Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 welshhoppo wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

No there won't. We are all part of the UK, and the whole UK has the right to be consulted.

No, it doesn't. The Scottish government could even call a referendum on its own volition without even asking Westminster. It wouldn't be immediately legally binding, but the chances are good to excellent that the UK government wouldn't be able to ignore a sufficiently decisive yes vote, especially if the UN was to become involved.

The UK was formed by the amalgamation of 2 national parliaments which in turn was made possible by 2 separate acts by those parliaments; given that the Scottish government of the day implicitly permitted the treaty of union why would the modern Scottish population not be given the same consideration?

Scotland has already had one referendum, until most of the people who voted in that referendum are dead, they shouldn't get another.

I'm also of the view that the whole of the UK should decide if Scotland can stay or go. You willingly entered this union, it should be up to the union to finish it.

At least your country wasn't conquered. And if Scotland is so intent on going back to the old ways, then Wales should get the lands that were taken by the English, which is most of the west.

That's not very logical, because by that logic, the rest of the EU should get a say on Britain staying or going, which would of course, be undemocratic.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

No there won't. We are all part of the UK, and the whole UK has the right to be consulted.

No, it doesn't. The Scottish government could even call a referendum on its own volition without even asking Westminster. It wouldn't be immediately legally binding, but the chances are good to excellent that the UK government wouldn't be able to ignore a sufficiently decisive yes vote, especially if the UN was to become involved.

The UK was formed by the amalgamation of 2 national parliaments which in turn was made possible by 2 separate acts by those parliaments; given that the Scottish government of the day implicitly permitted the treaty of union why would the modern Scottish population not be given the same consideration?

Scotland has already had one referendum, until most of the people who voted in that referendum are dead, they shouldn't get another.

I'm also of the view that the whole of the UK should decide if Scotland can stay or go. You willingly entered this union, it should be up to the union to finish it.

At least your country wasn't conquered. And if Scotland is so intent on going back to the old ways, then Wales should get the lands that were taken by the English, which is most of the west.

That's not very logical, because by that logic, the rest of the EU should get a say on Britain staying or going, which would of course, be undemocratic.

I'd be okay with that.

I'm not the biggest fan of Europe by any means, but when half of the world is trying to kill or invade the other half, we need to stick together.

 welshhoppo wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

No there won't. We are all part of the UK, and the whole UK has the right to be consulted.

No, it doesn't. The Scottish government could even call a referendum on its own volition without even asking Westminster. It wouldn't be immediately legally binding, but the chances are good to excellent that the UK government wouldn't be able to ignore a sufficiently decisive yes vote, especially if the UN was to become involved.

The UK was formed by the amalgamation of 2 national parliaments which in turn was made possible by 2 separate acts by those parliaments; given that the Scottish government of the day implicitly permitted the treaty of union why would the modern Scottish population not be given the same consideration?

Scotland has already had one referendum, until most of the people who voted in that referendum are dead, they shouldn't get another.

I'm also of the view that the whole of the UK should decide if Scotland can stay or go. You willingly entered this union, it should be up to the union to finish it.

At least your country wasn't conquered. And if Scotland is so intent on going back to the old ways, then Wales should get the lands that were taken by the English, which is most of the west.

That's not very logical, because by that logic, the rest of the EU should get a say on Britain staying or going, which would of course, be undemocratic.

I'd be okay with that.

I'm not the biggest fan of Europe by any means, but when half of the world is trying to kill or invade the other half, we need to stick together.

If the EU had stuck to its original goal of being a trading union, then I think things would have been fine. Unfortunately, it became too greedy for political power.

 welshhoppo wrote:

At least your country wasn't conquered. And if Scotland is so intent on going back to the old ways, then Wales should get the lands that were taken by the English, which is most of the west.

It was politically conquered though, or near enough.

If the Welsh people want to be a sovereign nation again then I am more than happy for them to do so.

 welshhoppo wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

No there won't. We are all part of the UK, and the whole UK has the right to be consulted.

No, it doesn't. The Scottish government could even call a referendum on its own volition without even asking Westminster. It wouldn't be immediately legally binding, but the chances are good to excellent that the UK government wouldn't be able to ignore a sufficiently decisive yes vote, especially if the UN was to become involved.

The UK was formed by the amalgamation of 2 national parliaments which in turn was made possible by 2 separate acts by those parliaments; given that the Scottish government of the day implicitly permitted the treaty of union why would the modern Scottish population not be given the same consideration?

Scotland has already had one referendum, until most of the people who voted in that referendum are dead, they shouldn't get another.

Why? If we cannot change our minds as circumstances change and demand a democratic method of expressing that change in opinion(if it happens), why do we even have elections? Aye there you go, lets freeze the Westminster parliament in its current configuration for the next 70+ years until everyone on the present electoral roll is dead - people made their choice, they shouldn't be allowed to change it. Same logic.

I'm also of the view that the whole of the UK should decide if Scotland can stay or go. You willingly entered this union, it should be up to the union to finish it.

Two issues there. The first being "we" did not willingly enter anything; 300 years ago a small group of rich gentry with a vested interest agreed to be bribed with wealth and land to sign the Treaty of Union, there was rioting on the streets of Scottish cities for days and weeks after the news got out. Yes, the referendum last year gave the people's assent to remain within the Union, but like all democratic decisions it was provisional. The second problem is, of course, that the whole UK voting on Scottish independence would be a laughable mockery of the very idea of democratic self-determination. If the UK government wants to hold a referendum on whether to kick us out, fine, but if the polity demanding the referendum is Scottish then the polity voting in it must be the same, or else you could have a ridiculous situation where Scotland votes to leave the UK by an overwhelming majority but still loses the overall vote because England voted we must stay and they have over 80% of the population.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Orlanth, referendum decisions are not set in stone. The UK had a referendum on joining the EU, now it's going to have one on leaving it. If the original had been set in stone, we wouldn't be here. People change, situations change. If the rUK votes to leave the EU, but Scotland votes to stay in, then that's justification for another independence referendum in my view.

Not true. We had a referendum on joining the European Economic Community, or whatever it was called. The EU did not exist at the time, the EEC later morphed into it with several treaties that our Governments signed without consulting the British Electorate.

What we joined was a free trade zone, not a multinational political union / burgeoning superstate.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

No there won't. We are all part of the UK, and the whole UK has the right to be consulted.

No, it doesn't. The Scottish government could even call a referendum on its own volition without even asking Westminster. It wouldn't be immediately legally binding, but the chances are good to excellent that the UK government wouldn't be able to ignore a sufficiently decisive yes vote, especially if the UN was to become involved.

The UK was formed by the amalgamation of 2 national parliaments which in turn was made possible by 2 separate acts by those parliaments; given that the Scottish government of the day implicitly permitted the treaty of union why would the modern Scottish population not be given the same consideration?

Scotland is a recognised part of the UK, a UDI from the Scottish parliament would be illegal.
Also the referendum we had was on Scotlands terms with only Scotland voting, should you want a divorce now the rest of the UK would demand consultation and it would have to be on our terms. Shared sovereignty on oil, shared burden on debt, at the very minimum. Also breaking up the UK is not in our interests, and those in England and Wales now should have the right to be consulted in any future process. It is no longer a question for Scots alone, 'what is best for Scotland' is no longer the unilateral concern, what is best for the UK is no less important and no less relevant.

Orlanth: Would you let the rest of the EU vote to keep britain in? Because britain leaving would be a major problem for Ireland- we'd like a say please!

 Da Boss wrote:
Orlanth: Would you let the rest of the EU vote to keep britain in? Because britain leaving would be a major problem for Ireland- we'd like a say please!

The UK's relationship within the EU is not the same as Scotland's relationship within the UK. The UK is a sovereign integral country, the EU is not.
If the EU fully federalises and if the Uk joins a federal Europe and wants to leave the rest of Europe will be entitled to have a say, with at most one UK only referenda before that process..

Besides we can say with some confidence the UK will not be leaving the EU, it will be renegotiating. UKIP scores votes for reasons largely unrelated to Europe, and all the other parties want in.

So I figure this needs to be dropped here.

http://www.ibtimes.com/london-protests-violence-feared-anti-tory-demonstrations-meet-police-1915527

Interestingly, I've seen almost no major news sources covering this. Given the fierce anti-Labour propaganda that many were putting out, I'd say it seems our media is becoming more and more like certain American media...

 Orlanth wrote:
Shared sovereignty on oil,

That would never happen.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Shared sovereignty on oil,

That would never happen.

Good you don't agree on oil, we don't agree on you cutting loose. Stalemate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 liquidjoshi wrote:
So I figure this needs to be dropped here.

http://www.ibtimes.com/london-protests-violence-feared-anti-tory-demonstrations-meet-police-1915527

Interestingly, I've seen almost no major news sources covering this. Given the fierce anti-Labour propaganda that many were putting out, I'd say it seems our media is becoming more and more like certain American media...

Left wing students like to know whats best for everyone, and if others don't agree then its time to stamp feet and throw bricks.
Been like this since the 60's nothing new. It will die down when term starts.

Well a lot of the newspapers are owned by a certain totally unbiased person so I'm not surprised by it not really appearing that much.


The amount of hate for the Tory's in my area is crazy, I've never really understood why. Labour won in our area so I don't know why everyone is kicking up a fuss. The Tory's won fair and square. This may or may not be a good thing depending on who you ask.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Orlanth, referendum decisions are not set in stone. The UK had a referendum on joining the EU, now it's going to have one on leaving it. If the original had been set in stone, we wouldn't be here. People change, situations change. If the rUK votes to leave the EU, but Scotland votes to stay in, then that's justification for another independence referendum in my view.

Ketara, in reply to a point you made earlier, you're making the classic mistake of thinking that because London and the SE have a problem with immigration, then the whole of the UK has a problem with immigration. It doesn't Scotland's population is ageing, and only recently did it reverse population decline. It needs some immigration. There is no, one size fits all immigration policy for the UK.

Back to the main point I wanted to make. The next 5 years are a dream come true for the SNP. Anything that goes right in Scotland, the SNP claim credit. Anything goes wrong, blame it on the Tories and tell people that we warned you this would happen if you voted no.

The SNP can't lose. They are the plucky underdog standing up to the 'cruel' Tories in London. It's a narrative that will play well in Scotland. If Westminster takes a hard stance, it only boosts the independence cause. If Westminster grants more powers to Edinburgh, it only hastens the path to independence.

If the Tories were serious, I'm sure they could craft a plan in time to stymie the SNP, but time is something Cameron doesn't have.

Why, because he made the blunder of saying he will stand down in a couple of years, thus weakening his authority,

and

If the Conservatives do what I suspect they'll do, then Tory backbenchers will distract Dave with their fixation on the EU. I can see the SNP taking advantage of this distraction. Dave's fighting a war on two fronts. He may not win.

This, so much this.
Unfortunately for the Union there is nothing in the world that the Scottish hate more at the moment, than a Tory.
At the moment I can't imagine the political catastrophe that the SNP would have to instigate in order for them to be less popular than Westminster.

More on George Galloway.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/05/09/george-galloway-planning-to-run-for-mayor-of-london-bradford-west-seat-general-election_n_7248126.html

In a bizarre speech which, quite frankly, left everyone baffled after he lost his seat, George Galloway ominously said yesterday he was “going off now to plan the next campaign” - so what on earth is he plotting?
The former Respect MP for Bradford West lost out to Labour’s Naseem Shah following Wednesday’s vote.
In his speech he said: "I don’t begrudge the Labour members here their moment of celebration of course.
"But there will be others who are already celebrating: the venal, and the vile, the racists and the zionists will all be celebrating.
"The hyena can bounce on the lion’s grave but it can never be a lion, and in any case, I’m not in my grave.”
He then declared: “I’m going off now to plan the next campaign”.
This has led to much speculation that he could be preparing to run for the position of Mayor of London once Boris Johnson steps down in May next year.
Galloway refused to comment on the possibility of such a campaign following his speech yesterday but he has previously declared his intention to run for mayor.

It sounds like the sort of thing Galloway will do, he didn't like losing his gravy train seat one bit, and will want some more gravy and ego boost. Standing for Mayor of London is a solid choice, if a rather overambitious goal. This move, if he makes it will only suit the Tories and it will help split the left vote in the city but I cant see anyone voting for him on the right.

Intersting article on the new Bradford West MP and her struggles with Galloway.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/naz-shah-interview-labours-new-mp-for-bradford-west-on-beating-rival-george-galloway--and-considering-legal-action-against-him-10238901.html


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 r_squared wrote:

Unfortunately for the Union there is nothing in the world that the Scottish hate more at the moment, than a Tory.

Does that include the 14.1& of Scots who voted for them?

 r_squared wrote:

At the moment I can't imagine the political catastrophe that the SNP would have to instigate in order for them to be less popular than Westminster.

Their economic policies would have done it. But then the central government will have to keep a lid on spending so they not. Scotland will not be allowed to unilaterally end austerity and rack up a debt for everyone else.

We can't discount the SNPs anti-Tory agenda because one constituency in the south of Scotland voted Tory.
We also can't ignore the historical and political pummelling the Tories have taken in Scotland for the last few decades.

They are a deeply unpopular party in Scotland. There are parts of England and Wales who share the same opinions, but in Scotland the Conservatives are particularly polarising.
Ignoring that is foolish.

The SNP, at the moment can do no wrong. The only way they can mess it up is if they singularly fail to deliver on austerity. However, they have the perfect opponent. If they fail, it's because the of the bloody Tories. If they succeed, it will be despite them.
If Labour had got in, then the whole complexion would have been very different indeed.

 r_squared wrote:
We can't discount the SNPs anti-Tory agenda because one constituency in the south of Scotland voted Tory.
We also can't ignore the historical and political pummelling the Tories have taken in Scotland for the last few decades.

They are a deeply unpopular party in Scotland. There are parts of England and Wales who share the same opinions, but in Scotland the Conservatives are particularly polarising.
Ignoring that is foolish.

However when we get Labour governments we don't blame Scotland. Perhaps we are less volatile south of the border?

 r_squared wrote:

The SNP, at the moment can do no wrong. The only way they can mess it up is if they singularly fail to deliver on austerity. However, they have the perfect opponent. If they fail, it's because the of the bloody Tories. If they succeed, it will be despite them.
If Labour had got in, then the whole complexion would have been very different indeed.

They can certainly do wrong, but have a centalised stranglehold on just about everything, including the police. With Salmond this went to his head and he abused his power. This could happen again, though Sturgeon is a far more shrewd character.

 Orlanth wrote:
"But there will be others who are already celebrating: the venal, and the vile, the racists and the zionists will all be celebrating.

So, the constituency has kicked out a white MP and replaced him with a non-white MP... And he thinks this will be celebrated by racists??

Judge Dredd sums it up nicely here. As for me? Next time I'm voting Justice Department - at least you know where you stand.

 Wulfmar wrote:
Judge Dredd sums it up nicely here. As for me? Next time I'm voting Justice Department - at least you know where you stand.

Spoiler:

Its scarily accurate - good story that one...............

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Wulfmar wrote:
Judge Dredd sums it up nicely here. As for me? Next time I'm voting Justice Department - at least you know where you stand.

Spoiler:

Its scarily accurate - good story that one...............

True democracy begins to break down with an electorate over 1000 citizens.
It works for small Greek city states.

Representative democracies work on a somewhat larger scale, but are real;ly there for larger city states.
Thing is everyone wants democracy, but none likes being told you need an educated electorate for it to work.
The Victorians had this argument, there was a move to restrict the vote to a professional register.
I wonder if it would have yielded better results long term.

Orlanth, you're re-treading old arguments that were completely demolished during the Scottish independence referendum.

If Scotland were independent, the oilfields, being in Scottish territorial waters, would belong to Scotland. The rest of the UK would have no more claim to them than it did on Edinburgh.

And as for rUK, there would be no longer a United Kingdom. The United Kingdom is Scotland and England. Wales and NI are an irrelevance in this regard. If Scotland goes, there is no UK.

They can call themselves Britain or whatever.

And as for other countries being consulted on Scotland's future, then by your logic, Germany and France should have a say on the UK's EU future. After all, it does effect them.


My final point is this. The UK is NOT greater England. If I remember some of your older posts correctly, you maintain that Scotland doesn't exist, then technically, England does not exist either.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Forgot to add that the UK is a composite state of two nations, not one nation absorbing another nation, and as such, both nations (Scotland and England) can go their separate ways.

If England decided to leave the Union, should Scotland get a say?

I think not. That's England's business IMO.

 liquidjoshi wrote:
So I figure this needs to be dropped here.

http://www.ibtimes.com/london-protests-violence-feared-anti-tory-demonstrations-meet-police-1915527

Interestingly, I've seen almost no major news sources covering this. Given the fierce anti-Labour propaganda that many were putting out, I'd say it seems our media is becoming more and more like certain American media...

This has been covered by the BBC. You arguably can't get a more major news source in the UK, or much of the world.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Orlanth, you're re-treading old arguments that were completely demolished during the Scottish independence referendum.
If Scotland were independent, the oilfields, being in Scottish territorial waters, would belong to Scotland. The rest of the UK would have no more claim to them than it did on Edinburgh.

This would assume seperation on Scottish parliaments terms, which was the expectation of a Yes vote.
However you got a No vote, so separation would not be on Scottish parliaments terms. They would be on bnegotiated terms.

As for oil, if Scotland is allowed to secede in a future deal, on terms agreed with the UK. The Uk will allow the Orkney's and Shetlands to remain in the UK, a deal they are likely to accept. Thus the oil revenue would have to be shared.
Salmond ruled out home rule for the outer isles, they would be ruled from Edinburgh, but at the time he was given free rein on referendum terms.
If the SNP want to renege on the deal of ther terms, one referendum Yes or No, then any fuiture agreement, if any, would be negotiated on mutual terms.
If the SNP doesnt like the terms they can stay in the UK. Even if they do like the terms there is no guarantee we will accept another referendum.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

And as for rUK, there would be no longer a United Kingdom. The United Kingdom is Scotland and England. Wales and NI are an irrelevance in this regard. If Scotland goes, there is no UK.

Wrong. Scotland would leave the UK, it would not disband the UK. The Uk would remain a sovereign state with EU membership. Scotland would have to apply for everything afresh.
However you have half a point, there would be serious changes south of the border, its not just a Scottish issue, It's a UK issue. The UK would likely lose its Security Council seat. For this reason and others a second Scottish referendum is an issue that effects everyone regardless of what side of the border they are. We English DEMAND the right to be fully and equally consulted in all future changes. Scotland has had a shot at a partisan agreement alone, form now on if you vote we also get a fair vote.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

They can call themselves Britain or whatever.

Still the UK, thank you. But your lack of concern for what happens to the rest of the UK is evidence enough as to how we will not allow you alone to determine all our fates.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

And as for other countries being consulted on Scotland's future, then by your logic, Germany and France should have a say on the UK's EU future. After all, it does effect them.

We are not in a Federal Europe with France and Germany. Were we a formal component of a Federal Europe then this would be the case. Indeed many in Europe oppose Federalism for this reason.
Scotland is part of a United Kingdom though in a way that is far more integral than an EU membership.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

My final point is this. The UK is NOT greater England. If I remember some of your older posts correctly, you maintain that Scotland doesn't exist, then technically, England does not exist either.

You dont remember my older posts correctly. especailly if you think I claim Scotland doesnt exist.

Also Scotland is not part of 'Greater England' were that the case it would be a colonial situation, however Scotland is a fully integral part of the UK. Scots can rise to any position in any part of the nation, including Prime Minister. Some have done so.
Are you one of those people the Scots call Neeps. Someone thought you gullible enough to have your head filled with SNP twaddle about poor oppressed Scotland needing to rise from under those evil English overlords in Westminster.

In reality we have the West Lothian question, the Barnett formula, and disasterous Scottish politicians like Gordon Brown who threatened of lifelihoods for decades to come with his hairbrained squandering.
We needed austerity because of him, now the SNP want to end austerity in Scotland.
Who is going to pay the debt then?
Are we going to have a special snowflake Scotland which can squander and spend while elsewhere people are squeezed to pay the national debt.
And be under no illusions, the UK must pay the debt New Labour built up for us or face financial collapse.

Remember that New Labour was largely brought into power by Scottish MP's and a Scottish electorate, you cant write off New Labour as an English problem, especially if you howl about having Tory governments due to English rural voters.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Forgot to add that the UK is a composite state of two nations, not one nation absorbing another nation, and as such, both nations (Scotland and England) can go their separate ways.

Which is why we had a single binding referendum. Because there wasn't one in 1707.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

If England decided to leave the Union, should Scotland get a say?
I think not. That's England's business IMO.

Pointless question, but all integral parts of the UK should have a say together, and not a partisan portion of the electorate alone. You know, the equal democracy thing.

I have to say that having listened to Nicola Sturgeon on the Andrew Marr show this morning, so seems to be either very naïve or ignoring the facts. The SNP did amazingly well at the polls and probably quite rightly gave Labour a deserved kicking... but and it's a big BUT, the Tories are still the majority party. Even after their drubbing Labour are still the 2nd biggest party.

Nicola might, rightly so, believe that there has been a political sea change in Scotland, but it will mean 'jack' to the Tories, they still have the majority. If London doesn't want it to happen, then it won't. Standing there and pointing at the results and basically saying 'it's not fair' will not count for anything.

So personally I think it was an amazing for a political Party, but ultimately it won't mean anything when it comes to affecting policy. Those backbenchers who are borderline 'kippers' aren't going to allow Scotland to dictate anything, they will feel they don't have to.

Scotland got the political party it wanted, but ultimately this will mean the rest of us will suffer.

 Wolfstan wrote:
Those backbenchers who are borderline 'kippers' aren't going to allow Scotland to dictate anything, they will feel they don't have to.

Which suits the SNP's long term aims perfectly.

 Orlanth wrote:
The Uk will allow the Orkney's and Shetlands to remain in the UK, a deal they are likely to accept.

lol, That will happen at around the time that Kelpies are allowed the vote. Honestly Orlanth, do you actually believe what you type?

Well, it's only 3 days since the Conservatives were elected, and already, the first major punch up between the Tories and the SNP is looming on the horizon...

The Tories want to scrap the ECHR, BUT, ECHR is heavily embedded in Scots law (independent under the act of union), the Scotland Act, and of course, the Scottish Parliament...

By scrapping the ECHR, the Tories may have to repeal the Scotland act, which will be Christmas day come early for the SNP.

I don't envy Dave his job in the months ahead

PS

I'm pretty sure the ECHR is heavily embedded in the Good Friday agreement/St Andrews agreements as well, in regard to peace in Northern Ireland...

This is going to be one almighty mess!

 Da Boss wrote:

 Sienisoturi wrote:

1. Why does everybody in this thread dislike UKIP so much?

2. About the difference between leftwing and rightwing politics what I have read about different countries and their political systems it seems to be a pattern that economic and political stagnation are common in left wing countries. Albeit rightwing politics also have their fair share of problems, but a right leaning mixed economy seems to be the best option.

1. UKIP, when they have been given seats (as in the European elections) have proven that they do not do the work they were sent to do (they have the worst voting record in the whole thing). Add to that that the party has more than it's share of racist nutbags, sexist nutbags and general nutbags, and UKIP begin to look a little shady. Some of their ideas are probably pretty decent, and the decent ideas will probably be co-opted by less embarrassingly tone deaf parties in future.

2. I'd say a left leaning country is a nicer place to live, I don't see political stagnation as being related to left or right wing views. Germany is pretty politically stagnant, and it's a centre-right leaning country. I'd argue that's more to do with demographics (Germany is full of cranky old people) than it is to do with political ideology. No doubt we could argue this back and forth with argument and counter argument, but I would say that I'm generally okay with a "centre-something" government, even if I'd prefer centre-left over centre-right. To me, the Tories are a proper right wing party, and do not occupy what I consider to be the centre ground.

1. Fair enough, although UKIP could be inactive also simply because their MPs are new, and not used to the system.

2. Political stagnation =/= economic and scientisific stagnation. Otherwise you are probably right. Although the position upon the left-right axis in people might also be determined quite a lot depending on their current economic situation.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
The Uk will allow the Orkney's and Shetlands to remain in the UK, a deal they are likely to accept.

lol, That will happen at around the time that Kelpies are allowed the vote. Honestly Orlanth, do you actually believe what you type?

Yes I do. The Orkneys made noises on those lines during the referendum, which Salmond flatly rejected.

So Salmond wants iScotland but only on his terms, self rule for some, but not others.

Now that is all done and dusted Westminster can demand, and I do mean you get no choice on the matter, that is Scotland is to be allowed a second referendum it happens on OUR TERMS.
Westminster can offer Orkneys and Shetland continued membership of the UK if they so choose. It will then be up to how the referendum works there.

The SNP wont like it, but the terms would be justifiable.
1. The 2014 referendum was on SNP terms, and future referendum will be on UK terms.
2. If Scotland gets to vote out, why not the Shetlands.
3. Is Scotland votes out and the islands vote to remain in the UK the oil fields will no longer be exclusively Scottish.
4. Norway will back us on this as the only contender for the waters.

I don't think it will come to this, but these are MINIM UM terms I would except from Westminster if the SNP is to try and weasel out of the binding 2014 referendum.
Other minimum terms will be formal debt sharing and no currency union.
I dont think it will come to that becauxe the Uk can simply say no to any further referndum, or at the very minimum demand all UK citizens now get a vote on the UK's future (which will end the matter quickly enough).

Scotland is a historical people group and nation state, but it currently is not an independent sovereign state, the UK is and the UK is recognised as the lawful body that includes Scotland and England and the islands. Its our nation (collectively) so its our rules collectively, the 5% of the UK populace living in the region of Scotland dont get to dictate to the 95% who are not. You had that shot and the No vote won fair and square.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Well, it's only 3 days since the Conservatives were elected, and already, the first major punch up between the Tories and the SNP is looming on the horizon...
The Tories want to scrap the ECHR, BUT, ECHR is heavily embedded in Scots law (independent under the act of union), the Scotland Act, and of course, the Scottish Parliament...
By scrapping the ECHR, the Tories may have to repeal the Scotland act, which will be Christmas day come early for the SNP.

I don't envy Dave his job in the months ahead
PS
I'm pretty sure the ECHR is heavily embedded in the Good Friday agreement/St Andrews agreements as well, in regard to peace in Northern Ireland...
This is going to be one almighty mess!

Blair signed us up for the European Commission of Human Rights, on a point of dogma, which has proven to be one sided in application.
Amending the various treaties will be easy enough. The national mandate for the UK government to act is there and they can do so.

UK's relationship with Brussels has not been devolved to Holyrood and never should. Are you saying Scotland should determine the UK's position with the EU?
If so its a case of the 5% ruling the other 95%. Enough.

Also the Scotland Act would net need to be repealed, new legislation would overlap. This is normal for a parliamentary White Paper.

Anyway I see no sources on this rumour. Do you have a press link?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Well, it's only 3 days since the Conservatives were elected, and already, the first major punch up between the Tories and the SNP is looming on the horizon...

The Tories want to scrap the ECHR, BUT, ECHR is heavily embedded in Scots law (independent under the act of union), the Scotland Act, and of course, the Scottish Parliament...

By scrapping the ECHR, the Tories may have to repeal the Scotland act, which will be Christmas day come early for the SNP.

I don't envy Dave his job in the months ahead

PS

I'm pretty sure the ECHR is heavily embedded in the Good Friday agreement/St Andrews agreements as well, in regard to peace in Northern Ireland...

This is going to be one almighty mess!

Well it's a good thing that Westminster doesn't have Parliamentary Supremacy over Scotland and could potentially disband the Scotland Government and reverse devolution.

Oh wait, it can. It can also override any laws that Scotland wishes to make.