It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Now, first off, let me say I'm no fan of Scotland becoming fully independent,
If they want independence, give it to them. Without any payments of any kind and damn well without the North Sea platforms.
Originally posted by spencerjohnstone
Ist of all I am not going to fully comment on what you have posted here stu. Going read more later, then get back to you.
Originally posted by spencerjohnstone
So what do you want to see? The Scottish Parliement, Welsh Assembly, N/I ASSEMBLY closed, all authority given back to westminster? Dont think so. But I agree England should have its own Parliament.
Originally posted by spencerjohnstone
Now there you will have a fight on your hands, those platforms belong to scotland not england. If you want to go down the line of a civil war,
you are going the right way about it. Excuse me, British yes, than mean english, scottish and welsh investment, not just english investment.
Originally posted by spencerjohnstone
Im not going to comment until later, feels that this thread is going to inflame members from both scotland and england. Rather than members having a civil debate.....
Originally posted by stumason
Sminkey once said the reason for this was the wider dispersion of the communities and having to upkeep rural roads. I think that is such a wishy-washy reason to give them an extra £1500/person. Surely rural roads cost less to maintain?
Originally posted by djohnsto77
Sounds like a somewhat decent explanation. For comparison the U.S. federal dollars flowing to states per capita ranged from a high of $12,200 in Alaska to only $5,000 per person in Nevada in 2004.
Originally posted by Johnmike
The Scots tried to leave before. Then England decided that wasn't best for them.
Tried to do that with America too, and plenty more.
Originally posted by spencerjohnstone
Er, kind of proving my point there. emphasis mine. So why should Scotland get them? If Scotland went independant and kept the platforms, your depriving the UK (England, Wales and NI) of it's money. They're not Scottish platforms.
Your civil war comment is rather amusing. Even if the remotest possibility of that happening existed, you wouldn't fare to well and it would be a waste. I have no desire to to Scotland and England at War, or even Scotland to leave the Union. I just have issues with the way Scotland is leeching off England, yet all the while, the SNP laud it about town as if Scotland is the best place on earth.
Why should Scotland be subsidised by England (the Barnett Formula)?
Why should Scottish MP's get to vote on matters dealing solely with England?
We'd like some satisfactory answers why the situation is the way it is. No need to get into a flame war over it though.
[edit on 14/7/07 by stumason]
Originally posted by Johnmike
The Scots tried to leave before. Then England decided that wasn't best for them.
Tried to do that with America too, and plenty more.
Originally posted by devilwasp
May I step in here?
Because frankly mate your country has not been taking an intrest in its own governing, you've let yourself get into this situation and frankly I doubt that any scots MP is going to complain about england getting its own parliment now are they?
Originally posted by stumason
First off, let me reiterate that I am not anti-Scot independence or anything. fair play to you. All i ask is some addressing of points that seem unfair.
England doesn't want it's own Parliament.
The Midlothian question has been raised in Parliament, however and has been shot down by a Scots dominated Government as "irrelevant". It is not and is a big bug bear with alot of English. To say we're not politically active is to ignore something that is raised time and again, but ignored by Government.
All I am asking is that we get fair treatment.
Scots MP's to butt out of English only votes in Westminster.
The formula providing huge amounts of tax revenue up North be looked at. It is creating a void between Scotland and England.
Sometimes it seems designed to do that, for some politically expedient reason I should imagine. Why is it you get FREE university AND Free prescriptions, when we don't, yet we fund your Government with OUR money?
One has to wonder what Scotland would do if they went down the path of independence? You certainly would not be able to afford all the luxuries afforded to you right now.
Originally posted by devilwasp
Yeah? Maybe you should check your history mate rather than reading those nice american books.
All I can say to you remember 1812.
quote: Originally posted by spencerjohnstone
Er, kind of proving my point there. emphasis mine. So why should Scotland get them? If Scotland went independant and kept the platforms, your depriving the UK (England, Wales and NI) of it's money. They're not Scottish platforms.
Your civil war comment is rather amusing. Even if the remotest possibility of that happening existed, you wouldn't fare to well and it would be a waste. I have no desire to to Scotland and England at War, or even Scotland to leave the Union. I just have issues with the way Scotland is leeching off England, yet all the while, the SNP laud it about town as if Scotland is the best place on earth.
Not to mention the fact that Scottish MP's vote in England on those exact same things and other matters dealing with only England, plus the Government stabbed us in the back by introducing top-up fees despite an election promise not too, using Scottish MP votes!
Originally posted by spencerjohnstone
What makes you think we wouldnt fair well, in a civil war between England and Scotland???
Originally posted by spencerjohnstone
It inflames me cause you are basically saying, that I sponge money from english taxpayers? Where I do not sponge money from english taxpayers at all. I pay my taxes like anyone else in the UK. What about those in wales or Northern ireland dont they sponge money also, i dont see you commenting about that.
Originally posted by spencerjohnstone
If it just dealt with English matters, then I would say oks, scottish MP's should not have a vote, same should apply to welsh mp's and n/i mp's. When it comes to national debates, Such as defence and laws, then yes they should have a vote. After all the defence off the UK is controlled by London, same with the Laws.If you have gripe with Scottish mp's voting, what about Welsh mp's, or N/I MP's dont you have gripe with them also or is it just Scottish MP's?