Jump to content
Cold?
Local
Radar
Snow?

Scottish Politics 2011-2017


Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl

    So the question is: why bring it up at all?

     

    Because this is a thread on Scottish politics and looking at my payslip I see a tax deduction for 'trident weapons system located near Glasgow' on it.

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Spotted a post you think may be an issue? Please help the team by reporting it.
    • Replies 30.9k
    • Created
    • Last Reply

    Top Posters In This Topic

    • Scottish-Irish Skier

      8874

    • mountain shadow

      1528

    • skifreak

      1435

    • frogesque

      1306

    Top Posters In This Topic

    Popular Posts

    And that ignorant, offensive, rant sums up exactly why the YES campaign failed  

    Good god. What a load of boarish spiteful bile from bad losers has been posted during the night. I actually dread to think how Scotland would be run if this is representative of how the yes vote behav

    I'm disappointed in the lack of grace shown by some across the net in accepting this No vote. A complete lack of any empathy and understanding as to why fellow Scots didn't vote Yes.   I personally

    Posted Images

    Posted
  • Location: Evesham, Worcs, Albion
  • Location: Evesham, Worcs, Albion

    Because this is a thread on Scottish politics and looking at my payslip I see a tax deduction for 'trident weapons system located near Glasgow' on it.

    So does everyone else in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. 

    The point is: the presence of the nuclear submarine base at Coulport has nothing whatsoever to do with politics, Scottish or otherwise. It's entirely based on practical considerations.

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl

    So does everyone else in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
     

    The point is: the presence of the nuclear submarine base at Coulport has nothing whatsoever to do with politics, Scottish or otherwise. It's entirely based on practical considerations.

     

     

    Eh?

     

    In case you hadn't noticed, but all mainstream parties which support Scottish independence also support Scotland not hosting nor owning nuclear weapons. It has everything to do with politics. I'm pay for them with my taxes.

     

    Scotland may present a more suitable site for hosting the base geographically and based on expendable citizens, but there are big political implications. Support for removing trident alone could add a few % to yes; certainly enough to in theory swing it. CND etc were marching along with everyone else in Edinburgh...

     

    I brought the issue up once more because of the new caveat reported on C4 that trident has inherent safety problems which could lead to a serious nuclear accident. In fact the biggest risk of a nuclear 'strike' in Scotland comes not from a foreign threat, but from UK weapons hosted on it's soil.

     

    Now the astute class is not nuclear warhead armed, but still carry a nuclear reactor capable of massive environmental damage should an accident occur. This doesn't fill me with confidence:

     

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-11605365

     

    Nuclear submarine HMS Astute runs aground off Skye

     

    Let's hope a vanguard doesn't end up on the rocks.

    Edited by scottish skier
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Evesham, Worcs, Albion
  • Location: Evesham, Worcs, Albion

    And if East Anglia had proved a better base for nuclear submarines, and therefore instead of Coulport it was Shotley, all the issues you raise would still apply.  My point is: it's not about England v Scotland. As some would have it (not necessarily you).  

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl

    And if East Anglia had proved a better base for nuclear submarines, and therefore instead of Coulport it was Shotley, all the issues you raise would still apply.  My point is: it's not about England v Scotland. As some would have it (not necessarily you).  

     

    The only people trying to portray the debate as Scotland vs England are those advocating the union. They are the ones trying to promote division across Britain.

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Evesham, Worcs, Albion
  • Location: Evesham, Worcs, Albion

    The only people trying to portray the debate as Scotland vs England are those advocating the union. They are the ones trying to promote division across Britain.

    Eh?So it was Unionists who came up with the suggestion that its unfair Britain's nuclear submarine base is in a relatively remote Scottish loch and not the middle of Plymouth?  With the implication that 'England' therefore cared more about the Devonians than the people of Ystrad Clud.You keep trying to promote division.  But some of us have moved beyond our Bronze age tribal rivalries :p   We're all the same, whether you like it or not.  And even if Scotland gets independance, it'll just mean two British countries, instead of one.  Which may not even be a bad thing!.

    • Like 1
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Camborne
  • Location: Camborne

    Eh?So it was Unionists who came up with the suggestion that its unfair Britain's nuclear submarine base is in a relatively remote Scottish loch and not the middle of Plymouth? 

     

    Relatively remote? Have you been there?. There were huge industries just across the river and Glasgow just up the line.

    • Like 1
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl

    You keep trying to promote division.  But some of us have moved beyond our Bronze age tribal rivalries Posted Image   We're all the same, whether you like it or not.  And even if Scotland gets independance, it'll just mean two British countries, instead of one.  Which may not even be a bad thing!

    .

     

    Hmm, where have I ever promoted division? In what way would an independent Scotland promote division in the British isles? It should act to unify by allowing Scotland to be what it wants to be. 

     

    I happen to live in Scotland and find myself Scottish in nationality. I didn't choose this, it is an accident of birth. Scotland just exists and there's nothing any individual can do about that. Countries can't be created artificially; when that occurs tension will always be an issue and artificial states invariably break up when the purpose of their creation is removed (e.g. empires). Countries create themselves by the will of a group of people within a geographic area deciding that it is in their interests to be part of a society that broadly shares their views within the geographical area they live in. In the case of Scotland, we're looking at roughly 1100 years, of only which 300 covers being part of the union.

     

    I'm Scottish and British. Politically I have decided the latter won't offer what I want for the country that I live in. It has been a long journey for me, from not thinking much about it, to supporting a Scottish parliament, to advocating federalism and finally to saying nothing like this is going to happen so I'm going for independence.

     

    Each day that choice is reinforced by the actions of those advocating the union.

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Camborne
  • Location: Camborne
     Countries can't be created artificially; when that occurs tension will always be an issue and artificial states invariably break up when the purpose of their creation is removed (e.g. empires). Countries create themselves by the will of a group of people within a geographic area deciding that it is in their interests to be part of a society that broadly shares their views within the geographical area they live in. In the case of Scotland, we're looking at roughly 1100 years, of only which 300 covers being part of the union.

     

     

    .

     

    Very true but in a sense that applies to Yugoslavia but it was also artificial. I'm not sure empires is a good example. Complicated subject, but not regarding Scotland I must add.

     

    Nations Under Construction: Defining Artificial States

    http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1113

    • Like 1
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl

    Very true but in a sense that applies to Yugoslavia but it was also artificial. I'm not sure empires is a good example. Complicated subject, but not regarding Scotland I must add.

     

    Nations Under Construction: Defining Artificial States

    http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1113

     

    That's a very interesting article and describes concepts I've tried to apply to explain the case of Scotland and it's position with respect to the UKoGB.

     

    I mentioned empire because that was the reason for the union, including Ireland being part of it. With the British Isles as one 'home base' state, an empire could be built from there with no threat at home, e.g. Scotland's Auld Alliance with France. The formation of the UK wasn't backed by the populations of the countries involved, rather the ruling elite engineered it on both sides of the border for their own ends.

     

    As the author discusses, a common attachment to the 'artificial' state must exist for it to survive. For Britain, this attachment came from the empire; it symbolised Britain. Being part of it opened up opportunities for those higher up the ladder - i.e. those with power/money, to benefit themselves. The poor had much less of an attachment as they benefited little from it.

     

    That changed with the advent of universal suffrage, the wars and finally the formation of the welfare state / post war consensus. That created a sense of Britishness which bound people across the UK together; the late 40's to early 70's represented the pinnacle of 'Britishness' across the isles.

     

    The welfare state / post war consensus has however been under attack since the 1970's and that has contributed in a major way to the decline of Britishness in Scotland, and to an extent elsewhere in the UK. In Scotland's case, just 27% now feel British enough to state that as part of their identity.

     

    British used to represent many things in Scotland, including homes (Britain housed you), jobs (Britain gave you a job), nationalised industries, cars, gas, coal, the telephone, the NHS, universal welfare benefits, unions which united workers across the country and of course a universal postal service. Very little of these are now left and Scotland is trying to protect what is. As it protects these, e.g. no NHS privatisation, so it further becomes increasingly just Scottish.

     

    Certainly, we can't just look at the latest poll and make predictions about what will happen. We must understand everything that has happened that brought us to where we are if we are to understand what the future holds for the UK. Right now, only a radical change to a modern democratic federal state where Scotland is free to be Scotland can save it. Unionist parties however seem completely resistant to such moves and that will be the UK's undoing.

    Edited by scottish skier
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: New York City
  • Location: New York City

    You can't make it up:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-24568147

    But regional differences mean domestic customers living north of Perth will see an average rise of 11.2% - the biggest in the UK.

    Customers in the south of Scotland will see an average increase of 9.5%.

    The smallest rise is a 6.8% increase in the south west of England.

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Maddiston , Falkirk, Scotland 390ft above sea level
  • Location: Maddiston , Falkirk, Scotland 390ft above sea level

    Scotland was always going to end up independent again at some point. It's what happens to nation states. There is always a dominant or domineering member of the collective who speak with the Royal We for the entire state. That dominant country becomes the identity of the state outwith it's own borders. Think the former USSR (Russia. How many people including myself have referred to Russia as the country when it was only correct to call it the USSR or the citizens as Soviets when referring to the collective. There is also the weighted infrastructure which always favours the larger nation in the state. This has allowed England to grow and grow while Scotland's population has largely stayed between 3-5 million over hundreds of years. There are no metropolotan cities in Scotland. England has at least 3! The flag of St George is the dominant flag on the Union Jack. Wales doesn't even get a mention! Same for the Royal Navy. It's really just a St George Flag with a union flag in the corner.Imagine if it was a blue saltire with a wee union flag in the corner..would never happen of course. The BBC is broadcast from London where half the news is not relevent to Scotland. The royal family support England as does the PM. The English parliament became the British parliament and also stayed in London. The Bank of the UK is the Bank of England as they never changed the name....need I go on. We are trying to reclaim our identity up here! While the English never really lost theirs as Britain became England while Scotland became north Britain!

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Highland Scotland
  • Location: Highland Scotland

    Energy regulator Ofgem said prices were determined by suppliers competing in the British energy market and it was up to them to justify their prices and profits to consumers.

    That's just outright lies, the fact that prices are higher and increases larger in the North of Scotland is largely due to the discriminatory regulatory regime put in place by OFGEM for inflated grid access/connection charges the further away you are from London, while subsidising connections in the SE. Edited by skifreak
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl

    It's pretty scandalous that Scotland exports 90% of the oil/gas it produces, and 26% of the electrical power it produces (this growing rapidly due to the renewables boom), yet has some of the highest forecourt/fuel/power prices in the UK.

     

    Jeez, 20% (Scotland is just 8.4% of the UK population) of the UK's gas is landed at St. Fergus alone and that's set to increase big style when Laggan-Tormore comes on stream next year (projected to produce for min 30 years).

    Edited by scottish skier
    • Like 1
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Highland Scotland
  • Location: Highland Scotland

    BBC Scotland just can't help itself: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-24563958The article ends with the quote:

    What it should be is between Alistair Darling, leader of the No campaign, and Alex Salmond, leader of the Yes campaign.

    The leader of the YES campaign is Blair Jenkins, and the leader of the no camapign is Blair McDougall - but correcting the erroneous quote that end's the article doesn't suit the agenda going on here!
    • Like 2
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Carryduff, County Down 420ft ASL
  • Location: Carryduff, County Down 420ft ASL

    When is Joanne Lamont going to sort out the Grangemouth issue?, caused in part by the The Scottish Labour Party.

     

    The First Minister should not have to be getting involved in Private Company/Union disputes.

    Edited by mountain shadow
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Maddiston , Falkirk, Scotland 390ft above sea level
  • Location: Maddiston , Falkirk, Scotland 390ft above sea level

    Alistair Darling is the failed Chancellor of a failed UK economic policy. He is not in government, not even in the Con/Lib coalltion. Yet he has somehow to be given a platform with the elected first minister of Scotland on an equal billing in a debate. The mind boggles. Although I often wonder if Cameron wants to distance himself completely from Scotland...hence he has let Darling of the labour party deal with the no campaign. But at the end of the day Darling is a nobody in this debate as he holds no authority.

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl

    MORI released approval ratings from their september poll.

     

    MORI is generally more biased towards No / unionist parties due to methodology. Which means this could look even more favourable:

     

     

    Posted Image

     

    57% satisfied with a net +23%. Holy guacamole.

     

    What's really weird is that the unionist parties seem to be utterly and completely focussed on Alex Salmond and the SNP with respect to independence, making it all apparently about them only, e.g. 'Would you trust AS/the SNP with Scotland's governance (under independence)?'.

     

    Is that really the best line of attack? Jeez if that was the ballot question, then Yes would win by a landslide (62.5% Yes incidentally, a bit like my prediction).

    Edited by scottish skier
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Maddiston , Falkirk, Scotland 390ft above sea level
  • Location: Maddiston , Falkirk, Scotland 390ft above sea level

    Yes an interesting line of attack on the first minister when he is so popular. He is a canny fellow Salmond! As he has ben failry subdued and allowed the No campaigners to talk down to the Scots on a daily basis in the Unionist media.All they have created with their dirty tricks are more don't knows while the Yes vote is fairly solid at 30%. More don't knows = less no's...which means...you do the maths!

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Springfield, Chelmsford, Essex 30Mtr ASL
  • Weather Preferences: snowy or sunny but not too hot!
  • Location: Springfield, Chelmsford, Essex 30Mtr ASL

    Good Afternoon everyone,

    A link to an interesting article below re the possible implications to the Oil and Gas industries should the vote go in favour of Scottish independence:-

    http://www.offshore-technology.com/features/feature-scottish-independence-what-it-means-oil-gas-industry/?WT.mc_id=WN_Feat

    From a personal point of view I am strictly on the fence on this one as I do not know sufficient detail to make an informed decision as to whether a fully indenpendent Scotland is a good thing for that country or for the UK as a whole.

    As a matter of interest do any of the Scottish posters on here and the populous north if the border generally feel sufficiently informed to mae a reasoned judgement. I would be generally interested to know as us southerners tend to not be that aware of whar may be happening in the ongoing general debate on the subject of independence.

    Kind regards

    Dave

    • Like 1
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Maddiston , Falkirk, Scotland 390ft above sea level
  • Location: Maddiston , Falkirk, Scotland 390ft above sea level

    Hi Dave

    The problem we have up here is that the Yes campaign are not put on an equal footing by the Scottish media as the No campaign are. This is fundemental in creating mis-information and that is why there are so many don't no's. There has been a shift in the amount of people who were clearly No going to don't know. So the No campaign and the media have only tied themselves in knots with their negativity and sometimes outright nonsense. Sometimes the Unionists come out with statments which are clearly just invented to suit their arguments. However these tend to go uncheked. The opposite is the case when the Yes campaign make genuine proposals. They are subject to scrutiny by the press,the BBC,the Scottish parliament and anyone with a microphone. So if people up here really want to find out the truth they have to do their own research. That is no bad things as the people of this forum will happily engage in the study for the truth. Unfortunately people who are not politicised which is the majority, do rely on the media for the perceived truth or information. So the jist of what i am saying is that people who become informed tend to go to yes and those who are misinformed are either don't knows or no's. This is why the Yes campaign must engage with individuals and particularly those from the middle to upper classes. The working class yes vote is between 60-70% yes (they are the ones at the coal face of cuts). While the middles classes fear they have something to lose financially tend to be more cautious and may only be at 25-30% yes. The main thing we can glean at present is that there are more don't knows than there were before the campaign started and the white paper hasn't even come out yet. It is all to play for as far as I am concerned.

    • Like 1
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Springfield, Chelmsford, Essex 30Mtr ASL
  • Weather Preferences: snowy or sunny but not too hot!
  • Location: Springfield, Chelmsford, Essex 30Mtr ASL

     

    Hi DaveThe problem we have up here is that the Yes campaign are not put on an equal footing by the Scottish media as the No campaign are. This is fundemental in creating mis-information and that is why there are so many don't no's. There has been a shift in the amount of people who were clearly No going to don't know. So the No campaign and the media have only tied themselves in knots with their negativity and sometimes outright nonsense. Sometimes the Unionists come out with statments which are clearly just invented to suit their arguments. However these tend to go uncheked. The opposite is the case when the Yes campaign make genuine proposals. They are subject to scrutiny by the press,the BBC,the Scottish parliament and anyone with a microphone. So if people up here really want to find out the truth they have to do their own research. That is no bad things as the people of this forum will happily engage in the study for the truth. Unfortunately people who are not politicised which is the majority, do rely on the media for the perceived truth or information. So the jist of what i am saying is that people who become informed tend to go to yes and those who are misinformed are either don't knows or no's. This is why the Yes campaign must engage with individuals and particularly those from the middle to upper classes. The working class yes vote is between 60-70% yes (they are the ones at the coal face of cuts). While the middles classes fear they have something to lose financially tend to be more cautious and may only be at 25-30% yes. The main thing we can glean at present is that there are more don't knows than there were before the campaign started and the white paper hasn't even come out yet. It is all to play for as far as I am concerned.

     Hello November 13.Many thanks for a very informative post.Kind RegardsDave
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl

    This (from MORI) is quite remarkable.

     

    Posted Image

     

    Note the graph on the right has a typo - that's 'Net approval rating' not % Yes.

     

    A majority of Labour and Lib Dem voters are satisfied with the SNP Scottish government. Even a 3rd of Tory voters.

     

    That says something very important.

     

    --------------

     

    I wonder why this information wasn't included in the HS2 report and had to be acquired by FoI?

     

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24589652

     

    HS2 'losers' revealed after report omitted figures
     
    The areas that could lose out if a new north-to-south rail link is built have been revealed for the first time.
     
    HS2 would make more than 50 places across the UK worse off - among them Aberdeen, Bristol and Cardiff - previously unseen research by accountants KPMG suggested.
     
    Economic output would be worst affected, according to the research, in:
     
    Aberdeenshire, Aberdeen City and Moray (-£220m)
    Norfolk East (-£164m)
    Dundee and Angus (-£96m)
    Cardiff (-£68m)
    Norfolk West (-£56m)
    Edited by scottish skier
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Guest
    This topic is now closed to further replies.
    ×
    ×
    • Create New...