Printable View
Does this mean that they were lying to us during the Election? Surely not.:whistling
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7075988.stmQuote:
He will tell a Labour youth conference in Glasgow: "Scottish Labour does not believe that Scotland would wither and die as an independent country."
The May Labour strategy was poor. It was based on a completely negative message of disaster and doom should the SNP win. The Labour media supporters mucked in with that stupid noose on the front page of the Record (or was it the Bun) on election day suggesting the Scottish people were about to commit suicide. Given the Tories tried the same scare tactics on Labour back in 97 and failed one would have to question the sanity of those in charge of the campaign.
The SNP won and the world continued to spin. Worse the SNP actually seem to have a lighter touch and a steadier hand than those we were told we could not do without. A rethink is definitely overdue from Labour - especially as Cameron appears to have decided that the Tories need to cut their loses and abandon the Union. The recent major article in the English Daily Mail (not the Scottish edition) by Tosser Hastings was so anti-Scottish that it was laughable. The rebuttal in the Herald yesterday showing that Scotland was, out of the 10 main UK regions, third least expensive highlights just how badly wrong the whole "dependent Scotland strategy" was.
If Scotland does become independent over the next 5 to 10 years I personally think the Union will have been put to the sword by the Unionists - Ironic or what? No wonder Big Eck smiles from dawn to dusk and looks like a politician at peace with the world.
For all the stuff i've seen in the papers about economists & journos coming up with figures which prove either side of the story, I struggle to reconcile the idea of an independent Scotland being one of the richest countries in the world, with my experiences of the country. I can't see where the money resides and i didn't really see enough industry to create it.Quote:
..,
"The truth of Scotland's economy", wrote Jenkins on Wednesday, "is that, like most of Salmond's voters, it depends on London money and must be weaned off it." No, Simon - the truth is that this both ignorant and patronising.
It has always been a myth that Scots are subsidised by England, but it has never been more of a myth than today. As the Herald points out in an analysis based on the official PESA figures, spending per head in Scotland is actually lower in Scotland than in London - £9,631 against £9,748. The highest spending is found in Northern Ireland, at £10,271 - but let's not go there.
London taxes do not subsidise high Scottish spending and those who make this claim know they are not telling the truth. The hundreds of billions in oil revenues which have flowed south over the last three decades more than outweigh any fiscal advantage enjoyed by Scots.
But even taking oil out of the equation, the argument is a fallacy. The raw tax take from Scotland at £49bn is only marginally lower than total public spending of £49.2bn. In fact, there is a strong case that, to achieve parity of services, Scottish spending should be higher than it is right now relative to England. Scotland has a third of the land mass of the British mainland with less than a tenth of the population. This means that services are more costly to administer. Roads in areas with low population; schools on remote islands; hospitals in areas of multiple deprivation like Glasgow.
And what the Jock-baiters conveniently omit from the balance sheet are the colossal sums spent on infrastructure projects in London - £6bn for the Jubilee line, £9bn for the Olympics, £16bn for Crossrail - all of which are supposed to represent some tangible benefit for Scotland which somehow never makes it onto the balance sheet. Any economist will tell you that London and the south east benefit disproportionately from '"non-identifiable" spending on defence, civil administration and other functions, which makes a nonsense of any claim that the metropolis is hard done by.
I loathe this kind of politics; it is as demeaning to have to write about it as it is to have to read it. But the metropolitan press has shown an irresponsibility in its treatment the Scottish condition in the last week which cannot and must not be allowed to continue unchallenged. London has turned into an egocentric village, obsessed with its own reflection in a self-serving media. London has persuaded itself that the rest of the country owes it a debt of gratitude for the way it gobbles up resources and debases our national culture. And it regards the rest of Britain as provincial and backward.
Scots are not fools; they can add up. They realise only too well that, as an independent nation, Scotland would be one of the wealthiest countries in the world. Scotland has suffered from generations of demographic attrition as London has sucked talent, capital and energy south, sending back a stipend delivered by the Barnett Formula - a fiscal device which, contrary to that other metropolitan myth, is designed to reduce Scottish relative spending rather than increase it.
Of course, Scots could go it alone within Europe tomorrow and thrive, but they don't because of a sentimental and increasingly anachronistic sense of filial obligation to England. They don't want to break things up, risk bad feeling, let emotions get out of hand. Like Robert Tressell's ragged trousered philanthropists, they feed London their wealth and skills; keep quiet about the oil, put up with people like Kelvin Mackenzie and Simon Jenkins because, well, they think its the right thing to do.
The default attitude of many metropolitan commentators is that Scots should put up or shut up - well it may come to that. But if we are heading for the velvet divorce courts, then people like Simon Jenkins may be in for a shock when it comes to dividing up the assets.
That said though, its pretty obvious it wouldn't wither and die, regardless of North Sea oil.
Once the oil has been depleted..then the picts will want to re-join the Union..
Should that scenario arise, I doubt it will, we will ask to join up with the Scandinavian countries and cut you loose altogether.:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by thewizeard
I have this strange feeling that we will take the north of England with us.:whistling
If the Global Warming predictions are accurate then a lot of England will be looking to move to Scotland, Wales and Ireland anyhoo. We won't so much re-join as be joined.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biggles
I agree, if I believed in global warming that is,:lol: The central belt of England and Ireland would be flooded under such a scenario. Because of the attitude of some of them I am disinclined to let them join us.:whistling
We'll just invade you, you silly sods :nono:
Its hard to invade over a lot of water. Come to think of it you would be invading over a lot of oil.:whistlingQuote:
Originally Posted by Barbarossa
Not really, we'll have used it all by then.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboabIts hard to invade over a lot of water. Come to think of it you would be invading over a lot of oil.:whistlingQuote:
Originally Posted by Barbarossa
If you were to believe all the scaremongers you would find about 5 million people sitting on top of the Cairngorm mountains swigging Whisky.
Now there is an idea.:)
Been there, done that, had the burgers too (Bambi's mum). :yup:Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
Just watched Braveheart the other day. If it weren't for that movie,i doubt scots would be thinking about independence so soon. :D
I take it you history lessons have not included the history of Scotland. An Australian actor with the worst Scottish accent on screen made no difference to the people who have been fighting for independence for Scotland.Quote:
Originally Posted by barakokula
We had been fighting for 280 odd years before it was made.
http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK...ActofUnion.htm
twas a joke,no harm done i hope. :) I know for your long fight for independence,at least from what I've read on the internet. But you can't deny the movie gave a little reminder to the people,forgive but never forget,that kind of stuff. At least i understood it that way,as my country was in similar situation,figting for its independence for a long time.
Cheers
Any movie with Sophie Marceau is worth watching :happy:Quote:
Originally Posted by barakokula
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...hiemarceau.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Biggles
She would make a good First Lady of an Independent Scotland.:wub:
Oh yes indeedyQuote:
Originally Posted by bigboabhttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...hiemarceau.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Biggles
She would make a good First Lady of an Independent Scotland.:wub:
:wub::wub:
I have no doubt that an Independant Scotland could survive, (and im one of those in the North of England that would much rather throw their lot in with Edinburgh than with London) however both Scotland and the rest of the Union (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) would be the poorer for it.
The SNP economics dont add up.. but there's also a spin from London that makes the Government claims of how much Scotland benefits from the Union equally false.
An example is the claim by the SNP that they can scrap Council Tax and add 2p to Income Tax, when the figure to raise the same amount would be closer to 8p on Income Tax (See the Lyons Review on Local Government Finance). In addition no Government would ignore taxing an asset that has Growth Rates of 16%, so you'd probably end up with a property tax too within a decade.
However, the spin from London uses "Costs" more appropriate to London and then applies them to Scotland, rather than the "real" costs involved. This makes it look like England is carrying Scotland, which is far from the truth. Income/expenditure per head of population is probably quite close.
I know that Scotland gets more in the way that Government Grants to Local Authorities are calculated, however when you take in the other spending by Government it is, as has been pointed out, primarily in London and the South East. This increasing Investment in the South helps those in the South, any benefit attributed to the rest of the UK is hard to prove.
Why is getting a train to Paris 1/2 an hour quicker of benefit to anyone outsid of the South East? We'd all fly anyway, or get a ferry. Most of us wouldnt even think of going via London or Kent to get into Europe. Same with Crossrail and the Olympics etc.
I very much hope Scotland do not go for independance as they would leave in their wake a permanent and increasingly Right Wing Government in Europe.
Im sure the US Republicans would be glad of the direction "England" would be taking, I dont think anyone else would... I'm sure Wales would almost immediately after go Independent, not because most of them particularly want it at the moment, but because they couldnt live within the new regime.
:O Paul...it's really, really good to see you back here and posting..I am sure I can say, we have missed you! ...now I bettter read what you written.. :)
RENTONI hate being Scottish. We're the lowest of the fucking low, the scum of the earth, the most wretched, servile, miserable, pathetic trash that was ever shat into civilization. Some people hate the English, but I don't. They're just wankers. We, on the other hand, are colonized by wankers. We can't even pick a decent culture to be colonized by. We are ruled by effete arseholes. It's a shite state of affairs and all the fresh air in the world will not make any fucking difference.The three serious walkers are receding into the distance.
The boys troop back towards the platform.
Edit: Fantastic to see Rf posting again in his natural habitat.
Why?Quote:
Originally Posted by Imagine_If
You havent been letting those damn yanks out of their cages again, have you? :unsure:
@Chalice: Ta Mate :)
Hi Rat Faced nice to see you dropping in to catch up on what the Board scoundrels are up to.
The sooner the Scots get the hell out of our country the better... why they think the English would want to listen to them whine about how oppressed they are any longer I have no idea... they can take their oil and go to hell and the sooner the better ;)
Rebuild Hadrians wall and seal the border.
Someone that thinks Watford is the North of England obviously, as Hadrians Wall is absolutley nowhere near the Scottish Border....Quote:
Originally Posted by manicgeek
The only "Region" that significantly benefits from the dispursements of monies from Government is London.. If we let London go it alone, the whole Union will be happier. :)
Thing is, it's the English who are oppressed.
We have a devolved Government which controls, amongst other things, health, education, law and order. The English have no say in these matters in Scotland. None whatsoever.
However we also send MPs to Westminster, who then make decisions and vote on all areas of legislation. Including matters which have no relevance to Scotland whatsoever. So Scottish people elect MPs to rule over Scotland. We also elect MPs to rule over England.
Good innit.
Trust me:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sextent
Most people in the North of England and Wales are very very glad of this so called interference in England.. This "Labour" Government has forgotten its roots and why the Party was formed... I shudder to think of some of the policies that may have been forced through without those Scottish MPs. :(
Well you'll be more than welcome to emigrate to Scotland then :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
Nice to see you stand for your country... the only country in the union that has been absorbed... that's right those whingeing Scottish gits are actually incorrect... but they're to thick to understand it :lol:
OMG.... you really are a traitor to England aren't you... you are going to deny that Scottish MPs have forced legislation through the UK parliament against the will of the English majority... You should be ashamed Sir.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
No, the politicians trying to push those policies should be.
Trust me, the North of England and Wales have much more in common with Scotland than with Southern England (This is Generalising, as there are pockets in the North with Southern Values (eg around York), and Pockets in the South with Northern Values (eg Parts of London)).
"New" Labour, in my book is just the same as "Tory"... I want nothing to do with it.
The "English" that you refer to are those characterised and generalised by the rest of the world: Its not me and mine.
Besides, I have ALWAYS maintained that just because the map says "England" doesnt mean to say that I accept that I'm English.
The English never did conquer the old Kingdom of Northumbria, we were a gift from the King of Norway and he didnt ask 1st. :P
Feel free to leave.
You obviously don't like the place or the people.
I'd suggest you go and read some history as well, before you go quoting it incorrectly.
Inconvenient as it may be you and yours are English... like I said feel free to leave.Quote:
In 927 Edward's successor Athelstan conquered Northumbria from the Danes, bringing the whole of England under one ruler for the first time. The Kingdom of Wessex had thus been transformed into the Kingdom of England.
Quote:
Originally Posted by manicgeek
You should choose a proper encyclopedia...
Encyclopedia BrittanicaQuote:
Eadred
...924–939), and the brother of King Edmund I (ruled 939–946). Upon Eadred's accession to power, the Northumbrians acknowledged his overlordship, but they soon proclaimed as their king Erik Bloodax, son of the Norwegian ruler Harald I Fairhair. In revenge Eadred ravaged all of Northumbria (948). The Northumbrians submitted to Eadred, but in 949 they accepted another Norse king,...
Northumbria was conquered by the Vikings, and then passed backwards and forwards between England and Norway almost up until the Norman Invasion.
The Northumbrians accepted Norse rule, not English.. even the "Earls" England put over them supported the Norse when push came to shove. (Even Harold's brother in 1065).
It wasn't until Northumbria was GIVEN to Cnut that Northumbria was recognised as part of "England" by anyone except the English.
It was not accepted by the Northumbrians; and they were still "revolting" as late as 1065 ie: Northumbria was still an "occupied territory" right up until the Norman Invasion.
The 1st "King of England" accepted by the Northumbrians as such was William I .... and that was as a result of his virtual Genocide of the North of England in 1069-70.
Even after all that, English "law" was not followed in Northumberland itself except within the walled city of Newcastle(Theoretically the Bishop of Durham was responsible, but couldnt control anywhere north of the Wear Valley (look up the history of the "Border Reivers")) until the first Duke of Northumberland was established in 1551 (John Dudley.. executed 1553).
John Dudley was the de facto ruler of England when he was named Duke of Northumberland (Henry VIII being so ill).
Truth to tell the Kings/Queens up until then prefered a "buffer" between England and Scotland and weren't bothered if those in Northumberland prefered loyalty to themselves over the Crown. "English Law" only came to the borders during the wars between England and Scotland, and left with the respective armies.
As to leaving... I'm quite happy where i am, but as I said, I have more in common politically, culturally and belief with those in Scotland than in the Home Counties.
If the Union broke up, I'd be more than happy to accept your suggestion Re: Hadrians Wall, as this would place me north of the border.