|
Post by akflyrod on May 4, 2007 17:06:19 GMT
HOORAY
|
|
|
Post by Sloggi on May 4, 2007 17:21:03 GMT
Bit premature. I doubt they will be able to form a coalition with their current agenda.
|
|
|
Post by pertempledog on May 4, 2007 18:41:53 GMT
or they'll have a coalition but a different agenda....
Interesting times perhaps or, as the French say "plus ca change..."
|
|
|
Post by salmonking on May 4, 2007 19:44:51 GMT
There is no way Scotland can become or will become independent, A,There are not enough people in Scotland for the country to support itself. B,Subsidized 11 billion by the union(England) where are Scotland going to get that sort of money on gaining Independence. Whether we like it or not(i dont)we are run by England and will continue to be run by them in the future,its nice to dream but thats all it is I'm afraid.
|
|
|
Post by greenbanks on May 4, 2007 19:53:46 GMT
There is no way Scotland can become or will become independent, A,There are not enough people in Scotland for the country to support itself. B,Subsidized 11 billion by the union(England) where are Scotland going to get that sort of money on gaining Independence. Whether we like it or not(i dont)we are run by England and will continue to be run by them in the future,its nice to dream but thats all it is I'm afraid. Hows it the saying goes? The only thing that limits you is your imagination.
|
|
|
Post by ibrox on May 4, 2007 19:53:55 GMT
Not wishing to upset anyone but how many billions do the English receive from (Scottish) oil and gas. I think we would be much better off.
FREEDOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by akflyrod on May 4, 2007 22:04:18 GMT
YES AA , i agree, and there is much to gain from the tourist alaska has a small population , with oil and tourists revenue she does just fine,
|
|
|
Post by Fruin on May 4, 2007 23:32:45 GMT
I think there are many pros and cons on both sides, far too many to consider without a full study and a lot of time. However, I firmly believe that Scotland has never been subsidised by England. The millions in revenue generated from oil and gas has been moved south and then redistrubuted, some of it back to Scotland as subsidies, EH? Why are other oil producing nations so wealthy, yet Scotland needs subsidised by our parents south of the border? If we are so heavily subsidised, why has Westminster held on to us for so long, through periods when the majority of the Scottish public would have preferred independance?
Water anyone?
|
|
|
Post by akflyrod on May 5, 2007 6:33:26 GMT
the truths go unanswered fruin
|
|
|
Post by ibrox on May 5, 2007 7:43:25 GMT
Fruin you have hit the nail right on the head. If Scotland had no oil, gas, water, and other vast resources, would Westminster be so keen to hold on to our little gem. I think not !!!
I am not anti union, just stating the obvious.
|
|
|
Post by macd on May 5, 2007 11:11:13 GMT
im not anti union- far from it. but i gave my vote to the nats.
I am sick of the mundane, no-imagination, institutionalised municipal grey hue of the west of scotland dominated politburo which has reduced our country to self loathing mediocrity. All aided and abetted by the lib dem quislings.
Well said kenny.
By the way I wont tolerate any anti-english racism. We all have an island to share- we just need a better way of doing it. Blair and Brown are acting as if we just elected Hamas.
Wise up or the union is really screwed.
|
|
|
Post by ibm59 on May 5, 2007 12:03:44 GMT
Don't get too excited , lads. Unless there's another catastrophic event like Iraq in the period between now and the next election , we'll end up back where we were before Thursday. This was a protest vote. Nothing more , nothing less. Macd , things may look bad from afar but it's even worse actually living under the rule of that grey politburo. Believe me , unless you live in an area which has always voted Labour , your voice will always be ignored at local level and the cash distributed amongst the so called " deprived "areas. A satellite dish on every house and taxis to and from the supermarket/ methadone shop doesn't seem very deprived to me. Wanton destruction of village infastructure. ie demolish an old traditional villa and build 40 flats , sorry appartments , even though the roads can't cope with the increase in traffic , doctors/dentists/schools have no places available for the present population etc etc. Makes my blood boil. But it sure fills the local Red council's coffers with increased council tax dosh. Regards. Brian 15 , All for the Union place. Largs. Deepest Red North Ayrshire (but not with my vote )
|
|
|
Post by Fruin on May 5, 2007 22:31:34 GMT
I totally agree that it was a protest vote, but at least it indicates a thought process at the polls. Maybe we are finally starting to vote for the future and not the past. There is no such thing as a wasted vote.
|
|
|
Post by ibm59 on May 6, 2007 5:27:21 GMT
I'm all for moving forward , G , but with my eyes wide open. Too long in the tooth for hysterical flag waving without any thought towards the consequences. I'll concede that it's nice to see that people do have a mind of their own and are capable of putting a cross in a different box than their fathers , grandfathers etc before them. "I've always voted ........... " is a curse that needed to be put to rest and long may it continue so.
|
|
|
Post by storlaks on May 6, 2007 7:31:47 GMT
Only those who have paid TAX(over a longish period), or pay TAX (i.e. the working people in the country) should be allowed to vote. This would stop the 3rd generation unemployed/unemployable, drug using scroungers getting a say in who runs the country. It's a disgrace these people get a say in anything. This may bring about a change in how politicians think and who they target in their campaigns. Good to see a change in party, but without someone who is willing to rock the boat and stand-up for what's right and what's wrong in society then people's life won't change that much in the coming years. It needs a radical re-think.
|
|
|
Post by Fruin on May 6, 2007 22:27:38 GMT
The cost of new roads in Scotland would not be an issue if we were allowed to build a pot of cash from oil for sustained investement in roads, schools, hospitals etc. in much the same way as countries like Norway have managed. However, all of the money went south for redistribution. Westminster misled the Scottish public back in the 70's by saying that the oil was about to run dry. This built insecurity and people lost interest in the SNP. People in Scotland will not get independance unless they vote for it. The recent results at the ballot box just go some way to saying it is no longer an impossibility and that people have lost confidence in Westminster. I vote through instinct and judgement of character as much, or more, as I do for policy. When Mr Blair was establishing himself, I liked the sound of some of his policies, but just didn't see anything in him that I could trust. I'm now glad that he never got my vote then. Out of all the policies that I liked, he never carried one through. I think that Scotland needs some protection of it's resources.
|
|
|
Post by ibm59 on May 6, 2007 22:39:33 GMT
The days of establishing an independent Scotland on North Sea Hydrocarbon revenue are long gone. The population were , without a doubt , mislead back in the 70's but supplies ARE now diminishing and to set off down the independence trail using this as a main source of national income would be foolhardy in the extreme. It's a good idea but lets think it through first.
|
|
|
Post by Fruin on May 6, 2007 22:50:07 GMT
B, I agree, but it is a very real example of how all the money flows southward, and then we are expected to say thank you for our subsidy I believe that Scotland could do well, if we were allowed to govern ourselves. Any trade links would still be there, there are no plans to move the country. However, I think that people need to leave out the Braveheart attitude and only go down the route of independance if they see some plausible evidence of real benefit.
|
|
|
Post by iainjay on May 6, 2007 22:57:16 GMT
I remember being all for SNP in its infancy, but the attraction has waned in recent years.The main reason for this.......Alex Salmond. Scotland desparately needs someone more inspiring.
|
|
|
Post by Fruin on May 7, 2007 20:05:42 GMT
I believe that Scotland could do well, if we were allowed to govern ourselves. I assume this is based more on gut feeling than fact. Without oil your left with tourism and a lot of heather. Oh and salmon farms Water? One of the reasons that we have so little is that we have never had the investment. That could perhaps be put down to the fact that most people in England would support England over Scotland, and we are no longer talking football or rugby. In my industry (Rail) the investment is now controlled from Scotland, and we are certainly seeing the benefits in the numbers of valuable projects that are now progressing. Whether the same level of funding continues under the recent changes is yet to be seen.
|
|