A dinosaur rears it's head

[simplythebest 0]

Plenty of connections with USA, Canada etc & for the same reason: economic migration.

 

I can't see why having these connections would mean you absolutely have to take your political decisions from these countries, though. That there are maybe more Scots in England (and lets face it, we mean London here) is both an indicator as to how the UK is governed - all effort into the London city-state and hope against hope the wealth dissipates outward - and a geographical accident.

 

If Ireland (titter) were to become an economic powerhouse on the scale of London, I doubt there would be many calling for us to be governed from Dublin, no matter how many links we created between the countries.

Westminster governs the UK, it's in London because London is the UK capital.

 

Scotland already has it's devolution and could perhaps gain more powers, why the need to build walls?

[andy steel 0]

Westminster governs the UK, it's in London because London is the UK capital.

 

Scotland already has it's devolution and could perhaps gain more powers, why the need to build walls?

 

Aha! I can answer that one.

 

It's because Westminster seems to act like a death eater in Harry Potter, sucking the good out of people and turning them into Party Machine Zombies (many of these people, let it be noted, are Scots).

 

It's because instead of using the resources of this country to maybe improve things as much as possible, successive governments at Westminster (many led, let it be noted, by Scots) piss away the wealth of Britain, having first converted it into the blood of young men and women, to be drained into the sands of central Asia.

 

It's because instead of representing their constituents, as Parliamentary democracy is supposed to do (but for the majority of Westminster's existence most certainly has not), the interests of the Party come first.

 

It's because far from acting in the interests of the population, Westminster government acts in the interests of lobbyists (many of whom, let it be noted, are Scots) and avaricious individuals (many of whom etc).

 

It's because its entirely possible to run modern democracies without continual and repeated corruption scandals, none of which are adequately investigated and the people therein brought to book.

 

I could go on.

[simplythebest 0]

Aha! I can answer that one.

 

It's because Westminster seems to act like a death eater in Harry Potter, sucking the good out of people and turning them into Party Machine Zombies (many of these people, let it be noted, are Scots).

 

It's because instead of using the resources of this country to maybe improve things as much as possible, successive governments at Westminster (many led, let it be noted, by Scots) piss away the wealth of Britain, having first converted it into the blood of young men and women, to be drained into the sands of central Asia.

 

It's because instead of representing their constituents, as Parliamentary democracy is supposed to do (but for the majority of Westminster's existence most certainly has not), the interests of the Party come first.

 

It's because far from acting in the interests of the population, Westminster government acts in the interests of lobbyists (many of whom, let it be noted, are Scots) and avaricious individuals (many of whom etc).

 

It's because its entirely possible to run modern democracies without continual and repeated corruption scandals, none of which are adequately investigated and the people therein brought to book.

 

I could go on.

Thing is, I highly doubt an independent Scotland will be immune to corruption etc, at political level and elsewhere.

[The Real PapaBear 0]

Thing is, I highly doubt an independent Scotland will be immune to corruption etc, at political level and elsewhere.

 

Any chance you could address any of his points? Or is your argument that since there may possibly be corruption in an independent Scotland, we're better sticking with the waste and corruption we know exist in Westminster?

 

One of the things the No campaigners fail to understand is that while Westminster preachers 'market forces' and the 'market balancing itself out' etc etc, the economic policies of the past 40 years have been designed to foster London at the expense of everywhere else. In simple terms, a strong pound was good for the financial services economy (the south east) and bad for tourism and exports (Scotland amongst others), so while exporters were begging the Government to do something about the high interest rates (used as a mechanism to bolster the Pound) Government policy ignored them in order to provide support to The City. Result? UK manufacturing and export was decimated whilst the City became the world financial centre. Then comes the crash of 2007 and the City and with it UK economic policy is fucked (thank you Capitalism, great job!) because everything has been sacrificed at the altar of financial services, the economy of London - we don't make anything any more, so we have nothing to sell abroad.

 

Contrast and compare: In Germany after WW2, the main industrial centres of the Ruhr and NRW saw rents and wages becoming too high as those regions prospered. What happened? Businesses were forced to move elsewhere, notably to South West and South East Germany, areas which had largely been agricultural. The result? Booming high tech industries in both Bavaria and Baden Wurttemburg and the wealth and development spread naturally throughout Germany. The spread of wealth saw the creation of new businesses and thus new wealth spread pretty evenly throughout the country. With the spread of wealth comes the spread of power, so that in Germany the artistic centre is largely Munich, the financial centre is Frankfurt, the media Centre is (or was) Cologne/Duesseldorf, the political centre Bonn/Berlin. Look at a map to see the spread of those cities and how balanced it is.

 

In the UK everything, and i mean everything, is in London.

 

In the UK, the London and South East economy overheats - the result? Introduce "London weighting" and a variety of other subsidies whereby the rest of the UK subsidises the good times of the south, whilst being starved of investment and development themselves.

[simplythebest 0]

Any chance you could address any of his points? Or is your argument that since there may possibly be corruption in an independent Scotland, we're better sticking with the waste and corruption we know exist in Westminster?

 

One of the things the No campaigners fail to understand is that while Westminster preachers 'market forces' and the 'market balancing itself out' etc etc, the economic policies of the past 40 years have been designed to foster London at the expense of everywhere else. In simple terms, a strong pound was good for the financial services economy (the south east) and bad for tourism and exports (Scotland amongst others), so while exporters were begging the Government to do something about the high interest rates (used as a mechanism to bolster the Pound) Government policy ignored them in order to provide support to The City. Result? UK manufacturing and export was decimated whilst the City became the world financial centre. Then comes the crash of 2007 and the City and with it UK economic policy is fucked (thank you Capitalism, great job!) because everything has been sacrificed at the altar of financial services, the economy of London - we don't make anything any more, so we have nothing to sell abroad.

 

Contrast and compare: In Germany after WW2, the main industrial centres of the Ruhr and NRW saw rents and wages becoming too high as those regions prospered. What happened? Businesses were forced to move elsewhere, notably to South West and South East Germany, areas which had largely been agricultural. The result? Booming high tech industries in both Bavaria and Baden Wurttemburg and the wealth and development spread naturally throughout Germany. The spread of wealth saw the creation of new businesses and thus new wealth spread pretty evenly throughout the country. With the spread of wealth comes the spread of power, so that in Germany the artistic centre is largely Munich, the financial centre is Frankfurt, the media Centre is (or was) Cologne/Duesseldorf, the political centre Bonn/Berlin. Look at a map to see the spread of those cities and how balanced it is.

 

In the UK everything, and i mean everything, is in London.

 

In the UK, the London and South East economy overheats - the result? Introduce "London weighting" and a variety of other subsidies whereby the rest of the UK subsidises the good times of the south, whilst being starved of investment and development themselves.

Any chance of the Yes side addressing Scotland's future with independence? So many of the arguments seem to be based on the bad points of the UK, and I fully accept the UK is far from perfect. But it seems to me we're pretty much being asked to assume the grass is greener on the other side.

 

Things can be worse believe it or not.

[The Real PapaBear 0]

Any chance of the Yes side addressing Scotland's future with independence?

 

I give up.

[simplythebest 0]

I give up.

 

All i'm asking is tell me about Scotland's future rather than how bad the UK is.

[The Real PapaBear 0]

All i'm asking is tell me about Scotland's future rather than how bad the UK is.

 

seriously, bud, I give up. Your mind is completely closed on the subject and your only response to points is either fabrication or non-sequiturs. The Yes campaign has been entirely positive about what an Independent Scotland could achieve. The No campaign has been entirely negative, all about how we would crash and burn without the UK to subsidise us.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/fear-versus-hope-what-history-tells-us.21537982

 

I could deliver the ultimate proof to you of why we should vote Yes, gift wrapped in a box and you'd complain that the colour of the bow was anti-English.

[Guest Chelios]

All i'm asking is tell me about Scotland's future rather than how bad the UK is.

 

From what I've seen this is the very question the SNP have refused to answer or be drawn into a discussion on.

 

I hope they aren't planning on pulling out a big fluffy bunny from a hat just before the voting takes place.

 

As for the article, I find the term ( New Breed ) a tad dodgy. I was thinking we were all Rangers fans at the end of the day.

[andy steel 0]

Thing is, I highly doubt an independent Scotland will be immune to corruption etc, at political level and elsewhere.

 

I'll accept your premise, but I think I can present a case which deals with it.

 

In my working life I've worked in big and small environments. The bigger the environment, the harder it is to get anything done properly and sometimes get done at all. It is also amazingly easy to get away with pulling a fast one when there are countless layers between you and being caught out.

 

Scotland would be tiny, compared to the UK system, and any corruption etc far easier to spot and therefore deter. It's like living in a town where everyone knows everyone else - it deters really bad behaviour because of the knowledge that you will most likely be caught.

 

The eg of Glasgow City council shows how easily corruption can happen; my case is not that we would be a paradise. My case is that, compared to what is blatantly an dysfunctional festering den of iniquity, we really can only be better. Maybe not much - but that would be a start.

 

Basically I'd rather try something else and risk failure than carry on failing with the present.