Scottish Referendum / Independence - Vol 6

[simoid]

Edinburger said:

Rollin said:

Wasn't relevant when discussing this..

But that was designed to illustrate vote counts as they emerged throughout the night. When the result was known, that illustration has zero relevance to anything: it's a national referendum.

That's what he said - it wasn't relevant

Why is it relevant that Scotland is 1/3 of the UK in terms of acreage?

[Edinburger]

McWigglebum4th said:

Can't see anything wrong in what he has written here

The mood is changing

There is a growing feeling down south that the UK would be better off with scotland

Got a source for this changing mood you talk of? Thought not.

I spend a few days in England every week and I'm not aware of any changing mood towards Scots and Scotland.

[Edinburger]

simoid said:

Depends if they were bought and sold with English gold.

Edinburger, care to explain why land mass is relevant?

Land, connectivity to towns/dwellings etc. makes it more expensive to run larger areas than smaller areas. Smaller population raise less taxes pro rata to find the servicing.

There's a good paper on this actually.

[Troubleatmill]

Edinburger said:

Troubleatmill said:

Scotland is not a country. It is a nation.
I accept that you would like Scotland to be a country. - But - it is not.

It is a small point - but an important one.

No - nations are self-governing. As we know, Scotland is governed by Wrstminster and so is therefore a country rather than a nation.

Certainly isn't a region, as some here would suggest.

You are wrong. Do some research and post back.
Start with this - A nation does not have sovereignty.

[///ajd]

Edinburger said:

Rollin said:

Wasn't relevant when discussing this..

But that was designed to illustrate vote counts as they emerged throughout the night. When the result was known, that illustration has zero relevance to anything: it's a national referendum.

Burger, of course it is relevant - as you brought landmass into the equation, it is good to reflect that 98% of Scotland by landmass want to remain a region of the UK.

PS you really think the ref and vow has gone without comment in the rUK?

Have you actually asked anyone in rUK want they think of Alex Salmond slagging off the English? Hint: they don't love it.

Edited by ///ajd on Saturday 7th March 20:37

[Mojocvh]

Edinburger said:

McWigglebum4th said:

Can't see anything wrong in what he has written here

The mood is changing

There is a growing feeling down south that the UK would be better off with scotland

Got a source for this changing mood you talk of? Thought not.

I spend a few days in England every week and I'm not aware of any changing mood towards Scots and Scotland.

Sure you do..

[Edinburger]

Mojocvh said:

Sure you do..

Pardon me? Are you doubting I spend a lot of time in England? Because you think I hate the English, presumably?

I do actually. I go to my office in London one day every week and often to client meetings around the UK other days.

Also my in-laws live in England as do half my mates.

Yeah, I really hate the English

[Edinburger]

///ajd said:

Burger, of course it is relevant - as you brought landmass into the equation, it is good to reflect that 98% of Scotland by landmass want to remain a region of the UK.

PS you really think the ref and vow has gone without comment in the rUK?

Have you actually asked anyone in rUK want they think of Alex Salmond slagging off the English? Hint: they don't love it.

Edited by ///ajd on Saturday 7th March 20:37

The proportion of people in different parts of Scotland who voted Yes/No is as relevant to any analysis or debate as the colour of my socks when I voted.

[Edinburger]

Troubleatmill said:

You are wrong. Do some research and post back.
Start with this - A nation does not have sovereignty.

We all know that the words nation and country are often used interchangeably. As is state/sovereign state.

If I could be bothered I might look to see if there's an indisputable definition.

[barryrs]

Edinburger said:

The proportion of people in different parts of Scotland who voted Yes/No is as relevant to any analysis or debate as the colour of my socks when I voted.

I'm confused, does land mass make a difference to Scotlands standing as a region of the UK or not?

[Troubleatmill]

Edinburger said:

Troubleatmill said:

You are wrong. Do some research and post back.
Start with this - A nation does not have sovereignty.

We all know that the words nation and country are often used interchangeably. As is state/sovereign state.

If I could be bothered I might look to see if there's an indisputable definition.

As I said - it is a small point - but an important one ( I'm not looking to score points on it )

But - it would be interesting to understand why you think land mass is important here.
The EU Parliament does not have land mass as a metric for representation.
Neither does the UK Parliament.
Nor any other country that I am aware of.

However - from your statement - there is clearly a point you wish to make on it.

Could you elaborate further.

[Welshbeef]

Edinburger said:

Itchy bum time?

David Cameron calls on Ed Miliband to rule out SNP deal

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31780935

Well there is no way any Nat party could share power as the point is they want to break up the union and do not represent the majority they are a minuscule minority and only relevant in N Ire Wal and Scotland they cannot rule England

[Edinburger]

Troubleatmill said:

As I said - it is a small point - but an important one ( I'm not looking to score points on it )

But - it would be interesting to understand why you think land mass is important here.
The EU Parliament does not have land mass as a metric for representation.
Neither does the UK Parliament.
Nor any other country that I am aware of.

However - from your statement - there is clearly a point you wish to make on it.

Could you elaborate further.

It costs money to manage land, provide services to those who live there, integrate dwellings and communities, etc.

For instance, look at a town like Fort William and consider the cost of roads to/from there compared to say Cheltenham.

One of the reasons for the extra funding which Scotland receives is in recognition of those enhanced costs.

I can elaborate some other time as I'm heading out just now.

[Edinburger]

Welshbeef said:

Well there is no way any Nat party could share power as the point is they want to break up the union and do not represent the majority they are a minuscule minority and only relevant in N Ire Wal and Scotland they cannot rule England

Independence is only one of their policies remember.

[Welshbeef]

Edinburger said:

Welshbeef said:

Well there is no way any Nat party could share power as the point is they want to break up the union and do not represent the majority they are a minuscule minority and only relevant in N Ire Wal and Scotland they cannot rule England

Independence is only one of their policies remember.

Given rUK are not voting FOR removal of Trident OR increase in spending I'm struggling how to square the circle on how the 65million UK people can accept a govt pushing such things through.

[HD Adam]

HD Adam said:

HD Adam said:

HD Adam said:

xjsdriver said:

Not only have the 45 stuck together - we've attracted some that voted No too. It's not surprising how toxic the thought of voting Labour has become.

According to the lies, damn lies & statistics, if the SNP wins as many votes as you say, Labour will not be able to form a Government as they won't have a majority.

Wee Jimmy Krankie has said that she will not enter a coalition with the Tories but would with Labour to form a majority in Westminster.

So, voting Labour is toxic, therefore vote SNP and get a Labour Govt

How does that work then?

xjsdriver said:

I've answered many, many questions many times over - sometimes having to repeat myself, like I'm having to explain to children with learning difficulties, who throw a strop if they don't like what they hear.

Could you answer this one then please?

Still waiting for an answer from xjs or any other nat

McBueller? McBueller? Anyone? McBueller?

[AstonZagato]

Edinburger said:

Troubleatmill said:

As I said - it is a small point - but an important one ( I'm not looking to score points on it )

But - it would be interesting to understand why you think land mass is important here.
The EU Parliament does not have land mass as a metric for representation.
Neither does the UK Parliament.
Nor any other country that I am aware of.

However - from your statement - there is clearly a point you wish to make on it.

Could you elaborate further.

It costs money to manage land, provide services to those who live there, integrate dwellings and communities, etc.

For instance, look at a town like Fort William and consider the cost of roads to/from there compared to say Cheltenham.

One of the reasons for the extra funding which Scotland receives is in recognition of those enhanced costs.

I can elaborate some other time as I'm heading out just now.

That's funding, not representation.

They are not the same thing.

[Troubleatmill]

Edinburger said:

Troubleatmill said:

As I said - it is a small point - but an important one ( I'm not looking to score points on it )

But - it would be interesting to understand why you think land mass is important here.
The EU Parliament does not have land mass as a metric for representation.
Neither does the UK Parliament.
Nor any other country that I am aware of.

However - from your statement - there is clearly a point you wish to make on it.

Could you elaborate further.

It costs money to manage land, provide services to those who live there, integrate dwellings and communities, etc.

For instance, look at a town like Fort William and consider the cost of roads to/from there compared to say Cheltenham.

One of the reasons for the extra funding which Scotland receives is in recognition of those enhanced costs.

I can elaborate some other time as I'm heading out just now.

And I agree that is why areas of Scotland get more money.
It costs more to empty bins etc etc.
The system works!!!

But when it comes to representation.
Why does land area correlate to electoral representation?

[///ajd]

Troubleatmill said:

And I agree that is why areas of Scotland get more money.
It costs more to empty bins etc etc.
The system works!!!

But when it comes to representation.
Why does land area correlate to electoral representation?

Thats the reason in principle they get more money.

Its not supposed to be used to give their students an unfair advantage over their rUK countryfolk.

Thats got frig all to do with geography, and is effectively fraud/misappropriation of funds.

[simoid]

Edinburger said:

Welshbeef said:

Well there is no way any Nat party could share power as the point is they want to break up the union and do not represent the majority they are a minuscule minority and only relevant in N Ire Wal and Scotland they cannot rule England

Independence is only one of their policies remember.

It's their fundamental raison d'etre. Anything else is secondary.