An Independent Scotland?

POAH said:
and like I said I will when you post somthing other than pointless tat aimed at me rather than the actual discussion.
Click to expand...

Well if you refer to your first post directed at me, I think you will find that it was you that made it personal.
 
Keith W said:
Funny that so do I

The work collogues, friends and family I speak to on a daily basis say different, all of them born and bred, business and land owners - so yeah I know who I would rather believe
Click to expand...
So why should your friends and family be correct, and Hugh's wrong?
Unless both of you have asked everyone who is likely to vote, then no one really knows the answer.
 
Dave1 said:
So then can the North East of England go for independence? As the Kingdom of Northumbria was independent of England for hundreds of years...

If we do, can we have our occupied territory around (and including) Edinburgh back? ;)
Click to expand...
Would you want independence?
 
POAH said:
as a glaswegian I don't mind if you reclaim Edinburgh lol
Click to expand...

A couple of years back I spent 12 months working in Glasgow; a most congenial place for the most part.
 
Oh FFS children, can't you try to keep this reasonably civilised? This thread has just degenerated into name calling and insults lately, and there's no need for it.
 
Steep said:
In fact it's the Blair Brown governments that made many Scots Labour members and voters realise that 'New Labour' was nothing more than toryism in disguise.
Click to expand...
Its not just the Scottish labour voters who feel that Hugh

Steep said:
This was part of the reason for a massive defection from Labour to SNP in 2011 Scottish elections.
Click to expand...
I don't feel that is the case Hugh, there was no 'massive defection' to the SNP in the 2010 general election, in fact the SNP received less than half the votes that labour did. I think the success of the SNP in the 2011 Scottish elections was a local politic phenomenon which often happens with local elections and often doesn't transform to the wider national stage.
 
jakeblu said:
I don't feel that is the case Hugh, there was no 'massive defection' to the SNP in the 2010 general election, in fact the SNP received less than half the votes that labour did. I think the success of the SNP in the 2011 Scottish elections was a local politic phenomenon which often happens with local elections and often doesn't transform to the wider national stage.
Click to expand...


Seriously, by 2010 in Scotland Westminster had become pretty much a side show in terms of the SNP, I'm not sure why you brought that in, nobody ever expected them to do well there after devolution. The 2011 Scottish elections were a different story, Labour were leading by a big margin in the polls right up to election day and got wiped out. It was partly a protest vote and partly Labour voters complete disillusionment with their party.
 
Moadib said:
Steve, maybe they should. That is the entire point of the discussion.

A bunch of people collectively named "Yorkshire" have pitched their lot in with the UK, presumably because it is believed to be best for them...
Click to expand...

Just spotted this (and apologies for the selective quote) However, You talk for yourself! :p I'm all for independence from that bunch of crooks and liars in Westminster
 
Steep said:
... have a read of this opinion piece by Peter Arnott.
It's a wee bit nsfw later on with swear words but he absolutely nails it.
peterarnott.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/dinner-with-no-voters-or-what-i-wanted.html
Click to expand...
I thought this was fascinating.

I've been arguing in this thread that there is no status quo to vote for. Some in the No camp say that the Yes camp don't know what they're voting for, because so many big issues (EU, sterling etc etc) are up in the air. I say the No camp don't know what they're voting for either, because nobody knows how Westminster will react after a No vote. It probably won't be pretty either way.

This guy Arnott makes the same point, but goes further. His observation is that, if Scotland votes No in September, those who vote No - or don't vote - won't be able to blame things on the Westminster government in future. Don't want nuclear weapons? Don't like welfare cuts? Think the UK government is too London-centric and doesn't care about Scotland? Tough. You had your chance and you voted for all those things.

If I had a vote, I think that would make me stop and think for a minute. What would I actually be voting for?
 
He makes another point early on about Alec Salmond being ambushed into declaring the referendum. I'm pretty sure nobody in the Scottish parliament actually wanted one this soon. Alec didn't think Scotland was ready (though he'd made a promise to hold it so he had to), in some ways he's been proved wrong, the grass roots support for indy has been astonishing, in others he's maybe right as per the consequences for everyone of a no vote. Although the other parties pushed him into declaring it I don't think they believed he would do it either, they were not ready and I doubt many of the loudest voices had thought through the consequences themselves.

I've been ready for well over thirty years so it can't come soon enough for me but even I thinking only of the win hadn't really considered what might happen after a no.
 
Last edited:
Steep said:

Seriously, by 2010 in Scotland Westminster had become pretty much a side show in terms of the SNP, I'm not sure why you brought that in, nobody ever expected them to do well there after devolution. The 2011 Scottish elections were a different story, Labour were leading by a big margin in the polls right up to election day and got wiped out. It was partly a protest vote and partly Labour voters complete disillusionment with their party.
Click to expand...

Hugh, I'm trying to keep this discussion civilised, so I'm treating your opinion with the respect it deserves. But, honestly, what I do not understand is that if Scottish voters in general, and Scottish Labour Party voters in particular, were so disillusioned with Blair (as were rUK voters, as jakeblu rightly states) why did/do they keep voting Labour and not SNP?

It's understandable south of the border, there is little choice. The only alternative here to Tories and Labour is the LibDems. But in your neck of the woods, as you point out, there is an alternative, the SNP (or even the LibDems). If I were a Scottish voter I would have hoped to see the SNP making real inroads at the general elections (even if only as a protest vote), instead of which they've been essentially stagnant. They've never done better than 6 seats. More to the point their maximum share of the vote was in 1997 with 22.1%, and that was Blair's first term, even before you realised what he was about. Since then it's been down to 17.7 % and only recovering to 19.1% in 2010.

Personally, despite what I may have said earlier, I'd prefer us to stay together for all kinds of reasons. However if Scotland is going to go it's own way then, to quote Shakespeare, "If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well it were done quickly". Because no matter how large or small a NO majority might be, there will still be people who will agitate for a rerun until they get the result they want…a bit like the EU Commission.
 
Steep said:

Seriously, by 2010 in Scotland Westminster had become pretty much a side show in terms of the SNP, I'm not sure why you brought that in, nobody ever expected them to do well there after devolution. The 2011 Scottish elections were a different story, Labour were leading by a big margin in the polls right up to election day and got wiped out. It was partly a protest vote and partly Labour voters complete disillusionment with their party.
Click to expand...
Except of course SNP led in virtually all the opinion polls from late March onwards, hardly the last minute and Labour polled nearly 30% again hardly a wipeout and actually considerable more than the almost 20% the SNP managed a year earlier. These are Scottish votes here so Im not sure why you feel they are irrelevant.
 
Steve I'm totally lost as to what point you're trying to make.
 
chadders said:
Hugh, I'm trying to keep this discussion civilised, so I'm treating your opinion with the respect it deserves. But, honestly, what I do not understand is that if Scottish voters in general, and Scottish Labour Party voters in particular, were so disillusioned with Blair (as were rUK voters, as jakeblu rightly states) why did/do they keep voting Labour and not SNP?
Click to expand...

They haven't, see - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Scotland#Scottish_Parliament how the red disappears.
 
Last edited:
Steep said:
Steve I'm totally lost as to what point you're trying to make.
Click to expand...
The point I'm trying to make Hugh is there seems to be a strong sense of Localism in the SNP vote, a bit like the independent who wins a seat, but often that localism does not spread into the wider national picture. It seems that Scottish voters see other parties as more representative of their views and more able to represent them on a national scale. That has to be worrying for the nationalists.
 
The Nationalists can look after themselves, in terms of the independence referendum many parties and groups are joining together and campaigning for a yes, afterwards the voters will go their own ways as it should be. I don't expect the SNP to do nearly as well in an independent Scotland as they have done recently as the support they have just now is comprised of many who would otherwise vote differently, me for one.
 
jakeblu said:
There the Scottish election results not the general election ones
Click to expand...

Scotland is the only thing that's being discussed here, the SNP stand in WM elections because it's important to have a voice there but their focus is on Scotland as it should be. For many Scots Westminster is seen as a side show now and a hindrance to what we want Scotland to be.
 
Steep said:
They haven't, see - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Scotland#Scottish_Parliament how the red disappears.
Click to expand...


The colours refer to Scottish Parliament elections, not general elections. I would suggest that indicates dissatisfaction with local Scottish Labour Party as opposed to the Labour Party in general. Not the same thing.

I asked the question about continuing support for the Labour Party at the general elections between 1997 and 2010. I see you do not wish to address that. Suffice it to say that if you look at the numbers relating to general elections (which was the subject of my post), and which are the tables beneath the colours, you will find the figures I quoted verified.

To sum up: Share of vote at 1997: Labour 45.6% SNP 22.1%
Share of vote at 2010: Labour 42% SNP 19.1%

As can be seen by the numbers, Scottish voters continue to support Labour at general elections, despite your claimed dissatisfaction with Tony Blair (and presumably Gordon Brown) and their policies.
 
chadders said:
The colours refer to Scottish Parliament elections, not general elections. I would suggest that indicates dissatisfaction with local Scottish Labour Party as opposed to the Labour Party in general. Not the same thing.

I asked the question about continuing support for the Labour Party at the general elections between 1997 and 2010. I see you do not wish to address that. Suffice it to say that if you look at the numbers relating to general elections (which was the subject of my post), and which are the tables beneath the colours, you will find the figures I quoted verified.

To sum up: Share of vote at 1997: Labour 45.6% SNP 22.1%
Share of vote at 2010: Labour 42% SNP 19.1%

As can be seen by the numbers, Scottish voters continue to support Labour at general elections, despite your claimed dissatisfaction with Tony Blair (and presumably Gordon Brown) and their policies.
Click to expand...

general election is different to the scottish elections and agin different from the local council elections. It shouldn't be a shock that people don't vote SNP for westminster as they are unlikely to achive anything. It's more likely people just don't vote rather than trying to make a difference. the turn out for elections is pretty p*** poor and can't really be taken as an actual indication of what people think.
 
As I said above, why would the Scottish electorate vote SNP members to Westminster when they have a Scottish parliament? They quite rightly don't see the need for Nationalist MPs there any more.
 
POAH said:
general election is different to the scottish elections and agin different from the local council elections. It shouldn't be a shock that people don't vote SNP for westminster as they are unlikely to achive anything. It's more likely people just don't vote rather than trying to make a difference. the turn out for elections is pretty p*** poor and can't really be taken as an actual indication of what people think.
Click to expand...
Steep said:
As I said above, why would the Scottish electorate vote SNP members to Westminster when they have a Scottish parliament? They quite rightly don't see the need for Nationalist MPs there any more.
Click to expand...

From your own source.

Scottish Parliament turnout:
1999 59%
2003 49.4%
2007 51.8%
2011 50.4%

Scottish turnout at general elections:
1997 71.3%
2001 58.2%
2005 60.6%
2010 63.8%

Seems that Scottish voters consistently turn out in greater numbers for a general election than a Scottish Parliament election. But let's not actual numbers get in the way of a good argument, shall we?
 
chadders said:
From your own source.

Scottish Parliament turnout:
1999 59%
2003 49.4%
2007 51.8%
2011 50.4%

Scottish turnout at general elections:
1997 71.3%
2001 58.2%
2005 60.6%
2010 63.8%

Seems that Scottish voters consistently turn out in greater numbers for a general election than a Scottish Parliament election. But let's not actual numbers get in the way of a good argument, shall we?
Click to expand...

I didn't say more voted in the scottish elections than the general, I said "the turn out for elections is pretty p*** poor" but lets not what I actually said get in the way of a good argument shall we
 
POAH said:
I didn't say more voted in the scottish elections than the general, I said "the turn out for elections is pretty p*** poor" but lets not what I actually said get in the way of a good argument shall we
Click to expand...
No you didn't say that but you intimated that the Scottish elections were more important to Scottish people. Jim, was just pointing out that contrary to that more Scottish people vote in the general election. A fair point I think and one that should worry the nationalists
 
Last edited:
jakeblu said:
No you didn't say that but you intimated that the Scottish elections were more important to Scottish people. Jim, was just pointing out that contrary to that more Scottish people vote in the general election. A fair point I think and one that should worry the nationalists
Click to expand...
It's an interesting point, but the trouble with statistics is that it's so easy to devise interpretations which fit with one's own predilections.

The turnout in Scotland has been higher in UK general elections than in Scottish Parliament elections. The hypothesis is that that's because the electorate see the general elections as more important. OK, maybe they do. Arguably it's not so surprising; despite devolution, a lot of the biggest issues are still determined at Westminster. Plus it could be argued that the choice is starker in general elections, because Scots are typically left wing and keeping the Conservatives out of Westminster may be seen as a bigger prize.

But that doesn't say anything directly about how much enthusiasm there is for self-government, and therefore there's nothing to worry the Nationalists. If Scots participate in elections because they're important, then they'll presumably participate in the referendum and they'll presumably participate in elections for the parliament of an independent Scotand, if that comes to pass. But that doesn't mean they want independence and it doesn't mean they don't. You can't infer anything either way.
 
Last edited:
jakeblu said:
No you didn't say that but you intimated that the Scottish elections were more important to Scottish people. Jim, was just pointing out that contrary to that more Scottish people vote in the general election. A fair point I think and one that should worry the nationalists
Click to expand...
i didn't intimate that point at all
 
Cheers Dod, there are some points in that article that I have issues with (surprise surprise) and mostly because the author outlines the problems but says nothing about solutions.

Firstly the Demographic being too old. YeSNP has already addressed this, it's estimated Scotland would need 24,000 immigrants per year, there are currently 22,000 per year which leaves only 2000 more people per year to negate the ageing demographic (this doesn't include Scottish births)
We'd say that with full control of our NHS Scotland's health would improve and consequently the workforce will increase.
He's also doing that thing with the oil figures again. The price of oil is volatile in the short term, economists know this and use a ten year average to give a truer picture of potential revenue but he's cherry picking results from single years to make his case look better.
He also speaks only of North Sea oil, no mention anywhere of West Coast oil which is only just starting to come on stream from a far North West test rig and the Firth of Clyde hasn't even been touched yet.
Finally although there's probably more in there I can pick at, his final statement that Scotland is going to have to pay for the North Sea clean up, this is not true. The oil rigs belong to the oil companies and it is their responsibility to clean up and decommission the rigs once the oil runs out as it is everywhere else in the world.
 
Steep said:
We'd say that with full control of our NHS Scotland's health would improve and consequently the workforce will increase.
Click to expand...
That's an interesting observation. In what way(s) do you not currently have full control over NHS Scotland?
 
The NHS budget is fixed by what comes back to Scotland by way of the block grant, it's a finite sum and if extra cash is needed it has to be taken from somewhere else or something else.
I know you can say that it would be much the same in an independent Scotland but there would be more scope and we believe more cash to steer towards healthcare.
 
Steep said:
Cheers Dod, there are some points in that article that I have issues with (surprise surprise) and mostly because the author outlines the problems but says nothing about solutions.

.
Click to expand...
And your solutions are where? All you're saying is you disagree with nothing but speculation to back it up o_O
 
Steep said:
The NHS budget is fixed by what comes back to Scotland by way of the block grant, it's a finite sum and if extra cash is needed it has to be taken from somewhere else or something else.
I know you can say that it would be much the same in an independent Scotland but there would be more scope and we believe more cash to steer towards healthcare.
Click to expand...
The block grant is fixed but the NHS budget isn't. The Scottish parliament could spend a larger proportion of the block grant on health, but it chooses to spend it on other things. Given how far the health of Scotland lags behind England, I'd suggest that's a shockingly bad allocation of resources.

I take your point that *if* an independent Scotland turns out to be wealthier per capita, then the Scottish government will have the scope to collect more taxes and therefore have more money to spend in total. But I'm afraid I don't see anything to suggest that spending it on health is a priority.
 
Actually let me backtrack on that last point a bit. This is interesting and relevant:
http://www.nao.org.uk/report/health...-england-scotland-wales-and-northern-ireland/

Scotland currently spends more per head on health than England, so it would be wrong to say that the Scottish parliament is being negligent in this area. But then the Scottish population is less healthy (more bad diet, more drinking, more smoking etc) so its needs are greater. And it's not clear whether or not the additional spending is sufficient to compensate for this. The mortality indicators suggest not, but it's a complex area.

Spending aside, the recent speculation by Sir Harry Burns, former chief medical officer of Scotland, is interesting:
“Would people in an independent country feel more in control of their lives? If they did, then that would be very positive for their health."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-for-health-says-sir-harry-burns-9619426.html
 
Last edited:
dod said:
And your solutions are where? All you're saying is you disagree with nothing but speculation to back it up o_O
Click to expand...

I simply pointed out some inconsistencies and or manipulations in the document which show that the author is being disingenuous. How can you expect me propose solutions to problems which either don't exist or are not as stated?
 
Stewart spending on health is problematic, yes Scotland does spend more and yes because it needs to but re the budget, it's always going to be a difficult juggling act even after independence finding money for everything. There's no point having the best healthcare in the world if you can't get to hospital because the roads are full of potholes for example. Scottish gov does act/spend on many health related issues outwith the NHS, minimum unit alchohol pricing (though I happen to think minimum pricing is not the way to go). They were the first to institute smoking bans and advertising bans on tobacco products.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top