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.

 

Scottish Independence Good or Bad?

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Paul
I think that the UK is a Union very much worth preserving.


- I agree; I think a civilised, collective and agreed unity is better than a myriad of competitive petty self-interested divisions.


Far too many English people are dismissive on this issue, saying "let them go, we'd be better off without them". As earlier pointed out by Nerdling and Muppet, neither party would be better off.


- Unfortunately there will always be an idiot element prepared to believe the 'you'd all be rich if only you weren't paying out for them' beguiling lie.

But they aren't a majority (at least not here in the UK), so we shouldn't get it out of proportion.


One could argue that if the Scottish people vote for devolution, then it should happen.


- They did (by a huge majority), and it has.


This is fair enough - after all, we are a democracy.


- Absolutely.


The problem here lies with the fact that the case for devolution is being pushed by parties that resemble pressure groups, pushing an almost one policy agenda. They will play on peoples nationalistic side, creating division, and corralling people into voting for independance,


- Sorry but this is simply not true.

The fact is that support for Scotland's independance has fallen since devolution, not increased
......as witnessed by the fall in support for the SNP (Scottish Nationalist Party) since devolution.


just as our government is trying to corral us into taking the European currency.


- Er, excuse me? What are you talking about?

What has the euro got to do with this issue?

It was this Labour gov which gave the Scots people a vote on this and instituted the Scots Parliament when the Scots people emphatically said they wanted one.

You know, the 'centre' devolving power to the very people that power effects.

Far from corraling anyone into anything this gov has simply said that when it believes the time right it will put the case to the UK electorate in a referendum and let the people decide.




posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Translation: When it believes it can win, it will put the question to a referendum.



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chris McGee
Translation: When it believes it can win, it will put the question to a referendum.


- Chris matey tune in; when did a government of any colour put a vote - any vote! - to the people in conditions it thought were the least favourable?

They even have general elections here timed when they think they'll be most likely to have greatest success, right?

If the gov concludes Euro membership is in the interests of the people what do you expect them to do, try to lose?!
Come on.

Nevertheless, you cannot deny that they have said repeatedly and clearly that the final decision will be by referendum vote amongst the UK voters.



posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 06:21 AM
link   
The UK compliments each other by there ability as separate nations to coincide under one entity. We are both recognised in the international community as the UK, a modern force that has changed the world and by our separate nations.

....I've always wondered what would happen if Scotland gained independence, would that been mean the complete abolishment of the title United Kingdom to be replaced as the Kingdom of Great Britain? ....doesn't have the same ring to it.



posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 10:37 AM
link   
I would like to say make it independant... Or allow them to be independant if they so choose to be.

it's bad enough that the whole world is becoming a monoculture, why keep lumping country into country, this eu thing is screaming of monoculture.

I personally would like to get away from it, kind of reminds me of plato's allegory of the cave. This lumping of culture's together doesn't help enhance diversity or new and refreshing ideas, but rather diminishes them.

As the saying goes; I would rather die of thirst, than drink from the cup of mediocrity .

[edit on 15-12-2004 by TrueLies]



posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueLies
it's bad enough that the whole world is becoming a monoculture,


As i see it there are two sides:
Side 1: Unite the UK and move rapidly away from the heritage of each country.
Side 2: Seperatists who want independent countries.
(it is side 2 who are behind moderate appearing Scottish independence bid.

I however want the UK united but i also want the diverse traditions and cultures of England, Scotland and Wales to be kept, as it is they which give the UK its true character and spirit.



Originally posted by TrueLies
why keep lumping country into country, this eu thing is screaming of monoculture.


Don't let sminkeypinkey hear you say that



posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by UK Wizard
I however want the UK united but i also want the diverse traditions and cultures of England, Scotland and Wales to be kept, as it is they which give the UK its true character and spirit.


That sounds all nice, I just hope that it stays that way. And I hope that all countries in the UK feel that way, and not just Britain/England (i'm never sure how to refer to you guys! sorry) Melting pot countries seem to always bend towards a monoculutre full of corporate fast lane ideas and products which turn into a culture of it's own, and it's not unique or special to the people. I really think it's important for people to hold onto their culture and not cave into the above mentioned.
I don't want your countries becoming that. Scotland is rich in culture, as is Ireland, England too? Keep the spirit alive as long as you can and built on it, don't ever lose it.



posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueLies
(i'm never sure how to refer to you guys! sorry)


Half the time we don't even know how to refer to ourselves




Originally posted by TrueLies
Melting pot countries seem to always bend towards a monoculutre full of corporate fast lane ideas and products which turn into a culture of it's own, and it's not unique or special to the people.


I'm guessing you mean America?


Originally posted by TrueLies
I really think it's important for people to hold onto their culture and not cave into the above mentioned.


Culture is what gives the UK its identity, its heritage, its purpose.



posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by UK Wizard

Originally posted by TrueLies
why keep lumping country into country, this eu thing is screaming of monoculture.


Don't let sminkeypinkey hear you say that



-

Well, if anyone would care to give the idea more than 30 seconds thought they'd see it for the untrue nonsense it is.

I defy anyone to travel in Europe beyond the 'British Isles' (where a long shared history of various 'connections' inevitably gives at least a degree of recognizable 'same-ness') and say it is mono-cultural.

Germany is nothing like Greece, is nothing like Sweden, is nothing like France, is nothing like Portugal, is nothing like Denmark, is nothing like Italy is nothing like Poland, is nothing like the UK etc etc......is this so difficult to work out?

Do you really not get the idea or what?



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Patriot
The UK compliments each other by there ability as separate nations to coincide under one entity. We are both recognised in the international community as the UK, a modern force that has changed the world and by our separate nations.

No we are called "england" by every american i have met!
Also the only americans that seem to know scotland see it as an island and we have to get a ferry to the mainland which is england.

If scotland got independant BUT got a mutal defense agreement and mabye a democratic gov thingy where all 4 govs vote on a course of action.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 09:55 AM
link   
I guess its time for me to quote from my web site...your all going to get tired of me doing it




United Kingdom

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Island has a proud and cultural identity. Many people believe in shunning the heritage of individual countries (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Island), they believe we will be more united if we shed our historical identity of a union of many countries. These people would greatly prefer if the United Kingdom used the countries as mere reference points on a map. There are other people at the opposite end of the spectrum, these people want to shed the United identity that we have forged together, they want separate countries with their own separate identities and peoples.

I fall in the moderate yet proud section of ideals when the identity United Kingdom is debated. I believe in a strong and proud (non-nationalistic) United Kingdom, but I also believe in celebrating the identities of each individual country that makes up the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom is stronger for having the united yet separate identities of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Island.

Individual Countries of the United Kingdom

The United Kingdom is a nation full of politically apathetic people, why are they apathetic, it is because the main stream parties have forgotten that the British Isles is made up of the Scotland, Wales and England.

Many people wish to carve England up into regions, therefore eroding the identity of England and turning us all into regionalised members of the United Kingdom.

I used to be in favour of a Government for England, I believed it would grant England more power and self-respect but it looks like I was wrong. Both Scotland and Wales have been granted their own 'Governments' and it doesn't have seemed to have worked well for them, inefficiency and needless waste is all that they seemed to have got from it. I believe granting the traditional counties of the United Kingdom more power rather than creating a self governing parliament for each country would help bring government powers back to the people, without the needless waste of single country Government.

I propose simple non-wasteful measures of giving Scotland, Wales and England back their identity:

* Officially acknowledge the national identity of 'Scottish', 'Welsh' and 'English', allowing people to choose their identity as 'Scottish', 'Welsh' or 'English' on the national census and forms that require nationality.
* Officially acknowledge the National Anthems of England, Scotland and Wales.
* Matters that affect only England can only be voted upon by English constituency MP's vice-versa concerning Scotland and Wales.
* Ending of all attempts to regionalise England, Scotland and Wales.
* Greater use of county Government in England, Scotland and Wales.


www.freewebs.com...

There are my ideas....have fun ripping them apart


[edit on 6-1-2005 by UK Wizard]



posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 05:59 PM
link   

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Island has a proud and cultural identity. Many people believe in shunning the heritage of individual countries (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Island), they believe we will be more united if we shed our historical identity of a union of many countries.


- I don't know if there are that "many" loons around who think it even possible to "shun" the history and cultures of the 'Home nations" never mind attempting to "shed" them.

Considering England actually attempted to do this at times with actual genocide and thankfully failed I cannot see how it could be attempted now.


These people would greatly prefer if the United Kingdom used the countries as mere reference points on a map. There are other people at the opposite end of the spectrum, these people want to shed the United identity that we have forged together, they want separate countries with their own separate identities and peoples.


- Well it's true that there are nationalist parties in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland but if they stick to the ballot box what is the problem with this?

You can never outlaw the issue, ultimately if people desire to separate and go their own way, they will.

But the track record so far is that devolution has reduced the appeal of independance (as witnessed by the reduction in the nationalist vote in the main elections in Scotland and Wales.....Northern Ireland being a very unique situation and much different because of it)


I fall in the moderate yet proud section of ideals when the identity United Kingdom is debated. I believe in a strong and proud (non-nationalistic) United Kingdom, but I also believe in celebrating the identities of each individual country that makes up the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom is stronger for having the united yet separate identities of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Island.


- As I said I prefer genuine co-operation and free union between peoples. More cooperative unions beat further separation and disintegration any day IMO.


The United Kingdom is a nation full of politically apathetic people, why are they apathetic, it is because the main stream parties have forgotten that the British Isles is made up of the Scotland, Wales and England.


- Are they?
Might it not be that people are relatively satisfied - especially considering the fairly recent terrible UK political history (the 2 longest deepest post war recessions etc etc) - and in no mood to exercise their votes for great change?
A low electoral turnout - whilst of concern - need not necessarily equate to 'apathy' at all.


Many people wish to carve England up into regions, therefore eroding the identity of England and turning us all into regionalised members of the United Kingdom.


- Or alternatively many people would prefer to see power devolved down to the people it actually effects.

....and just how does a strong regional identity - which exists all over the UK anyway - erode the identity of the UK?
I suggest that there is a damned sight more regional identity to be seen about than any 'UK identity' simply because a person's regional identity means so much more.

(I dare you to try this one out on a Cornishman or a Yorkshireman some day Wizard.....in person!
)


I used to be in favour of a Government for England, I believed it would grant England more power and self-respect but it looks like I was wrong. Both Scotland and Wales have been granted their own 'Governments' and it doesn't have seemed to have worked well for them, inefficiency and needless waste is all that they seemed to have got from it.


_ I suggest this is comment about "inefficiency" and "needless waste" is simply all about the cost over-runs of the Assembly/Parliament buildings.

I do not think that those remarks characterise the entire Scot or Welsh experience at all, and neither do the Scot or Welsh people (see links).

It's true that the public in Scotland do not see the Parliament as perfection - but then what could be? - and have felt alienated by the increased cost of the Holyrood building but when asked about the detail of what the Parliament has actually done the results are very much more positive.

Scots are proud of their health care system and their education system, all priorities they chose and which were not forced on them by Westminster.

thescotsman.scotsman.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> thescotsman.scotsman.com...

Support for devolved government has actually grown in Wales since 1997 although there is a mrked call for the Welsh Assembly to get powers similar to those (greater) powers the Scots have in their parliament.

www.devolution.ac.uk/Scully_RLJ_Briefing7.pdf


I believe granting the traditional counties of the United Kingdom more power rather than creating a self governing parliament for each country would help bring government powers back to the people, without the needless waste of single country Government.


- What woukld you do Wizard, try to roll back devolution?
I'd like to see you try and maintain any kind of UK if you did.


I propose simple non-wasteful measures of giving Scotland, Wales and England back their identity:

* Officially acknowledge the national identity of 'Scottish', 'Welsh' and 'English', allowing people to choose their identity as 'Scottish', 'Welsh' or 'English' on the national census and forms that require nationality.
* Officially acknowledge the National Anthems of England, Scotland and Wales.
* Matters that affect only England can only be voted upon by English constituency MP's vice-versa concerning Scotland and Wales.
* Ending of all attempts to regionalise England, Scotland and Wales.
* Greater use of county Government in England, Scotland and Wales.


- How do you propose imposing this Wizard?
Why would the Scots or Welsh want to give up their Welsh Assembly (for which the demand is for ever greater power, not less) or Scottish Parliament (ditto) for a few mere frills?

Sorry but this is pipe-dream time IMHO.


www.freewebs.com...

There are my ideas....have fun ripping them apart


- I'm just giving my views as I see these things Wizard. I'm really not into ripping your ideas apart. I'll debate if you like but that's as far as I go.

I've been around message boards long enough to know some folks love to play all sorts of dumb games on them. That's not my scene.

I'll to and fro and discuss but at the end of the day all it is is my opinions and yours and anyone elses......and you know what they say about opinions......no matter how many links we put up to back them!


You're a young guy and you're giving this stuff some serious thought, I applaud you for that (just don't over-do it and waste your youth obsessing about stuff that will keep until you are older.....Harry Enfield's tory boy should be a warning.....and no that was the character not a pop at tories young or otherwise, I'd caution anyone young about getting too into Labour politics too early too.......look at William Hague, let that be a warning to you!
)

I do think that you need to give some thought to the whole concept of 'power' and 'devolving power'.
Decentralised power is not 'weakness' or 'less', genuinely 'empowering' the individual - in a meaningful sense - is the direction our democracy has been heading for a long long time.

......and if you want to relate it to a wider issue how come you like devolved power in the nations of Europe yet you prefer centralised power in the UK?


[edit on 7-1-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
(I dare you to try this one out on a Cornishman or a Yorkshireman some day Wizard.....in person!
)


Well both are 'countys' so both would benefit over my proposals, which is to give county's more power.


I suggest this is comment about "inefficiency" and "needless waste" is simply all about the cost over-runs of the Assembly/Parliament buildings.


It is one of the reasons yes.


It's true that the public in Scotland do not see the Parliament as perfection - but then what could be? - and have felt alienated by the increased cost of the Holyrood building but when asked about the detail of what the Parliament has actually done the results are very much more positive.


A couple of months ago 'Question Time' was in Scotland where the auidence was quite hostile to the Scottish parliament, they claimed it had not benefitted them and had created extra costs to them in both long and short term.


- What woukld you do Wizard, try to roll back devolution?


Indeedy.


I'd like to see you try and maintain any kind of UK if you did.


I don't see why.


How do you propose imposing this Wizard?
Why would the Scots or Welsh want to give up their Welsh Assembly (for which the demand is for ever greater power, not less) or Scottish Parliament (ditto) for a few mere frills?


Through offering the people of England, Wales and Scotland an alternative to regionalisation and their burocratic mini-parliment.


Sorry but this is pipe-dream time IMHO.


Everything starts as a pipe dream.....



You're a young guy and you're giving this stuff some serious thought, I applaud you for that (just don't over-do it and waste your youth obsessing about stuff that will keep until you are older


Depends what you mean by waste, to me re-kindeling Britain is a worthy cause.


Decentralised power is not 'weakness' or 'less', genuinely 'empowering' the individual - in a meaningful sense - is the direction our democracy has been heading for a long long time.


My ideas do involve de-centralising power but rather than setting up country parliment, i would prefer county micro-parliaments.


......and if you want to relate it to a wider issue how come you like devolved power in the nations of Europe yet you prefer centralised power in the UK?


I don't prefer a centralised power in the UK, i want power devolved to the countys not country governments.



posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by UK Wizard
Well both are 'countys' so both would benefit over my proposals, which is to give county's more power.


- That's a dodge.
I could have said Scousers, Geordies, Brummies etc etc.


It is one of the reasons yes.


- Ok, so you hold that up as some of the reasons for inefficiency and waste ......and this situation will be improved by a myriad of county micro-Parliaments duplicating each other in countless ways how, exactly?


A couple of months ago 'Question Time' was in Scotland where the auidence was quite hostile to the Scottish parliament, they claimed it had not benefitted them and had created extra costs to them in both long and short term.


- Oh come on Wizard; you're not seriously telling me that an audience of politically minded people in a TV audience is your idea of representitive of 'the peoples views' are you?

Do you have any idea how these audiences for tv political shows are made up?
People apply, they aren't invited. It's true there is a little vetting but usually with unknown names there isn't.
If you know some of the local party members (for instance if a show comes up in your local area) you might start to recognise some of them.

We are definitely not talking 'fair, balanced or even representitive'.

Did you not know most of the political parties try and get as many of 'their people' in as possible?

By and large these are not areas where dispassionate 'normal' people hang out.....and if your 'regular Joes' won't turn out who is left to invite?.


Indeedy.


- How?


I don't see why.


- Obviously. This is part of your problem on this.


Through offering the people of England, Wales and Scotland an alternative to regionalisation and their burocratic mini-parliment.


- ....with a series of micro-Parliaments!? With what kind of powers?

How do you expect to control the costs of so much inevitable duplication....and if you are intent on having any meaningful power devolved to these micro-parliaments what do you do when there is the resultant inevitable patch-work of difference.


Everything starts as a pipe dream.....


- Ok, there's some truth in that.....it's also true to say there's also a lot more things started and failed with a pipe dream than succeeded.


Depends what you mean by waste, to me re-kindeling Britain is a worthy cause.


- Enjoying your youth is the most worthy cause going; wasting it as a copy of 'tory-boy' (or his 'Labour-boy counterpart) is a total weird waste IMHO.


My ideas do involve de-centralising power but rather than setting up country parliment, i would prefer county micro-parliaments.


- I can't see this being practical and working. Especially on the grounds of powers they would have, the duplication that would inevitably arise and the disparate effects this would generate in so small a geographical area.


I don't prefer a centralised power in the UK, i want power devolved to the countys not country governments.


- Even when the people (in Scotland and Wales and NI) have not asked for such devolution but have asked - clearly - for national devolution?

I'm all for devolving power to as great a degree as possible and practical.....but that is the point it must be a practical workable proposition.

I just don't see this idea of numerous micro-Parliaments (BTW, are we talking the 86 (!) 'traditional' ones (England, Scotland and Wales....plus another 6 from NI = 92!?) or the modern ones? www.picturesofengland.com...) as being that.

.....and I have my doubts (based on some of your earlier comments) as to whether you really see them as having much real power anyway.

86 or 92 micro-Parliaments in place of 1 main one and 3 devolved ones?! You must be kidding.

Where would Westminster figure in any of this?

As with your comments about the EU (where you criticise the EU for not being an organisation with global aims) you seem to want to run down the progess already made because it doesn't match up to your ideas whihc (so far at least) sem to go further.

Why not walk before you try to run?

.....unless you are not in the least bit interested in walking or running but would merely use grossly over-ambitious and unachievable aims to denigrade the progress made so far and (if your ideas were ever attempted) to excuse scrapping what has been done to ensure no movement from your preferred pre-devolution 'status quo'.


[edit on 8-1-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Indeedy.

and if you are intent on having any meaningful power devolved to these micro-parliaments what do you do when there is the resultant inevitable patch-work of difference.

Or instead of building new wasteful building, the current infrastrucutre and buildings could be reformed and upgraded.



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by UK Wizard
Or instead of building new wasteful building, the current infrastrucutre and buildings could be reformed and upgraded.


- Wizard is your complaint mainly that Wales and Scotland built an Assembly and a Parliament building fitted to their need and that this turned out to be expensive and not free of charge?

.....and just what 'existing buildings' are you referring to? Neither Scotland nor Wales had suitable dedicated buildings available with the facilities and terms required.
As for the rest? Are your micro-Parliaments really just slightly souped-up Town Halls?

.....and you have failed to give any indication as to what level of power you imagine these micro-Parliaments exercising and how this would relate to Westminster.



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- Wizard is your complaint mainly that Wales and Scotland built an Assembly and a Parliament building fitted to their need and that this turned out to be expensive and not free of charge?


My main point about Scotlands parliment and the Welsh Assembly is that they conflict with the UK parliment and they create disunity within the UK.
For example why does Scotland and Wales get a parliment and not England?



As for the rest? Are your micro-Parliaments really just slightly souped-up Town Halls?


Yup


.....and you have failed to give any indication as to what level of power you imagine these micro-Parliaments exercising and how this would relate to Westminster.


Local issues are dealt with by the local Government, but they have to go by a national guideline, the local government should also be able to oppose plans such as immigration holding places being built within their area.



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by UK Wizard
My main point about Scotlands parliment and the Welsh Assembly is that they conflict with the UK parliment


- How? The UK Parliament devolves certain decisions - though not all - to the Scots Parliament and Welsh Assembly. Why do you see this as 'conflict'?
Why shouldn't they order those affairs themselves, if they see a priorities differently (especially if it is what the people there ask for by national vote), in a manner to suit themselves?


and they create disunity within the UK.


- Well I disagree.

I think it can be fairly said they actually strengthen the UK as the support for independance parties in Scotland and Wales has declined since devolution.

In any event how do these differences create disunity in the UK?
There have always been some hugely significant differences (Scottish law being a glaring one) so why pick this up now, what of anything like any kind of similarity to the Scots law example has happened to make you think this?


For example why does Scotland and Wales get a parliment and not England?


- If England want a separate English Parliament then she can have one. That is how this works.
The people of Wales and Scotland not only pressed for their own legislative institutions for decades (if not centuries) and then voted overwhelmingly for it.
England could do likewise but chooses not to.

What England cannot do is hi-jack the UK Parliament and attempt to use that as a de facto English Parliament......not unless those proposing this foolish idea really want to see the UK wrecked.



As for the rest? Are your micro-Parliaments really just slightly souped-up Town Halls?

Yup


- Then you are not really offering anything that would have people give up their devolved government are you?

I would also suggest that you are ignoring the gains business says exists with devolved administrations too.


Local issues are dealt with by the local Government, but they have to go by a national guideline, the local government should also be able to oppose plans such as immigration holding places being built within their area.


- This isn't devolved power Wizard, this is just a twiddling adjustment to what existed pre-1997.

It'll never be desired by the people and you would be reduced to imposing it. Hardly the idea matey.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 09:37 AM
link   
sminkeypinkey you'll be happy to know that you've won me round on the national semi-independence issue...I'm writing a re-writen idea for my site as i type....



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by UK Wizard
sminkeypinkey you'll be happy to know that you've won me round on the national semi-independence issue...I'm writing a re-writen idea for my site as i type....


- Glory glory!

They'll be singing in Heaven tonight!




top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join