactions online I'm sure Nigel Farage will get a massive boost in support just in time for the 2015 elections. What? I'm not furious at all and I'm English. I'm all FOR devolution if it helps keep the Union together. I want devolution for other parts of the country too, and it's looking really optimistic at the moment. Probably just another moment of naivety but I do tend to get excited when proper political reform is on the agenda. I'm all for devolution as well, but that doesn't stop me from being annoyed that Scottish MPs vote on English matters and that Scottish people get more tax money per head than England does. Frankly, all four countries should get the same level of devolution that Scotland gets and should get equal money per head. That's what should happen now. Do they get more tax money per head though? I read the other night that The Scottish are a net tax provider rather than recipient. Will chase up some sources when out of work.
|
On September 20 2014 01:22 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2014 00:46 SatedSC2 wrote:On September 20 2014 00:15 3Form wrote:On September 20 2014 00:11 zeo wrote:On September 19 2014 23:58 heliusx wrote:On September 19 2014 23:38 SatedSC2 wrote:On September 19 2014 23:08 heliusx wrote: If it helps your fragile English ego I'll say 45% instead. No. 45% is 45%. Saying "nearly half" is just like me saying "nearly 40%". 5% is a significant amount. Go read some stats textbooks. Weird thing. The US census repeatedly uses the phrase "nearly half" to refer to 45%. They probably need to go read some stats texts right? Its actually called a figure of speach. Go read some common sense textbooks. Americans also think the Imperial system makes sense. Anyway, one side had over 50% and that is what counted in the end. Whatever the case people in England, Wales and NI should be infuriated with Westminster and those three political parties for signing that 'pact' to make Scotland a special snowflake if a no vote went through. Looking at their reactions online I'm sure Nigel Farage will get a massive boost in support just in time for the 2015 elections. What? I'm not furious at all and I'm English. I'm all FOR devolution if it helps keep the Union together. I want devolution for other parts of the country too, and it's looking really optimistic at the moment. Probably just another moment of naivety but I do tend to get excited when proper political reform is on the agenda. I'm all for devolution as well, but that doesn't stop me from being annoyed that Scottish MPs vote on English matters and that Scottish people get more tax money per head than England does. Frankly, all four countries should get the same level of devolution that Scotland gets and should get equal money per head. That's what should happen now. Do they get more tax money per head though? I read the other night that The Scottish are a net tax provider rather than recipient. Will chase up some sources when out of work. Scotland (a) provides more tax per capita AND (b) gets more tax money spent per capita.
The exact net gain or loss in tax revenue depends on which economist you ask. SNP naturally claimed Scotland was a net contributor, whilst most economists I've heard seem to think it's about as close to even as you could expect.
|
Pandemonia, if everything that DC has done has been good, then I take it that you agree with the privatization of Royal Mail?
On another of your points, we would of entered recession under any government as none of the major parties would of put the safeguards in place to prevent it. Labour may be culpable in that Brown should of known better, but don't think for a second that it would not of happened under a conservative government.
On the other hand you think that it may be worth dropping out of the EU to fix an immigration problem. While you are correct in that it would certainly help with immigration, how can you complain about the economic problems caused by the banks in 2008 and not even consider the economic problems that could be caused by withdrawing from the EU? I am sure that trade agreements can and would then be made with the EU, but in the short term the UK economy would suffer, and then the following government would fix it because the fact is that after declining the economy would eventually improve no matter which party was in power.
This is the problem with British politics and probably the reason why Scotland considered independence at this time: all of the major parties either only care about themselves (tories and labour) or are inept (lib dems). As someone who is never going to have chums in the conservative party to tell me of the next cheap deal I can get when buying public assets, or as someone who does not agree with power held by trade unions, who am I to vote for? It's no wonder that the scots voted SNP.
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51326 Posts
On September 20 2014 02:40 hzflank wrote: Pandemonia, if everything that DC has done has been good, then I take it that you agree with the privatization of Royal Mail?
On another of your points, we would of entered recession under any government as none of the major parties would of put the safeguards in place to prevent it. Labour may be culpable in that Brown should of known better, but don't think for a second that it would not of happened under a conservative government.
On the other hand you think that it may be worth dropping out of the EU to fix an immigration problem. While you are correct in that it would certainly help with immigration, how can you complain about the economic problems caused by the banks in 2008 and not even consider the economic problems that could be caused by withdrawing from the EU? I am sure that trade agreements can and would then be made with the EU, but in the short term the UK economy would suffer, and then the following government would fix it because the fact is that after declining the economy would eventually improve no matter which party was in power.
This is the problem with British politics and probably the reason why Scotland considered independence at this time: all of the major parties either only care about themselves (tories and labour) or are inept (lib dems). As someone who is never going to have chums in the conservative party to tell me of the next cheap deal I can get when buying public assets, or as someone who does not agree with power held by trade unions, who am I to vote for? It's no wonder that the scots voted SNP.
No i know it wasn't labours fault we went INTO a recession it was Murica fault the world went into recession lol. However i meant that Gordon Browns party did NOTHING to help us out of it when they were in power. We went even further behind and had debts coming out of our ass' with them in charge.
Not everything i agree with, just the most important thing (imo) the economy they have done very well. Royal Mail has been failing for years and years the privatization of it doesn't effect me, i don't use royal mail and all my deliveries get delivered by DHL etc now so it didn't effect me.
Well the EU situation is different, Conservatives don't want out, they are just giving the public a referendum to keep their ass' in government which im happy with. I want some more facts just like Scotland got of the pros and cons. The trade agreements would be remade like you said and also we are pretty self sufficient now Scotland stayed with us for energy and power. I would do more research on the subject but as of now the main issue i see in this Country is over crowding and strains on public services, from Policing to NHS, all because of "free" service offered to people who come to England pay no tax and take money OUT of the economy.
Every politician looks after themselves first and then everyone else second, that is why there is no love for politics these days. HOWEVER, like i said what conservatives have done that effects me has been fine, minus the immigration failings. If they improved that and gave me some certainty on fixing the NHS aka giving them more funding they desperately needed then i would give them my vote now, but until then i will wait for more information.
I agree with your points but the last point. SNP no different to any other government. They are literally UKIP but Scotland only. "vote for us, we remove u from England give parliament power" thats it though, whats your plan when your independent...."join the EU"..so we have to give up our currency? "...." that was there only plan you heard. UKIP the same, no other plans apart from abandon the EU lol.
Anyway, we should re open this discussion when we get to spring 2015 and general election :D Should be fun though
|
On September 20 2014 00:47 SCkad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2014 00:26 zeo wrote:On September 20 2014 00:15 3Form wrote:On September 20 2014 00:11 zeo wrote:On September 19 2014 23:58 heliusx wrote:On September 19 2014 23:38 SatedSC2 wrote:On September 19 2014 23:08 heliusx wrote: If it helps your fragile English ego I'll say 45% instead. No. 45% is 45%. Saying "nearly half" is just like me saying "nearly 40%". 5% is a significant amount. Go read some stats textbooks. Weird thing. The US census repeatedly uses the phrase "nearly half" to refer to 45%. They probably need to go read some stats texts right? Its actually called a figure of speach. Go read some common sense textbooks. Americans also think the Imperial system makes sense. Anyway, one side had over 50% and that is what counted in the end. Whatever the case people in England, Wales and NI should be infuriated with Westminster and those three political parties for signing that 'pact' to make Scotland a special snowflake if a no vote went through. Looking at their reactions online I'm sure Nigel Farage will get a massive boost in support just in time for the 2015 elections. What? I'm not furious at all and I'm English. I'm all FOR devolution if it helps keep the Union together. I want devolution for other parts of the country too, and it's looking really optimistic at the moment. Probably just another moment of naivety but I do tend to get excited when proper political reform is on the agenda. I'm talking about the general feeling in the rest of the UK that Scotland is holding everybody ransom, demanding free things, everything better than anybody else and more money or they will fuck everybody over. It's not about whether technically speaking all of what I said was true, but people see their politicians on their knees, groveling... begging Scotland to stay and handing away money that isn't theirs. That is going to be the easiest message to sell during the upcoming elections: Look at how pathetically incompetent these guys are, look how they fucked it all up. EDIT: And could somebody explain what freedoms Scotland now doesn't have as a part of the UK and yet would gain if they became a member of the EU? And how it affects the population in a negative way? That feeling is being overblown, and promoting hostility between partners is counter-productive at this point and i think everyone knows it. to your question: The Scottish parliament makes a LOT of the policy decisions by itself but several big areas are known as reserved powers and the Scottish parliament has no control or authority to vote on matters regarding them. Although there are specific powers in other sections of government that are withheld some of the big areas are Defence, International Relations and constitution, which are reserved to westminister. a more complete list can be found here
Exactly this, definitely some parts of the press seem to try and foster resentment towards Scotland. I'd like to think it isn't representative of wider society though.
|
On September 20 2014 03:12 3Form wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2014 00:47 SCkad wrote:On September 20 2014 00:26 zeo wrote:On September 20 2014 00:15 3Form wrote:On September 20 2014 00:11 zeo wrote:On September 19 2014 23:58 heliusx wrote:On September 19 2014 23:38 SatedSC2 wrote:On September 19 2014 23:08 heliusx wrote: If it helps your fragile English ego I'll say 45% instead. No. 45% is 45%. Saying "nearly half" is just like me saying "nearly 40%". 5% is a significant amount. Go read some stats textbooks. Weird thing. The US census repeatedly uses the phrase "nearly half" to refer to 45%. They probably need to go read some stats texts right? Its actually called a figure of speach. Go read some common sense textbooks. Americans also think the Imperial system makes sense. Anyway, one side had over 50% and that is what counted in the end. Whatever the case people in England, Wales and NI should be infuriated with Westminster and those three political parties for signing that 'pact' to make Scotland a special snowflake if a no vote went through. Looking at their reactions online I'm sure Nigel Farage will get a massive boost in support just in time for the 2015 elections. What? I'm not furious at all and I'm English. I'm all FOR devolution if it helps keep the Union together. I want devolution for other parts of the country too, and it's looking really optimistic at the moment. Probably just another moment of naivety but I do tend to get excited when proper political reform is on the agenda. I'm talking about the general feeling in the rest of the UK that Scotland is holding everybody ransom, demanding free things, everything better than anybody else and more money or they will fuck everybody over. It's not about whether technically speaking all of what I said was true, but people see their politicians on their knees, groveling... begging Scotland to stay and handing away money that isn't theirs. That is going to be the easiest message to sell during the upcoming elections: Look at how pathetically incompetent these guys are, look how they fucked it all up. EDIT: And could somebody explain what freedoms Scotland now doesn't have as a part of the UK and yet would gain if they became a member of the EU? And how it affects the population in a negative way? That feeling is being overblown, and promoting hostility between partners is counter-productive at this point and i think everyone knows it. to your question: The Scottish parliament makes a LOT of the policy decisions by itself but several big areas are known as reserved powers and the Scottish parliament has no control or authority to vote on matters regarding them. Although there are specific powers in other sections of government that are withheld some of the big areas are Defence, International Relations and constitution, which are reserved to westminister. a more complete list can be found here Exactly this, definitely some parts of the press seem to try and foster resentment towards Scotland. I'd like to think it isn't representative of wider society though.
I think resentment of Scotland is very much in response to the perceived dislike of England coming from Scotland itself. For the majority here the union is a no-brainer, but it's very easy for politicians outside of England to blame all their problems on England, the way the UK blames its problems on the EU. That has happened a LOT in this campaign. Further, there was very little ideological talk about the union and its role in the world. If you don't share our international aims, it's not really in our interest to have Scotland in the union. In other words, if the only reasons Scotland have for staying are economic then we're clearly at ideological odds and a split will be inevitable at some point in the future.
We have a presence on the world stage that seemed almost irrelevant to Scotland in this vote.
1. United States – $30.46 billion 2. United Kingdom – $13.66 billion
Almost half as much aid spending as the US with 1/5 of their population. And we commit an even more disproportionate amount to disaster relief too. I think this is something you can be proud to be a part of, but there seemed to be very little pride. The union was more of a safe option than something people really related to.
Granted there are problems with the UK, particularly internal problems relating to inequality. I think it's likely that a socialist leaning government in Scotland would be better at dealing with this problem (although there's no chance they'd be able to afford a base living standard comparable to Norway, as was suggested), but it would be at the cost of any real international relevance. For me the choice is between inward looking and outward looking and I worry that Scotland has already decided to be inward looking and is just staying in the union for the sake of economic benefit. At that point Scotland becomes a drag on England and a backlash is inevitable.
We will see if further devolution has any effect. I feel like so long as Scotland contributes its share to joint UK expenditures, they should have complete control over their internal spending.
P.S.
George Square latest
Posted at 19:23 It is very tense in the square. It has calmed down a bit but is still very tense. Both sides have been throwing things, the police are in the middle trying to keep both sides apart. One side is singing Flower of Scotland and the other is singing Rule Britannia.
LOL, that's the kind of pride I want to see. Go unionists :p (no need for violence though, of course, but it is Glasgow).
|
It sucks because I'm working on a paper about James I/IV and it would have made it more interesting if scotland had just seceded
|
Northern Ireland20730 Posts
How are the SNP at all like UKIP?
They've had periods of power and influence and have a record that can be analysed for good or for worse, UKIP are perennial outsiders and you have only their rhetoric and promises to go by.
On independence vs the EU yeah I suppose they're both equally bloody-minded.
|
On September 20 2014 03:09 Pandemona wrote:
Not everything i agree with, just the most important thing (imo) the economy they have done very well. They hired a guy who opened up the spigots at the BoE you mean?
|
TLADT24917 Posts
so, almost half voted yes huh? I was hoping that we'll see the separation to see the impact since the movement seemed to have gained momentum big time in the last while. Oh well, maybe in another 4 years time lol
|
Northern Ireland20730 Posts
I doubt it to be honest, I see a lot of impetus for a split coming from the shockwaves of the recession and the subsequent dissatisfaction with Westminster. The further away from that we go, the less I believe we'll see this issue crop up.
Case in point, compare the public anger at the financial industry 4/5 years ago with now. The reaction to RBS and other banks leaving a potentially independent Scotland was mostly worry at the prospect, rather than the 'good riddance go fuck yourselves' you likely would have seen when public discontent was at its highest.
|
Canada10904 Posts
|
|
|
|