Why are so many people voting for the Conservatives on the poll?

[exnihilo]

You're not seriously suggesting that the UK government calculatedly chose to send Scots to their deaths in order to spare the English in other regiments, are you?????

[Icarus]

Quoting Senethro from 01:07, 15th Apr 2007

Quoting Icarus from 00:54, 15th Apr 2007

4. London doesn't dictate which conflicts we all enter. The democratic system of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland does. The government is the representative body of this entire state. Scottish people got a say in the decision to go to war like the rest of us did. Some Scottish people supported the war. Some Scottish people voted for it. Just because the war is unpopular now doesn't change this fact. A Scot is about to become our next Prime Minister, so it's not like the Scottish are barred from the London government you so detest. You may view the war as wrong, as being illegal, as being a complete and utter cock up, but none of that changes the fact that the government which decided to go to war was one which represented the entire country, including the Scottish. Democracies can make bad decisions too, it doesn't mean the process by which the decision was made was unfair.

HOLD IT!

When did we get the option to vote for/against war?

Uh, with every vote cast by a Scottish person in the General Election? With every vote cast by a Scottish MP in Parliament for/against the war?

[Senethro]

The first is a general election in which the war is only one of a number of issues. I'm not worried about this because I don't think war should be done by referendum.

But when did our representatives decide the matter?

[Icarus]

Quoting Senethro from 11:41, 15th Apr 2007
The first is a general election in which the war is only one of a number of issues. I'm not worried about this because I don't think war should be done by referendum.

But when did our representatives decide the matter?

Then

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2862325.stm

Or if you want a blow by blow account of who voted for or against the war:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2862397.stm

[Fraser Archibald Wallace]

Quoting exnihilo from 11:17, 15th Apr 2007
You're not seriously suggesting that the UK government calculatedly chose to send Scots to their deaths in order to spare the English in other regiments, are you?????

What I'm saying is it is easier for a London Party to ignore anti-war sentiment caused by the deaths of Scottish Soldiers than English ones.

[hr]

Scotland shall be free

[Steveo]

It's morbid and downright disrepectful, in my view, to play on this non-existant issue of Scotland somehow paying an unrealisticly high price for the war, because the implication is, no matter how intentinal or how much it is denied is that Scottish soldiers are being sacrified intentionally.

Give it up.

[hr]

Get off my internet.

[David Bean]

Quoting Fraser Archibald Wallace from 20:41, 14th Apr 2007

The Great Britian Pie, refers to the national revenue of the UK.

Congratulations: you've just fallen for two of the greatest economic fallacies in the history of the discipline: the first being that there is a fixed sum of wealth in the world that different countries, or regions within countries, must compete for, and the second, that taxation and expenditure are efficient means of driving economic growth. Wrong on both accounts.

Of this, Scotland at the moment provides a small surplus. 0.61 billion if you factor in North Sea (90% of)corporation Tax, accorrding to the UK Treasury website.

But that oil doesn't belong to Scotland: it belongs to the United Kingdom since, unless I'm very much mistaken, Scotland has never been independent during any period when we've known that the oil even existed. Was it solely Scottish money that led to the development of the oil fields? Or the efforts of Scottish politicians, civil servants, businessmen and engineers that allowed their exploitation? Obviously not. I never quite understand why Scottish nationalists believe that in the event of independence Scotland would automatically receive rights to 100% of the revenue of North Sea oil just because a lot of it happens to be stuck off the side of Scotland. I suspect in the horrible event of any independence movement achieving success, they'll be in for a rather nasty surprise.

Nowadays the issue is less clear. Unionists spread fear to keep Scotland in a Union for the reason that Scotland allows the UK goverment to stay in its 'imperial hangover'.

I'm not exactly sure what that means, but I'm a unionist and it doesn't sound like something that's true of me. How do you know it applies to any other unionist either?

The question now, is whether we wish to tow the line when the UK enters into international incidents we do not want to be part of, or wether we harbour weapons capable of devasatating entire countries. Now, it is more a question of what line we wish to take for ourselves. And the multitude of lines, the infinite facets of every choice that we will make to ensure the best future for ourselves, must be ones tailored to our needs. Not the domineering, imperial notions of a country, dead in comparrison to its previous glory. The recent Iran crisis showed this.

Again I find myself quite at a loss to understand what the Iran hostage crisis is supposed to have showed about anything even vaguely relevant to the subject at hand, but as far the more comprehensible parts of that paragraph are concerned, they're just wrong. What is it that makes you think Scotland is so opposed to issues like Trident and the Iraq war - so much more so than the rest of the country? Noisy protesters are irrelevant. Opinion polls, even, are irrelevant, so long as people continue to vote for parties - including Labour - whose members did absolutely nothing to oppose these issues in the UK Parliament. If there was any real evidence of the Scottish political establishment repeatedly clashing with that of the rest of the UK on international matters, you might have an argument here that Scotland really does have a distinct and incompatible set of values. As things stand, there's no such evidence, which in turn means that there's nothing to to suggest that the behaviour of an independent Scotland would be any different at all to that of Scotland within the UK.

And if you have any doubt over the shadow polititians cast over bio-tech, or indeed other industries, cast a look over to Londons best friend, G. Bush, and his attitudes to the enviroment, and more specifically, his recent presidential veto over stem-cell research.

Well, America is still one of the world's leaders in green technologies despite the intransigence of its political leadership, which rather goes to support my argument that the views and actions of politicians are ultimately far less relevant than those of private corporations. As to Bush's veto of fderal stem cell funding, you might have half a point there - only half, since the vetoed bill referred to federal funding of research, not the legality of it taking place - but all that shows is that politicians can harm an industry by actively legislating to hijack it, and I don't see any similar action being taken over here by politicians of any party, or stance on the status of Scotland.

And as I mentioned above, Scotland is the only place in the UK where you can raise taxes, without losing votes. There are many other diffirent examples of how Scotland feels diffirent.

This could be taken to mean one of two things: either that Scots are stupid, because they don't notice when taxes increase, or that Scots are for a larger public sector, because they don't care. Neither possibility exactly fills me with hope as to the prospects for an independent Scotland. If you seriously think that Scotland's ecopnomy would do anything other than tank with any action other than that followed by the smaller nations of post-communist Eastern Europe - that is, massive reductions in taxation, the possible introduction of a flat tax, a slashing of government expenditure particularly on social security, and as much further privatisation as possible, you are utterly mistaken. It's hillarious how unwilling those nationalists who point to these Eastern European countries as an example of how an independent Scotland could prosper, almost never say anything about the policies that led to their growth. All we see at the moment from the Scottish Parliament is the continuation of failed statist policies, which only haven't led to total failure so far because of the breaks established by the UK government.

And I don't like the pessimist's argument against nationalism, but that's the real reason why Scotland could not survive on its own: because the Scots just don't have the balls to do what they'd have to.

Mr Bean, apart from your mind seeming like your television counterparts, I'd also like to add that I think you lack charisma, character, and vision and rejoice in the fact at what that says about the rest of the conservatives at St Andrews.

Well, there's a last resort of an impoverished argument, if ever I've seen one.

[hr]

Psalm 91:7

[Odysseus]

On that second last point, Mr Bean, surely you'd have to admit to lacking the balls yourself? Is that your primary reason for being against independence?


As it stands, people will vote for the candidates on offer - Who seems like a more creditable and intelligent politician - McConnell or Salmond? Lets be honest, its a battle between those two and anyone who thinks otherwise is, frankly, deluded.

[hr]

Walk into the bright lights of sorrow, oh drink a bit of wine and we both might go tommorow, my love...

[Humphrey]

It's hillarious how unwilling those nationalists who point to these Eastern European countries as an example of how an independent Scotland could prosper, almost never say anything about the policies that led to their growth. All we see at the moment from the Scottish Parliament is the continuation of failed statist policies, which only haven't led to total failure so far because of the breaks established by the UK government.

I like the idea of Scottish Independence because by extension it leads to English Indpendence. The problem for Scotland is that it has to be the right kind of country with the right kind of policies to forge a successful nation. Scotland has contributed more than its fair share of succesful businesspeople and entrepreneurs, but currently they all head south where the money is; a lot of them seem to view thier home country with a mixture of love and loathing because it cannot offer them the oppotunities they require. If Scotland can ditch the worst excesses of socialism, slim down its public sector and use independence as a rallying cry to build up its commerce and enterprise then perhaps it can be a success. In the light of this, perhaps consrvatives should be arguing that Scottish independence in tandem with conservative values is the way forward.

[hr]

http://www.livejournal.com/users/humphrey_clarke/

[McK]

Quoting Humphrey from 14:53, 15th Apr 2007

It's hillarious how unwilling those nationalists who point to these Eastern European countries as an example of how an independent Scotland could prosper, almost never say anything about the policies that led to their growth. All we see at the moment from the Scottish Parliament is the continuation of failed statist policies, which only haven't led to total failure so far because of the breaks established by the UK government.

I like the idea of Scottish Independence because by extension it leads to English Indpendence. The problem for Scotland is that it has to be the right kind of country with the right kind of policies to forge a successful nation. Scotland has contributed more than its fair share of succesful businesspeople and entrepreneurs, but currently they all head south where the money is; a lot of them seem to view thier home country with a mixture of love and loathing because it cannot offer them the oppotunities they require. If Scotland can ditch the worst excesses of socialism, slim down its public sector and use independence as a rallying cry to build up its commerce and enterprise then perhaps it can be a success. In the light of this, perhaps consrvatives should be arguing that Scottish independence in tandem with conservative values is the way forward.

[hr]

http://www.livejournal.com/users/humphrey_clarke/

Yes, yes. I agree. I think, unfortunately, that the independence issue in Scotland is inextricably linked (for now) with left-leaning parties. In my view this ought not to be the case and the Tories ought to have cottoned on to the fact that, whilst it would be difficult to reject the 'and Unionist' element of their party, they might do very well to appeal to those small-'c' conservatives who are pro-independence.

[Fraser Archibald Wallace]

Quoting David Bean from 13:14, 15th Apr 2007

Quoting Fraser Archibald Wallace from 20:41, 14th Apr 2007

The Great Britian Pie, refers to the national revenue of the UK.

Not at all, it varies, but you can still talk of revenue in the idea that as it grows/wanes/ whatever, Scotland must take its share of whatever it can out of this Union. And not just economically either, culturally and socially, Scotland should demand, if it is in the Union, to be placed first.

Of this, Scotland at the moment provides a small surplus. 0.61 billion if you factor in North Sea (90% of)corporation Tax, accorrding to the UK Treasury website.

Yo, cockmunch, as you will see if you read the section again, it says 90%. By any interpretation of international law, that is what Scotland deserves WHEN it splits out of the union

Nowadays the issue is less clear. Unionists spread fear to keep Scotland in a Union for the reason that Scotland allows the UK goverment to stay in its 'imperial hangover'.

The Fact that you don't realise what the Iranian crisis has to do with this term,shows you embrace the attitude which causes London to have this 'Imperial Hangover'.

The question now, is whether we wish to tow the line when the UK enters into international incidents we do not want to be part of, or wether we harbour weapons capable of devasatating entire countries. Now, it is more a question of what line we wish to take for ourselves. And the multitude of lines, the infinite facets of every choice that we will make to ensure the best future for ourselves, must be ones tailored to our needs. Not the domineering, imperial notions of a country, dead in comparrison to its previous glory. The recent Iran crisis showed this.

What about the SNP clashing with London? Labour is controlled by London, that is one factor that drives people to the SNP.

And if you have any doubt over the shadow polititians cast over bio-tech, or indeed other industries, cast a look over to Londons best friend, G. Bush, and his attitudes to the enviroment, and more specifically, his recent presidential veto over stem-cell research.

America is not the leader, far from it, and is still the worst Polluter in the world...You really are a fanny, and what about the Creationist issue, for another,more powerful example?

And as I mentioned above, Scotland is the only place in the UK where you can raise taxes, without losing votes. There are many other diffirent examples of how Scotland feels diffirent.

Its all wheels and rounabouts, Bean, and I am quite sure Scotland will find its way, when it is independent.
[
quote]Mr Bean, apart from your mind seeming like your television counterparts, I'd also like to add that I think you lack charisma, character, and vision and rejoice in the fact at what that says about the rest of the conservatives at St Andrews.

Impoverished argument? Your so far behind on issues you can't even keep up. And you have a tiny head. That makes me laugh too.

[hr]

[/quote]

[hr]

Scotland shall be free

[Humphrey]

Quoting Fraser Archibald Wallace from 16:27, 15th Apr 2007

Quoting David Bean from 13:14, 15th Apr 2007

Quoting Fraser Archibald Wallace from 20:41, 14th Apr 2007

The Great Britian Pie, refers to the national revenue of the UK.

Not at all, it varies, but you can still talk of revenue in the idea that as it grows/wanes/ whatever, Scotland must take its share of whatever it can out of this Union. And not just economically either, culturally and socially, Scotland should demand, if it is in the Union, to be placed first.

Of this, Scotland at the moment provides a small surplus. 0.61 billion if you factor in North Sea (90% of)corporation Tax, accorrding to the UK Treasury website.

Yo, cockmunch, as you will see if you read the section again, it says 90%. By any interpretation of international law, that is what Scotland deserves WHEN it splits out of the union

Nowadays the issue is less clear. Unionists spread fear to keep Scotland in a Union for the reason that Scotland allows the UK goverment to stay in its 'imperial hangover'.

The Fact that you don't realise what the Iranian crisis has to do with this term,shows you embrace the attitude which causes London to have this 'Imperial Hangover'.

The question now, is whether we wish to tow the line when the UK enters into international incidents we do not want to be part of, or wether we harbour weapons capable of devasatating entire countries. Now, it is more a question of what line we wish to take for ourselves. And the multitude of lines, the infinite facets of every choice that we will make to ensure the best future for ourselves, must be ones tailored to our needs. Not the domineering, imperial notions of a country, dead in comparrison to its previous glory. The recent Iran crisis showed this.

What about the SNP clashing with London? Labour is controlled by London, that is one factor that drives people to the SNP.

And if you have any doubt over the shadow polititians cast over bio-tech, or indeed other industries, cast a look over to Londons best friend, G. Bush, and his attitudes to the enviroment, and more specifically, his recent presidential veto over stem-cell research.

America is not the leader, far from it, and is still the worst Polluter in the world...You really are a fanny, and what about the Creationist issue, for another,more powerful example?

And as I mentioned above, Scotland is the only place in the UK where you can raise taxes, without losing votes. There are many other diffirent examples of how Scotland feels diffirent.

Its all wheels and rounabouts, Bean, and I am quite sure Scotland will find its way, when it is independent.
[
quote]Mr Bean, apart from your mind seeming like your television counterparts, I'd also like to add that I think you lack charisma, character, and vision and rejoice in the fact at what that says about the rest of the conservatives at St Andrews.

Impoverished argument? Your so far behind on issues you can't even keep up. And you have a tiny head. That makes me laugh too.

[hr]

Is this some sort of a competition to see how many Ad hominem attacks you can fit into one argument?. Are you actually at St Andrews University or do you just clean the toilets?.

[hr]

http://www.livejournal.com/users/humphrey_clarke/

[Senethro]

Quoting Icarus from 12:10, 15th Apr 2007

Quoting Senethro from 11:41, 15th Apr 2007
The first is a general election in which the war is only one of a number of issues. I'm not worried about this because I don't think war should be done by referendum.

But when did our representatives decide the matter?

Then

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2862325.stm

Or if you want a blow by blow account of who voted for or against the war:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2862397.stm

Jesus christ, I must have been asleep in march or something. I honestly have no memory of this. (we were always at war with eurasia[img]littleicons/grin.gif[/img])

[insert snide lol about no parlaimentary vote with non-falsified evidence]

Also, I think we're getting near the end of this thread's utility.

[shaolinmonk]

OK, I am tired of the false claims of Mr. Wallace and other independence seekers.

First, he claims that the North Sea Oil is owned 90% by Scotland. Actually, most of the oil rigs are in international waters, built by money of the British government, therefore it would be hard for Scotland to claim so much of it. This is why the Treasury does not list it as Scottish tax revenue, and why more money is spent on Scotland per capita than on England. This needs to be clarified when he claims Scotland has a surplus of revenue, it doesn't and would get even worse when they start paying for things like health, education and defence independently.

Second, how can he say people are dying in conflicts because 'London' sent them there? NOT TRUE. I do not necessarily agree with the war, but it was decided on by an elected government. I'm not going to get into a debate over the wrongs of democracy, but if they are voted in by us we accept their decision even if we don't like it. Plus those fighting (and unfortunately dying) chose to join the armed forces and therefore must accept they are going to fight.

Third, it is actually very arrogant for the Scots to decide they want independence because they are in a good situation. The whole reason for the union was because England saved Scotland from going virtual bankrupt after they tried to form a 'Scottish Empire' (google 'Darien Scheme'). The union exists to help each of its members. Of course we sacrifice parts but on the whole everyone benefits from the union and together we are stronger.

[Rufus]

I think Fraser Archibald Wallace may be even more sinister than Young Tories.

Which is quite an achievement.

[Jono]

Quoting Senethro from 18:54, 15th Apr 2007

Quoting Icarus from 12:10, 15th Apr 2007

Quoting Senethro from 11:41, 15th Apr 2007
The first is a general election in which the war is only one of a number of issues. I'm not worried about this because I don't think war should be done by referendum.

But when did our representatives decide the matter?

Then

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2862325.stm

Or if you want a blow by blow account of who voted for or against the war:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2862397.stm

Jesus christ, I must have been asleep in march or something. I honestly have no memory of this. (we were always at war with eurasia[img]littleicons/grin.gif[/img])

[insert snide lol about no parlaimentary vote with non-falsified evidence]

Also, I think we're getting near the end of this thread's utility.

Seems to me that the vast majority of MP's voting against the war were from English and Welsh constituencies, rather than Scottish ones. So much for England dragging Scotland into a war it didn’t want!

[hr]

http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37105376
Exclusive to The Sinner, and all other fora.

[Senethro]

They were voting against the amendment, not the war. If thats not clear, then look which way the LibDems voted.

[Al]

Quoting shaolinmonk from 19:24, 15th Apr 2007
First, he claims that the North Sea Oil is owned 90% by Scotland. Actually, most of the oil rigs are in international waters, built by money of the British government, therefore it would be hard for Scotland to claim so much of it.

The problem with that argument is that it isn't true. While the oil rigs may be in international waters, the UN 'Law of the Sea' grants every marine state an exclusive economic zone for 200 nautical miles. Such EEZs grant the state sole rights over any natural resources within the zone.

Second, how can he say people are dying in conflicts because 'London' sent them there? NOT TRUE.

How is it not true? The UK government went to war and people are dying in that war.

The whole reason for the union was because England saved Scotland from going virtual bankrupt after they tried to form a 'Scottish Empire' (google 'Darien Scheme').

That's an odd take on things. The collapse of the Darien scheme may have hastened the Union because it made people involved in trade and the economic life of Scotland realise that they had to enter into Union if they were to survive. However, in no way was it a case of England rescuing Scotland. And, in fact, the English government did everything they could to prevent the Darien scheme from succeeding.

[Humphrey]

That's an odd take on things. The collapse of the Darien scheme may have hastened the Union because it made people involved in trade and the economic life of Scotland realise that they had to enter into Union if they were to survive. However, in no way was it a case of England rescuing Scotland. And, in fact, the English government did everything they could to prevent the Darien scheme from succeeding.

As a follow up to that point I should emphasise that there was never any possibly of the Darien scheme succeeding. Even with the complicity of the English it would still have been a disaster.

[hr]

http://www.livejournal.com/users/humphrey_clarke/

[Senethro]

Darien is one of those things you never hear about because it was a colossal embaressment.

I mean, who thought it could have been a good idea setting up a colony in a shithole?