A dinosaur rears it's head

[The Real PapaBear 0]

Irrelevant to you maybe, but no so much to anyone who has loved ones in the wider UK (not just England, a lot of bears reading this will have kith and kin in Northern Ireland, a few in Wales I daresay).

 

When I vote in a general election, I want it to to be a vote for the good of all my friends and family, not just the ones North of the border. And I'm not just talking about solving the South/North financial divide. Earlier in this thread Andy put forward the point that he'll be voting for independence because he's unhappy about the war in the Middle East. Completely understandable feelings, but voting for independence won't end the war. The only difference it will make is that none of the poor bastards who get killed will live around these parts. Will that make it any less tragic? For people like me, who have non-Scots-based relatives with their lives on the line it's especially scant consolation. And should Scotland become independent I won't even be able to vote for a party who will end the war. A vote for independence is effectively an abstention on that matter - and you can apply that same principle to many other issues effecting the UK.

 

The well-being of people in other parts of Britain besides Scotland is not irrelevant to me and that's why I wish to retain a vote and a stake in the running of the UK. To my mind there's a fundamental selfishness about independence ("I'm quids in with this oil, the rest of you can sort yourselves out"). That's why I'm against it.

 

If you were ever trying to convince me to vote Yes you failed with that post.

 

Well first of all, Andy got into a lot of hot water recently by applying quotation marks *correctly*. If Zappa sees what you've done with your invented quote placed in quotation marks, well, I can't imagine what he'll do to you, but it won't be pleasant. Zaaappppaaaaa!!!

 

Ok, to your point, which if I understand it is this: You wish to remain part of the UK primarily because doing so is good for everyone in the UK and that Scotland leaving the UK would be financially detrimental to the people of England and elsewhere.

 

Ergo, we are contributing more to UK coffers than we are taking out - because if we took out more than we contributed, then our leaving would result in a financial benefit to the rest of the UK.

As you have argued, the rest of the UK would be worse off, so that must mean we are net contributors.

 

Good, so, we are agreed (along with the University of Oxford and the UK Exchequer, incidentally) that Scotland contributes more to Westminster than it receives.

So much for the 'No' campaign telling us that we couldn't afford independence and so much for the London media telling us that they are the ones subsidising us.

 

The next logical step in your case (that we help the rest of the UK by subsidising it) is that you are happy for Scots to have less in order that the others have more.

That is very charitable of you and very magnanimous.

{Actually, the desire to look after the common weel is a particularly Scottish value and not one largely shared in the more individualistic south of this island.

What used to be jewels in the British crown, the free health care and free higher education are now only to be found in their original form in Scotland <cough>thank you 8 years of SNP government</cough>. The more individualistically minded south is pushing through American style privatisation of health care at break-neck speed and has long since ensured that higher education will become the preserve of the few once again.}

 

So far, we are agreed; We pay more in than we get out.

 

Where we disagree is that by remaining within the UK, Scotland will actually help the 'outlying parts', i.e everything that is not the Home Counties.

 

The inertia and inaction of the English regions over decades has allowed London to become the behemoth and cultural and financial drain that it is. The departure of Scotland from this collection of City State satellites, aka the UK, may just be what the rest of England needs to waken it up from its decline. If the north east of England, for example, looks at the benefits of Scottish independence just across the border, it may be just what they need to give them the motivation to demand more regional autonomy and development.

 

The very fact that the poorer parts of the UK are in the state they are in shows that Scotland being in the UK doesn't help them in the slightest, even though it damages us.

Sometimes you just have to accept there is a limit to your powers. Scotland is too small to have a big influence on England and its regions. It's up to them to get their own house in order (and this is what my 'irrelevant' remark referred to).

 

In closing, two remarks.

 

 

First, the presence or otherwise of North Sea Oil is not something which factors into my sense of national identity. (Speaking personally, I would be happier to see a distribution of oil reserves which takes into account that they were discovered when we were the UK. 90% of gas and 100% of oil is in Scottish waters and we would be entitled, legally, to it all. I'd be happy to split it 70/30 as a gesture of goodwill. With the development of renewables, we'd have more than we need anyway.)

 

What you seem to believe, along with a good many No voters, is that the independence movement and Yes vote is based on greed and a wish to keep Scotland's oil for itself.

 

It's really not.

 

Oh, there will be the odd one who is focused only on the economic benefits of Independence, but for the vast majority of Yes voters, the reason for voting yes is simply that Scotland is different from England and we want to run our own country in our own way according to our own priorities from our own capital city with decisions made by people we elect; We have sufficiently different priorities and sufficiently different values to much of England to suggest that we'd be better doing things in the way we want. England is in thrall to privatisation of health and social services; Scotland believes these belong in social ownership. England is mesmerised by the United States and will prositute herself at the drop of a hat; Scotland regard American imperialism much more sceptically. England is increasingly anti-European and insular; Scotland far more internationalist and open. England is increasingly anti-immigration; immigration to Scotland is vital. I could go on.

 

Second, the UK involvement in Iraq amounts to a war crime. Simple as that.

It is a shameful chapter in UK history - one of many - and it is something that an independent Scotland wouldn't have gone near with a bargepole.

In fact, Alex Salmond was the first person to stand up in the Commons and condemn it for what it was.

 

If your priority is the UK and if you are willing the sacrifice Scotland for the benefit of the UK, then that's an opinion I can respect whilst disagreeing with.

I won't pretend to be able to understand it; I don't understand how you can witness decades of Scotland being marginalised, misused, lied to and disregarded and still pledge your allegience to the people doing it - but if that's your opinion; fair enough.

[simplythebest 0]

Sorry to disappoint stb, an independent Scotland has always been my hope since I was very young never thought I'd ever see it in my lifetime and it might still not happen but I'll never change my mind on it.

Would add arguments for a 'no' vote aren't very convincing either and Papas support for a 'yes' vote are pretty solid and encouraging

 

Scots Wha Hae

Do you feel uncomfortable with the large British element to our club then?

[simplythebest 0]

Well first of all, Andy got into a lot of hot water recently by applying quotation marks *correctly*. If Zappa sees what you've done with your invented quote placed in quotation marks, well, I can't imagine what he'll do to you, but it won't be pleasant. Zaaappppaaaaa!!!

 

Ok, to your point, which if I understand it is this: You wish to remain part of the UK primarily because doing so is good for everyone in the UK and that Scotland leaving the UK would be financially detrimental to the people of England and elsewhere.

 

Ergo, we are contributing more to UK coffers than we are taking out - because if we took out more than we contributed, then our leaving would result in a financial benefit to the rest of the UK.

As you have argued, the rest of the UK would be worse off, so that must mean we are net contributors.

 

Good, so, we are agreed (along with the University of Oxford and the UK Exchequer, incidentally) that Scotland contributes more to Westminster than it receives.

So much for the 'No' campaign telling us that we couldn't afford independence and so much for the London media telling us that they are the ones subsidising us.

 

The next logical step in your case (that we help the rest of the UK by subsidising it) is that you are happy for Scots to have less in order that the others have more.

That is very charitable of you and very magnanimous.

{Actually, the desire to look after the common weel is a particularly Scottish value and not one largely shared in the more individualistic south of this island.

What used to be jewels in the British crown, the free health care and free higher education are now only to be found in their original form in Scotland <cough>thank you 8 years of SNP government</cough>. The more individualistically minded south is pushing through American style privatisation of health care at break-neck speed and has long since ensured that higher education will become the preserve of the few once again.}

 

So far, we are agreed; We pay more in than we get out.

 

Where we disagree is that by remaining within the UK, Scotland will actually help the 'outlying parts', i.e everything that is not the Home Counties.

 

The inertia and inaction of the English regions over decades has allowed London to become the behemoth and cultural and financial drain that it is. The departure of Scotland from this collection of City State satellites, aka the UK, may just be what the rest of England needs to waken it up from its decline. If the north east of England, for example, looks at the benefits of Scottish independence just across the border, it may be just what they need to give them the motivation to demand more regional autonomy and development.

 

The very fact that the poorer parts of the UK are in the state they are in shows that Scotland being in the UK doesn't help them in the slightest, even though it damages us.

Sometimes you just have to accept there is a limit to your powers. Scotland is too small to have a big influence on England and its regions. It's up to them to get their own house in order (and this is what my 'irrelevant' remark referred to).

 

In closing, two remarks.

 

 

First, the presence or otherwise of North Sea Oil is not something which factors into my sense of national identity. (Speaking personally, I would be happier to see a distribution of oil reserves which takes into account that they were discovered when we were the UK. 90% of gas and 100% of oil is in Scottish waters and we would be entitled, legally, to it all. I'd be happy to split it 70/30 as a gesture of goodwill. With the development of renewables, we'd have more than we need anyway.)

 

What you seem to believe, along with a good many No voters, is that the independence movement and Yes vote is based on greed and a wish to keep Scotland's oil for itself.

 

It's really not.

 

Oh, there will be the odd one who is focused only on the economic benefits of Independence, but for the vast majority of Yes voters, the reason for voting yes is simply that Scotland is different from England and we want to run our own country in our own way according to our own priorities from our own capital city with decisions made by people we elect; We have sufficiently different priorities and sufficiently different values to much of England to suggest that we'd be better doing things in the way we want. England is in thrall to privatisation of health and social services; Scotland believes these belong in social ownership. England is mesmerised by the United States and will prositute herself at the drop of a hat; Scotland regard American imperialism much more sceptically. England is increasingly anti-European and insular; Scotland far more internationalist and open. England is increasingly anti-immigration; immigration to Scotland is vital. I could go on.

 

Second, the UK involvement in Iraq amounts to a war crime. Simple as that.

It is a shameful chapter in UK history - one of many - and it is something that an independent Scotland wouldn't have gone near with a bargepole.

In fact, Alex Salmond was the first person to stand up in the Commons and condemn it for what it was.

 

If your priority is the UK and if you are willing the sacrifice Scotland for the benefit of the UK, then that's an opinion I can respect whilst disagreeing with.

I won't pretend to be able to understand it; I don't understand how you can witness decades of Scotland being marginalised, misused, lied to and disregarded and still pledge your allegience to the people doing it - but if that's your opinion; fair enough.

 

Just to pick up on your Iraq point, as the UK we made that decision, heck a Scot was the chancellor of the relevant government. All our UK troops put their life on the line as they have done for other wars.

 

I don't mind the merits of the war being questioned but to separate it into a Scottish/English thing is wrong and even cowardly imo.

[The Real PapaBear 0]

Just to pick up on your Iraq point, as the UK we made that decision,

"we" made no such decision. The majority of people were against the war. The UK government made the decision to go to war based on a lie. that's why I said "UK involvement" and "UK history"

 

I don't mind the merits of the war being questioned but to separate it into a Scottish/English thing is wrong and even cowardly imo.

Where do you see it separated into "a Scottish/English thing"? The distinction I made is between the criminal actions of a UK government and the probable actions of an independent Scottish government. *You* are the one confusing England and the UK, not me.

[amms 0]

The sporting heroes point is a good one AMMS - thats pretty darn confusing all told - thought perhaps little different from the footballers who chose the country of representation based upon a fathers or grandfathers place of birth.

 

I dont think however the imperial hyms of which you speak are dont to wind up other supportes _ I think they are done out of a sense of identity - they tend to be popular British anthems - and I suspect they have evolved from their imperialistic meaning. Either that or a group of women with blue rinses are winding up the darkside at Last Night of the Poms !

 

As I think I said in one of the threads we're now running on this I can only think of two songs, Rule Britannia and GSTQ, which fall into this category. Perhaps there are more that I'm overlooking. What I'm trying to understand is what 'sense of identity' they espouse. To simply describe them as British anthems is fine but what part of British identity are they celebrating?

 

I feel it's an important aspect of your original piece. It's not that the 'new breed' don't necessarily feel 'British' or Protestant' or even 'Unionist' it's about context. I'm not sure what part of 'British identity' is being celebrated by these songs, they feel militaristic and imperial, but maybe that isn't what you (or anyone who sings them) wants to convey. I'm trying to understand what it is those singing want others to take from it.

If you sing Follow Follow there is no ambiguity, it is a song about Rangers pure and simple. If you sing The Sash again there is only a little ambiguity, it is a song about Irish history and support for a particular strand of it. But sing Rule Britannia and there's lots of ambiguity. Should the song be taken literally and seen as an expression naval power, does it now refer to the UK being a more general military power, perhaps political power or economic power or does it mean something else entirely? If it isn't being sung to wind up Dundee Utd and Partick Thistle fans then it must be getting done for another reason, but what?

 

Until someone who sings it explains what it is they want others to take from it it's difficult for me to either agree or disagree with it.

 

Oh and BTW, you need to watch the Last Night of The Proms a little closer this year, it is far from a group of women with blue rinses, it's one of the highlights of the musical year for me!

[Thinker 887]

Well first of all, Andy got into a lot of hot water recently by applying quotation marks *correctly*. If Zappa sees what you've done with your invented quote placed in quotation marks, well, I can't imagine what he'll do to you, but it won't be pleasant. Zaaappppaaaaa!!! .

 

Okay sorry. I wasn't quoting anyone specifically, more of an "in inverted commas" summary of the way I see things. Oops, I've just done it again!

 

 

Ok, to your point, which if I understand it is this: You wish to remain part of the UK primarily because doing so is good for everyone in the UK and that Scotland leaving the UK would be financially detrimental to the people of England and elsewhere.

 

Ergo, we are contributing more to UK coffers than we are taking out - because if we took out more than we contributed, then our leaving would result in a financial benefit to the rest of the UK.

As you have argued, the rest of the UK would be worse off, so that must mean we are net contributors.

 

Good, so, we are agreed (along with the University of Oxford and the UK Exchequer, incidentally) that Scotland contributes more to Westminster than it receives.

So much for the 'No' campaign telling us that we couldn't afford independence and so much for the London media telling us that they are the ones subsidising us.

 

How much we would be able to afford as independent nation is clearly linked to the price of oil. If it goes up fantastic, if it goes down, not so fantastic. But I'm not just talking about the finance that we bring to the UK, I'm talking about the influence we bring with our votes. It will be much, much harder for the rest to out-vote the South East if we're not there. That concerns me. When I look at the UK I don't see an us and a them, just an us.

 

 

The next logical step in your case (that we help the rest of the UK by subsidising it) is that you are happy for Scots to have less in order that the others have more.

That is very charitable of you and very magnanimous.

 

I don't want the Scots to have less. Ideally, I'd like us all to get the same - shared out equally across the country. Maybe that doesn't happen at the moment, but that's what I want to happen, and it'll influence who I vote for in the general election. It's not really a magnanimous gesture since I care a great deal about many people who live in the UK outside of Scotland.

 

 

{Actually, the desire to look after the common weel is a particularly Scottish value and not one largely shared in the more individualistic south of this island.

What used to be jewels in the British crown, the free health care and free higher education are now only to be found in their original form in Scotland <cough>thank you 8 years of SNP government</cough>. The more individualistically minded south is pushing through American style privatisation of health care at break-neck speed and has long since ensured that higher education will become the preserve of the few once again.}

 

So far, we are agreed; We pay more in than we get out.

 

Possibly, but it hasn't always been that way and it doesn't necessarily have to be that way in the future.

 

 

Where we disagree is that by remaining within the UK, Scotland will actually help the 'outlying parts', i.e everything that is not the Home Counties.

 

The inertia and inaction of the English regions over decades has allowed London to become the behemoth and cultural and financial drain that it is. The departure of Scotland from this collection of City State satellites, aka the UK, may just be what the rest of England needs to waken it up from its decline. If the north east of England, for example, looks at the benefits of Scottish independence just across the border, it may be just what they need to give them the motivation to demand more regional autonomy and development.

 

The very fact that the poorer parts of the UK are in the state they are in shows that Scotland being in the UK doesn't help them in the slightest, even though it damages us.

Sometimes you just have to accept there is a limit to your powers. Scotland is too small to have a big influence on England and its regions. It's up to them to get their own house in order (and this is what my 'irrelevant' remark referred to).

 

I don't believe that's true at all. I believe Scotland can play a major role in creating a fairer UK in the future.

 

 

In closing, two remarks.

 

First, the presence or otherwise of North Sea Oil is not something which factors into my sense of national identity. (Speaking personally, I would be happier to see a distribution of oil reserves which takes into account that they were discovered when we were the UK. 90% of gas and 100% of oil is in Scottish waters and we would be entitled, legally, to it all. I'd be happy to split it 70/30 as a gesture of goodwill. With the development of renewables, we'd have more than we need anyway.)

 

What you seem to believe, along with a good many No voters, is that the independence movement and Yes vote is based on greed and a wish to keep Scotland's oil for itself.

 

It's really not. .

 

Wasn't "It's Scotland's Oil" a slogan coined by the SNP?

 

 

Oh, there will be the odd one who is focused only on the economic benefits of Independence, but for the vast majority of Yes voters, the reason for voting yes is simply that Scotland is different from England and we want to run our own country in our own way according to our own priorities from our own capital city with decisions made by people we elect; We have sufficiently different priorities and sufficiently different values to much of England to suggest that we'd be better doing things in the way we want. England is in thrall to privatisation of health and social services; Scotland believes these belong in social ownership. England is mesmerised by the United States and will prositute herself at the drop of a hat; Scotland regard American imperialism much more sceptically. England is increasingly anti-European and insular; Scotland far more internationalist and open. England is increasingly anti-immigration; immigration to Scotland is vital. I could go on.

 

Personally I don't believe that "England" or "Scotland" believe anything, and it's a crude generalisation to say otherwise. Some constituencies in England traditionally vote in a certain way, others don't, and we form multicultural parts of a multicultural whole. The North-East of England, for example, is staunchly socialist, just like central Scotland. And we can't forget about Northern Ireland and Wales. They don't have fossil fuel reserves to keep to themselves as funding for their independence. In fact, the North East of Scotland and the Shetlands typically vote Lib-Dem as opposed to the Labour voting Central belt. By your argument, why should they have to subsidise us Weegie scum benefit junkies with their oil money? If, as you say, you don't believe that a person's nationality is decided by their ancestry, why should it be decided by ancestral borders? Does it seem fair that the people of Stranraer should get more money from North Sea oil than the people of Berwick?

 

 

Second, the UK involvement in Iraq amounts to a war crime. Simple as that.

It is a shameful chapter in UK history - one of many - and it is something that an independent Scotland wouldn't have gone near with a bargepole.

In fact, Alex Salmond was the first person to stand up in the Commons and condemn it for what it was.

 

If your priority is the UK and if you are willing the sacrifice Scotland for the benefit of the UK, then that's an opinion I can respect whilst disagreeing with.

I won't pretend to be able to understand it; I don't understand how you can witness decades of Scotland being marginalised, misused, lied to and disregarded and still pledge your allegience to the people doing it - but if that's your opinion; fair enough.

 

I'm not advocating pledging allegiance to people who've run the country badly, I'm suggesting we vote for people who'll run the country well. The war in the Middle East is more likely to be ended if the people of Scotland get a say in it. Like I've said before, I fully believe that our votes will be important in guiding the UK in the future. It seems very negative to me to suggest that's not a possibility - every bit as negative as those who nay-say your rosy picture of a future independent Scotland.

[simplythebest 0]

Okay sorry. I wasn't quoting anyone specifically, more of an "in inverted commas" summary of the way I see things. Oops, I've just done it again!

 

 

 

How much we would be able to afford as independent nation is clearly linked to the price of oil. If it goes up fantastic, if it goes down, not so fantastic. But I'm not just talking about the finance that we bring to the UK, I'm talking about the influence we bring with our votes. It will be much, much harder for the rest to out-vote the South East if we're not there. That concerns me. When I look at the UK I don't see an us and a them, just an us.

 

 

 

I don't want the Scots to have less. Ideally, I'd like us all to get the same - shared out equally across the country. Maybe that doesn't happen at the moment, but that's what I want to happen, and it'll influence who I vote for in the general election. It's not really a magnanimous gesture since I care a great deal about many people who live in the UK outside of Scotland.

 

 

 

Possibly, but it hasn't always been that way and it doesn't necessarily have to be that way in the future.

 

 

 

I don't believe that's true at all. I believe Scotland can play a major role in creating a fairer UK in the future.

 

 

 

Wasn't "It's Scotland's Oil" a slogan coined by the SNP?

 

 

 

Personally I don't believe that "England" or "Scotland" believe anything, and it's a crude generalisation to say otherwise. Some constituencies in England traditionally vote in a certain way, others don't, and we form multicultural parts of a multicultural whole. The North-East of England, for example, is staunchly socialist, just like central Scotland. And we can't forget about Northern Ireland and Wales. They don't have fossil fuel reserves to keep to themselves as funding for their independence. In fact, the North East of Scotland and the Shetlands typically vote Lib-Dem as opposed to the Labour voting Central belt. By your argument, why should they have to subsidise us Weegie scum benefit junkies with their oil money? If, as you say, you don't believe that a person's nationality is decided by their ancestry, why should it be decided by ancestral borders? Does it seem fair that the people of Stranraer should get more money from North Sea oil than the people of Berwick?

 

 

 

I'm not advocating pledging allegiance to people who've run the country badly, I'm suggesting we vote for people who'll run the country well. The war in the Middle East is more likely to be ended if the people of Scotland get a say in it. Like I've said before, I fully believe that our votes will be important in guiding the UK in the future. It seems very negative to me to suggest that's not a possibility - every bit as negative as those who nay-say your rosy picture of a future independent Scotland.

What you're basically saying (I think) is that while the UK is far from perfect, it's not a lost cause and separatism isn't the solution, you'd rather work towards a different Britain even if it's long term.

 

A sentiment I agree with.

[craig 5,199]

Where is the "my head hurts" smiley ?

[Thinker 887]

Where is the "my head hurts" smiley ?

 

I know mate.

 

Sorry for hi-jacking the thread and taking it so far off topic.

[simplythebest 0]

I know mate.

 

Sorry for hi-jacking the thread and taking it so far off topic.

The OP was related to Rangers' British and unionist values, not that far off topic.