Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Deputy Leader of UK calls Scots Extremists

page: 36
18
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 05:39 AM
link   
reply to post by clanger
 


Didn't work out that well for Wallace in the end did it?


Long live the Union!




posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 06:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by clanger
 


Didn't work out that well for Wallace in the end did it?


Long live the Union!



Then along came the Bruce


Hasta la vista union



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 06:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by clanger

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by clanger
 


Didn't work out that well for Wallace in the end did it?


Long live the Union!



Then along came the Bruce


Hasta la vista union


Sorry, i couldn't resist! But then im thinking you had the same thoughts.......




posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by clanger

Then along came the Bruce


Hasta la vista union


And, 683 years after his death, the Union is still with us.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by clanger
Even your quoted source says, as part of the UK we are the 23 most indebted country in the world with 76% GDP.
Scotland independent would be 53 with 49% GDP.


keep up the good work


The quoted source says that as part of the UK you have a deficit of 11.1 per cent of GDP, not 76%.

It also says: "It should be noted that these figures are far from certain; there may well be political manoeuvring that could push these numbers down or up as part of secession negotiations."

Therefore it's hard to say what an independent Scotland's deficit will be.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 08:22 AM
link   
Some facts about Scotland:

1) Over recent decades, the Scottish economy has grown slightly more slowly than the English one, although gross domestic product per head remains broadly similar north of the border to that in England, as in recent years rapid growth of the service sector in Scotland has compensated for the deindustrialisation of the past few decades.

2) Scotland spends more public money than England, especially on education and public-sector employment, and has a substantial and persistent public deficit. An independent Scotland would thus face "tough choices" on tax and spending, to use the language of the Scottish MP for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, one Gordon Brown. Scotland may only account for 8.5% of the British population but it accounts for 9.7% of all spending.

3) The latest figures from the annual Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland (GERS) report illustrate the problem. Public spending in Scotland in 2004-05 was £47.7bn, while total revenues are estimated at £36.4bn, equivalent to 8.1% of all UK revenues. The deficit was thus more than £11bn, or 12% of Scottish GDP - three times the percentage deficit of the UK as a whole.

4) Ah, say the supporters of independence, you've forgotten North Sea oil - Scotland would be OK if it had all of that. Would it? In 2004-05, North Sea oil revenues amounted to £5.2bn, which would roughly halve the Scottish deficit. But because of arguments over which country the different oilfields are attached to, it is highly debatable how much of that revenue would go to an independent Scotland. Some critics say that even if it did manage to secure everything, it would still not be enough. "Even if all revenue from North Sea oil and gas had come to Scotland, the country would have had a 'persistent deficit'," says Professor Arthur Midwinter, an adviser to the Scottish Executive's finance committee.

5) Oil prices are highly erratic and already well down from last year. Moreover, UK North Sea oil production peaked in 1999 at around 3.5 million barrels per day, and is now down to half that and falling rapidly. So independence forged on expectations of an oil bonanza would clearly carry risks.

6) whatever share of North Sea oil Scotland might finally grab, it would still struggle to be the new Ireland. Public spending is currently more than 50% of GDP and tax revenues about 40%, with the balance made up by other UK taxpayers. Ireland's public spending is only 35% of GDP (Britain's is 46%). Scotland currently enjoys Scandinavian levels of spending and American tax levels. Independence would necessitate action to tackle the deficit - either tax rises or spending cuts, or both. Copying Ireland would require a massive reduction in the scope of the state. Tough choices indeed.

www.guardian.co.uk...

And now for two of my favourite facts about Scotland:

7) The UK's banking crisis originated largely in Scotland, not the City of London. The failed Scottish banks RBS and HBOS were able to be bailed out only because Scotland is a part of the UK. British taxpayers - 90% of them English - bailed out those Scottish banks. However, had Scotland been an independent nation and didn't have the English taxpayer bailing out its banks RBS and HBOS would have bankrupted Scotland many, many times over. RBS's balance sheet assets were equivalent to 2,500% of Scottish GDP. How would an independent Scotland have been able to cope? In fact, even the Icelanders would now have been better off than the Scots.

8) When the SNP say that 90% of North Sea oil would belong to an independent Scotland, they also include North Sea gas in their figures, despite the fact that most North Sea gas comes from the southern North Sea and therefore from English waters.


edit on 16-1-2012 by Sicksicksick because: (no reason given)
edit on 16-1-2012 by Sicksicksick because: (no reason given)
edit on 16-1-2012 by Sicksicksick because: (no reason given)
edit on 16-1-2012 by Sicksicksick because: (no reason given)
edit on 16-1-2012 by Sicksicksick because: (no reason given)
edit on 16-1-2012 by Sicksicksick because: (no reason given)
edit on 16-1-2012 by Sicksicksick because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Sicksicksick
 


So I take it you are quite happy if we go it alone then seing as we are such a burden ?



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Sicksicksick
 


We would not have bailed out the banks, just let them go.

I would like to think an Independent Scotland would control it's financial institutions in a better way than the City led Westminster.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigyin
reply to post by Sicksicksick
 


We would not have bailed out the banks, just let them go.

I would like to think an Independent Scotland would control it's financial institutions in a better way than the City led Westminster.


And indeed it will. I very much doubt Scotland would allow such a mess to prevail.

Yes there will need to be a "reigning in" of public spending in Scotland but what people seem to forget is that we would have the power to install our own taxes and policies on finance. Scotland understands that at the moment it would be very finely cut between credit and deficit, which is why attracting business and a resurgence of industry that's been missing from Scotland would be reintroduced. Our corporation taxes, national insurance, employee tax, welfare etc would all be reshaped to fall in line with public expenditure. I don't believe Scotland would join the Euro, i believe we would have the Scottish Pound, and i personally hope we do not join the European Union, instead remain neutral in all affairs and stick to our own...

The model we have at the moment as part of the UK isn't sustainable, we all know this but we are prepared to change that.

Westminster don't want Scotland to separate because they will lose money. This whole, we subsidise them rubbish is pathetic. If Scotland was such a burden to Westminster, you should all be jumping at the gun ready to shove independence in our faces...



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by jrmcleod
 


Well to be honest, it seems like you will get your wish one way or the other as the latest research shows that the majority of English and Welsh are now fed up with you and want you out of the Union anyway! Just out of interest, how would you all feel North of the Border if you were thrown out before you had a referendum?

Im not happy about that either. I want a strong Union.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by jrmcleod
 


Well to be honest, it seems like you will get your wish one way or the other as the latest research shows that the majority of English and Welsh are now fed up with you and want you out of the Union anyway! Just out of interest, how would you all feel North of the Border if you were thrown out before you had a referendum?

Im not happy about that either. I want a strong Union.


I don't know what i am going to do...will i vote yes or no? I will make up my mind once i have had facts presented to me from the Scottish government and i can research them the good ole' ATS way. Until then i cannot say for sure.

What i don't get is why there is such a massive uproar from my English counterparts about allowing us as fellow humans to be on our own? I don't understand why so many of you are against it? Isn't it our choice? Is it because you lot down there are fed up with your government and want a "way out"? Is it jealousy? Either way, your all free to move up here, we'll welcome you with open arms...

Well i will anyways!



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by jrmcleod
 


Haha thanks for the offer. As a proud Yorkshireman, and therefore resident of gods own country, i won't be accepting the invite but will be up regularly for visits!

I honestly think we are far stronger and more able together than we ever were divided - and i would say history backs me up on this view.

I think the real issue is that power in this country resides in the South East and doesn't look like moving. I honestly believe that if we had a parliament based mid country that shared the wealth then independence would not even have arisen as a question or possibility as people would be more satisfied.

Even during the industrial revolution (height of empire), when all the wealth was in the North of the country thanks to brainy Scots and hard working Northerners (insert Yorks, Lancs, Cumbria, Derbyshire, etc), the South was still the area that received. The North received what the wealthy paid for - ie Saltaire, etc.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by jrmcleod
 




What i don't get is why there is such a massive uproar from my English counterparts about allowing us as fellow humans to be on our own? I don't understand why so many of you are against it? Isn't it our choice? Is it because you lot down there are fed up with your government and want a "way out"? Is it jealousy? Either way, your all free to move up here, we'll welcome you with open arms...

Well i will anyways!


I can only speak for myself but it's not so much that I'm against Scottish independance, I just feel that with a strong Union we have more chance of driving through positive change than we will in a weakened Union with even more powers centralised in London etc.

Personally I'd much rather see increased devolved powers to all the regions within the UK handing more real power and influence to the people through direct democracy etc within some sort of federal framework.

But of course it's your choice.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Flavian
 




I think the real issue is that power in this country resides in the South East and doesn't look like moving. I honestly believe that if we had a parliament based mid country that shared the wealth then independence would not even have arisen as a question or possibility as people would be more satisfied.


I agree entirely about the power residing in London and the South East etc, but it's irrelevant where Parliament is based, it will still have the same make up and will be dominated by London and Southern based Tories simply because the majority of Engkish people live there and there are more parliamentary constituencies down there.

We need urgent and radical parliamentary reform.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


Check out the voting figures for England only - since 1945 this country would have been Conservative at EVERY election. The simple fact is that England is a Conservative country. People may not like this but until more people are born and get to an age where they do not vote Tory, this will never change.

By the way, the voting figures are actual numbers of people that voted for each party, rather than proportionally. What this means, in effect, is that unless say the North East gets a population to match the South East, this won't change (unless the Tories cock up in a totally spectacular way). I know plenty of people round here who get incensed by this whenever i point them to the figures, but it is a fact.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Flavian
 


I understand all that.

England itself is divided.
The North East is almost totally Labour...so is the North West etc whilst London and the South East are the Tory heartlands.

Personally I find party affiliation restrictive, unrepresentative, undemocratic and out-dated, but.....?

Here in the North East we have consistently suffered under investment and marginalisation.
This will only increase in the event of Scottish independance etc.

Which is why I personally support devolved power to all the regions of the UK within a federal framework.

One thing is surely blatantly obvious to everyone though; we need urgent and radical reform of our parliamentary and electoral processes.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


I don't know. It is something i think about rather regularly and if i am honest i get rather hypocritical about it - some days i am totally against the position i had thought myself on previously.

I actually like and support the House of Lords - i think some of the powers taken away by New Labour were absolutely scandalous as the Lords was a genuine buffer to the Commons (bloody good idea when you see the sort of lunacy they spout daily in the Commons), but on the other hand it had become kind of an old boys club......

And then i think i support devolution in theory but i recognise in practice that the more tiers of government there are, the larger the problems tend to be.......and the larger the difficulties in overcoming those problems (too many cooks).



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Flavian
 


Well. some may say my preferred option is somewhat drastic but.....?

Abolish party allegiance - elected officials stand for election on their own convictions.
The power of recall.
Rolling parliaments - 50% of constituencies vote one year, two years later the other 50% vote.
Increased use of referendums on both local and national issues.
Regional assemblies with devolved power.
A federal assembly for national issues.

Of course it requires far more work and detail etc but it delivers increased power to the electorate with accountability of all elected officials, allows for regional differences and priorities whilst maintaining a strong, federal government for matters of national importance etc.

Not exactly like the Swiss model, but certainly something similar.
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 12:50 PM
link   
i wonder if Scotland will re take Northumberland when they get their independence ..also i was always told that geordies were jocks with their heads kicked in, though i dont think they held Newcastle for any amount of time

interesting read .... www.englandsnortheast.co.uk...



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by sitchin
 


They will not be retaking any part of the North East.

Even though we definately have more in common with our Scots neighbours than our Southern compatriots we are still very much English.





new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join