Scottish Referendum / Independence - Vol 6

[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.

[fluffnik]

Welshbeef said:

But you have tax raising powers to mitigate this

We have/are getting some fairly minor tax adjustment powers.

We cannot, for example, alter the balance between income tax, VAT and corporation tax which would be required to do anything meaningful...

[fluffnik]

Troubleatmill said:

Scotland is a region of the United Kingdom.

Factually incorrect.

It's one of the founding partners of the UK which is a supra-national state rather than a country.

[HenryJM]

fluffnik said:

Troubleatmill said:

Scotland is a region of the United Kingdom.

Factually incorrect.

It's one of the founding partners of the UK which is a supra-national state rather than a country.

You are dreaming there, according to others. For example:

"The United Kingdom is an island nation in Western Europe on the island of Great Britain, part of the island of Ireland and several other small islands. The UK has a total area of 94,058 square miles (243,610 sq km) and a coastline of 7,723 miles (12,429 m). The population of the UK is 62,698,362 people (July 2011 estimate) and the capital. The UK is made up of four different regions that are not independent nations. These regions are England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. "

"Scotland is the second largest of the four regions making up the UK."

There are plenty of others one can quote.

[fluffnik]

HenryJM said:

There are plenty of others one can quote.

Yup, but the Acts and Treaties of Union are the only ones that matter.

[mcdjl]

fluffnik said:

HenryJM said:

There are plenty of others one can quote.

Yup, but the Acts and Treaties of Union are the only ones that matter.

Doesn't that say something about then being permanently joined forever more? Isn't that one you want to rip up? How much for it matter what it says then?

[HenryJM]

fluffnik said:

Yup, but the Acts and Treaties of Union are the only ones that matter.

Of course, but what people like you want to refer to things as - how you want to try and break things down with terminology - is just pointless.

The reality remains that Scotland is a part of the UK. Go round the world and you will find there are variations on how each 'country' operates. USA, Canada, Australia, France - pretty much anywhere - is much the same they just have variation on what level of local control fits where and whether they call it a state or a region or whatever they want.

The UK is no different, it is the country that Scotland is part of, you are just blathering about what it's called but it doesn't change the reality of what it is.