Quote: (03-25-2015 12:37 PM)tattiemasher Wrote:
Quote: (03-25-2015 12:24 PM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:
Quote: (03-12-2015 08:26 AM)tattiemasher Wrote:
I've only just seen the thread, so by no means am I trying to sidetrack its evolution, but the first post ranting about the SNP was completely off and it makes it sound like the OP doesn't really know anything about Scottish politics but decided to write about it anyways. Not everyone who votes SNP would actually vote for the SNP if an independent Scotland existed. For a significant amount of people (I can't say 100% certainty if it's a majority or simply a significant minority) the SNP are a vehicle towards independence, and not a reflection of the popularity of their policies. We're not all left-wing nutjobs, and we don't all dream of a nanny state. It's easy to forget that for a long time Scotland was a Conservative country and not a Labour country.
One of their main policies is an independent Scotland with all the bells and whistles of being in a Union. See NHS funding, railway subsidies, business etc.
Vast majority of Scots are of the Braveheart tunnel vision variety. They have an inhospitable arrogant attitude towards the English. If any outsider wants to know why English people are arrogant themselves then you need only to see Scotland, Ireland and the Welsh for the first three reasons why.
A long time conservative country? Not since I have been alive and that is 3 decades. Labour heartland for good reasons; Welfare, welfare and subsidies.
SNP brought those goodies and more so labour got a good kicking.
Quote:Quote:
On a second point, we're not some subsidised layabout country, and our contribution to the UK is a surplus. Every year our allocated spending goes down despite us continuing to contribute substantially. The UK is very lucky the independence vote failed due to the older generations voting heavily against it.
- Free University at the cost of English treasury
- NHS in Scotland is governed by Scottish politics but receives more money from the Treasury based in England
- Each person in Scotland receives more money per head from government spending than England
And I am missing a lot of others here.
Quote:Quote:
And now that I've laid that out, the interesting point of current polls in Scotland is that it suggests the SNP could wipe out a majority of Labour seats in the country. Personally that would be great as I think Labour are a joke, and for once the forthcoming election may actually hinge on how many seats Labour can pick up in Scotland. It also depends on what happens in England, but from my own national perspective, if the SNP gain enough seats to influence the outcome of the overall UK government, we'll be in a real position to get more devolution and take a further step towards independence.
Lets be honest here, any person who believes the SNP holding the British parliament to ransom in order to put forth policies that benefit Scotland and only scotland is a moron.
Its bad enough Labour favours the EU but to add Scotland as an insult is going to cause major problems.
And then you mention independence. By that meaning you have no right to be in the British parliament, so basically once you declare your independence you need to be evicted from the House of Lords, House of Parliament and stop receiving British treasury money.
You are no longer British (which A scot never identified with anyway) so why should England support you?
You seem to have a misunderstanding of how Scotland gets and spends money. We receive a block grant, which goes up or down depending on how money is spent in the rest of the UK. For the past few years it has only been going down. Once we receive that grant, it's up to us how we spend it. Free education? We sacrifice other things to pay for it. NHS? It's separate in Scotland and thus once again, if we spend more on that, we spend less on other things.
To reiterate, if we spend more on something than the rest of the UK does, we spend less on other things.
As for receiving more per head, we contribute more per head than most of the UK. And that's with the UK government not assigning hydrocarbon revenues to the Scottish contribution.
And yes, as a Scotsman, I want Scotland to be able to extract as much benefit from being in the UK as possible. Holding the balance of power in the UK parliament is a great way to do that. I'd love for us to be independent (and of course in that case we wouldn't be in the HoL, HoP, or receive money from the UK government, why even bring that up?) but until we do, taking the UK government for a ride is all good by me.
I'm not going to go into the topics of why the English dislike Scotland/Wales/NI or vice-versa, because it's irrelevant to the thread and will only end with someone trolling.
You receive more spending on the NHS, education and public services then England does per head. Prove to me you don't when many others with better bargaining chips than you have proved it to be so.
You contribute more per head than the rest of the UK? Where did you dig that up from? Are you on about the oil business? The same business which has been annihilated by the Arabs?
Those oil companies do business in London last time I checked so without the City you're left with no real selling point except for the EU.
As you're a Scotsman I can guarantee that your xenophobia and lust for power blinds you from the horrendous idiocy your country wants to embark upon. Read the history books on your country. It was England who lent a hand to Scotland and not vice versa in order to stave off a country turning to barbarism should it implode like it was going to.
Why would I bring up the fact you shouldn't be able to vote in a British parliament should you declare independence?
The same fact the USA has no UK influence in Congress. You do not belong there, thats why. You are a separate entity which governs itself and as a result your own spending needs are from the people within Scotlands borders.
Where in this scenario are you seeing a good, prosperous future for Scotland?