|
Post by ozneil on Feb 13, 2014 2:43:37 GMT -1
Yeah, let's hear about how the (dirty word, small s socialists) have fucked up Europe! Maybe we could have a similar analysis of the fascist regimes in Spain and Italy in the last century an all, just for balance. Throw in Nazi Germany for good measure. Balance being the key here. There are 24 INDEPENDENT countries in Europe that share the same currency. Each country is different in culture, mores and values but we are more than the sum of our parts and NOT just about the disposable income in Guy A's pocket. It's about living in a decent, caring society that takes best care of ALL its citizens, whether wealth-creators, ordinary workers or those who're vulnerable. Scotland will fit very well into Europe post indy. The values of the south east of England are going to see them increasingly isolated. Which is a terrible pity, but hey ho. Their choice. Gees get off your high horse... you asked & you were told. I really wish you hadnt asked its a red herring. Now please answer my last questions. I do really want to know. I repeat Im interested in what sort of government Scotland will have after independence. All I can get is "fair balanced" etc etc and other warm fuzzy phrases which sounds great but how is this going to be achieved? As far as I can see SNP are only interested in gaining Independence. What happens after that? will they break into factions? Should SNP cease to exist what will replace it bearing in mind most Westminster seats are in Labour hands at moment and have been for several elections?. I fear it could be an overwhelming labour majority which will not be good for the country (see examples in previous post) Any overwhelming majority left or right is bad! Will the Scottish "regional" parliament as it stands take over the duties if the Westminster Government till your next election? My own political views have nothing to do with my questions I am just a fascinated on looker hoping for the best for Scotland and UK as a whole.
|
|
|
Post by notanimby on Feb 13, 2014 6:26:45 GMT -1
Rolo rote More silly questions Was SNP Gains in Scottish parliament or Westminster bye elections? I dont trust Opinion polls If Scottish parliament have you any reason to believe the trend will continue in a National Vote? Are the objectives the same in Scottish & National Governments? This question is based on State/Federal election results here. My main worry would be that with the huge number of Labour seats in Scotland is that any National Government in Scotland would be Socalist (ok Nota SILLI) dominated World wide Socialist governments are not renowned for their fiscal competence. OK Nota so some obscure place like Ruritannia was. To start with you need a hard hitting morally tough government that is willing to and has guts enough to make Scotland Pty Ltd a going concern and prepared to make sacrifices to ensure it is. Labour is NOT renowned for this ! Look, it's not rocket science, the UK LIEBOOR party is not a socialist party, despite what lies they tell. The current tory government is borrowing more than the LIEBOOR party ever did thats why the UK debt is £1.4 TRILLION and rising. I'm still curious to find out about these "world-wide socialist" governments - I've asked around various peopel I know, who are involved in politics of many colours and have been for donkeys years, they don't know either Someone did mention Nazi Germany ( national socialist) but they can't be surely as they were fascists I see the current fascist* government of Australia is planning on dumping on teh Great Barrier Reef - must be one of those right-wing libertarian couldn't give a fuck about anyone/anything else else, I'm Alright Jack actions * Your current government are obviously fascist in teh same way that you "think" that our LIEBOOR party is a socialist party. Can you point to anything our current LIEBOOR party does that is "socialist" ?
|
|
|
Post by notanimby on Feb 13, 2014 6:34:02 GMT -1
Rolo rote 50s Im not that old!!!!!!!!! Gees I really wish you hadnt said that Sleeping dogs and all that OK following Governments for financial fuck-ups UKWilson (Bad) Callahan (monstrous fuck ups) Bliar/Brown (no need to say any more) OzWhitlam (Very Bad) Hawke (mediocre) Keating (not as bad as Whitlam but bad) Rudd/Gillaed/Rudd (even worse than Whitlam, . Took a $96 bil surplus and turned it into a $260 bil deficetin 6 years) US Obama (need I go further?) Want me to start on Europe? I would still be very concerned about number of Scottish Labour MPs , Very concerned. Will the Labour party still control them? Are the constituences roughly the same? Do you have a first Past the post in Scottish Parliament elections? Ahem, In teh US Reagan/Bush senior left a huge deficit - Clinton paid it down only for Bush jnr to start it getting out of hand again In teh UK Thatcher left the economy in no great state, umemployment was huge, taxation( indirect & direct in total) 100% higher trhan it had ever been. Profitable industries shut down for political expediency and teh family silver sold off to her city friends - those chickens ae now home and roosting Feel free to start on Europe - why not start with Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway & Finland - please enlighten us on their issues, because from here they look as if they are doing quite well
|
|
|
Post by notanimby on Feb 13, 2014 6:44:36 GMT -1
Yeah, let's hear about how the (dirty word, small s socialists) have fucked up Europe! Maybe we could have a similar analysis of the fascist regimes in Spain and Italy in the last century an all, just for balance. Throw in Nazi Germany for good measure. Balance being the key here. There are 24 INDEPENDENT countries in Europe that share the same currency. Each country is different in culture, mores and values but we are more than the sum of our parts and NOT just about the disposable income in Guy A's pocket. It's about living in a decent, caring society that takes best care of ALL its citizens, whether wealth-creators, ordinary workers or those who're vulnerable. Scotland will fit very well into Europe post indy. The values of the south east of England are going to see them increasingly isolated. Which is a terrible pity, but hey ho. Their choice. Gees get off your high horse... you asked & you were told. I really wish you hadnt asked its a red herring. Now please answer my last questions. I do really want to know. I repeat Im interested in what sort of government Scotland will have after independence. All I can get is "fair balanced" etc etc and other warm fuzzy phrases which sounds great but how is this going to be achieved? As far as I can see SNP are only interested in gaining Independence. What happens after that? will they break into factions? Should SNP cease to exist what will replace it bearing in mind most Westminster seats are in Labour hands at moment and have been for several elections?. I fear it could be an overwhelming labour majority which will not be good for the country (see examples in previous post) Any overwhelming majority left or right is bad! Will the Scottish "regional" parliament as it stands take over the duties if the Westminster Government till your next election? My own political views have nothing to do with my questions I am just a fascinated on looker hoping for the best for Scotland and UK as a whole. After independence the Scottish Government elected in our first general election ( 2016 May) will be made up by whatever parties and candidates stand. The current tory, LIE-DUMB & LIEBOOR SCUM parties will not be allowed to stand ( as they are) because they are foreign entities - they will need to form new parties. If we, the Scottish people choose to elect governemnts of whatever flavour, then that is our choice - you really shouldn't let your prejudices based on ignorance of the actual facts cloud your view on that..... Scottish Parliament is elected by proportional reprrsentation. The SNP may or may not change after independence, that's up to their members, it may change over time though as new parties are formed Don't expect us to be westminster in minature - that will not happen, as we'll have a written constitutionm that will prevent that - there will be no affront to democracy like the house of lords for starters.......
|
|
|
Post by ozneil on Feb 13, 2014 18:16:40 GMT -1
Ok Nota so you are just going to rant on off subject on a red herring thats ok be my guest
Im sorry though that I missed a comma between World Wide and socialist It should have read "World wide, Socialist......" I thought even you would have realised that.
One thing really surprises me I thought you in voted for a person not a party so are you telling me you will ban a candidate because of their political affiliations? I dont believe it
However I will try and get information elsewhere particularily about the transitional period which will take considerably longer than the 2 years till your next election
|
|
|
Post by notanimby on Feb 13, 2014 18:56:56 GMT -1
Ok Nota so you are just going to rant on off subject on a red herring thats ok be my guest Im sorry though that I missed a comma between World Wide and socialist It should have read "World wide, Socialist......" I thought even you would have realised that. One thing really surprises me I thought you in voted for a person not a party so are you telling me you will ban a candidate because of their political affiliations? I dont believe it However I will try and get information elsewhere particularily about the transitional period which will take considerably longer than the 2 years till your next election The parties won't be allowed to stand - it's not a difficult concept - does Australia allow foreign political parties to put up candidates? In this country ( UK) it is a legal requirement for a political party to be registered with the electoral commission and have its HQ etc here, Scotland will have a similar organisation. For example the LIEBOOR-SCUM party in Scotland call themselves the Scottish Labour Party - that is a complete misnomer as there is no political party with that name registered with the electoral commission, same with the Scottish Conservative & Unionist Party - no such party actually exists. The transitional period is currently at 18 months actually, not two years, even the UK government expert has said this is possible. But then again we have the ultimate "full-house" on our side to play at any time of our choosing after a Yes vote - which is Trident - they can get their subs tae fuck with a few days notice otherwise...................there may be a few ships parked across the Gareloch There's 4 Trident subs, one is at sea, the second is apparently set to sail at a moments notice, third is on training and the fourth being refitted, so they only have two at most to actually move. So no great shakes there, they can come back for the missiles stored in Glen Douglas as things progress, maybe a bit quicker if they get caught at the bullying again You need tio go and look at what successor/continuing/new state actually means and what they entail on Scotland & rUKs part
|
|
|
Post by bormes on Feb 13, 2014 19:18:02 GMT -1
They failed the safety inspection for nuclear safety at the base AGAIN?
|
|
|
Post by ozneil on Feb 13, 2014 20:08:40 GMT -1
Gees ask a few simple questions and get a rant
Sorry I asked.
will go elswhere or maybe just drop the whole thing in disgust.
as I said I was interested but the outcome wont affect us either way so its not really worth putting up with the rants and abuse
so forget I asked.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2014 20:26:15 GMT -1
Gees get off your high horse... you asked & you were told. I really wish you hadnt asked its a red herring. Now please answer my last questions. I do really want to know. I repeat [/b] Im interested in what sort of government Scotland will have after independence.
All I can get is "fair balanced" etc etc and other warm fuzzy phrases which sounds great but how is this going to be achieved?
As far as I can see SNP are only interested in gaining Independence. What happens after that? will they break into factions?
Should SNP cease to exist what will replace it bearing in mind most Westminster seats are in Labour hands at moment and have been for several elections?. I fear it could be an overwhelming labour majority which will not be good for the country (see examples in previous post) Any overwhelming majority left or right is bad!
Will the Scottish "regional" parliament as it stands take over the duties if the Westminster Government till your next election?
My own political views have nothing to do with my questions I am just a fascinated on looker hoping for the best for Scotland and UK as a whole.
[/quote] [/b] Oz, I think Nota's pretty much answered the questions above. The sort of government Scotland will have post-Yes will be the sort of government the Scottish people vote for As I mentioned previously, Scotland tends to be left of centre and thus has a stake in the fairer distribution of wealth. There will be plenty money to go around post-Yes because our Scottish and immigrant entrepreneurs and wealth creators, and our hard-working population, as well as our very saleable natural resources, will ensure that. The Westminster government has never disagreed that Scotland has the capability to exist comfortably as an independent country. You're right in saying that the principle reason for the founding of the Scottish National Party was to drive the independence cause forward. The clue's in the name... However a by-product of their increasing support with Scottish voters has been that they have formed a very credible, capable government that puts the interests of the Scottish people first. Which I think will stand them in good stead as a party in the future, post YES. So I believe that Labour (whatever version of Labour exists in future) will absolutely NOT be handed an overwhelming majority. Oz, can I just say that my politics are about the best possible Scotland. I'm not anti-English, far from it. But it would be true, I think, to say, that the UKE is VERY deeply divided and it's not just the Scots that realise that. And as I've said before, I am concerned about our neighbours post YES. They're not being told anything LIKE the truth by ANY of the major three Westminster parties--- and they're starting to wake up to that fact.
|
|
|
Post by ozneil on Feb 13, 2014 21:46:44 GMT -1
Thank you Rolo He probably did but Im damned if Im wading through his usual "See how clever I am and how stupid you are" rhetoric to find a few facts in his normal drivel
|
|
|
Post by bormes on Feb 13, 2014 21:56:19 GMT -1
OZ, may I suggest that quite a lot of yes voters, including myself, originally voted as a protest because NONE of the main parties were standing up for the Scots. Even the Parliament was set up so that they could NEVER be the Government, yet,,,,,, They DID!!!! That to me seems to suggest strongly, more and more people realise that the SNP have done a great job so far with their hands tied financially. We are being pounded by the BBC and the majority of the media that we should stay together and that we must stay together. I hope we manage it. Meantime may I suggest we could learn a lot from Australia.
|
|
|
Post by ozneil on Feb 13, 2014 22:11:01 GMT -1
Thanks Bormes. To me its interesting but remember I am an Australian first and my real interests are here and I have no axe to grind either way about Scotland. I have no time for UK government I like the people generally but dislike your politicians both tory & socialist but I wont go into that here. So I wish you well in your venture and can understand your feelings. As I have said I know other Scots, actually 2 old & trusted friends of mine now both retired, that reckon you could well be jumping out of the frying pan into the fire. Good luck anyway Scotland has always had raw deal in history
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2014 23:35:22 GMT -1
This list has been presented to me at a recent local 'debate' including some of our MSPs and others and the conclusion was that this is the list of voters that have been identified in my local area: Those who will vote for Independence because they are sentimental - the 'Bravehearts' Those who will vote for Independence because they are 'vindictive' - getting back at the 'Thatcher years' Those who will vote for Independence because they are conviction voters - they truly believe in Independence. Those who will want to retain the status quo because they're intimidated by Westminster and the Media spin. Those who will want to retain the Union because they are fearful of change...
My question is, does any of the above surprise anyone? It doesn't for me.....
|
|
|
Post by notanimby on Feb 14, 2014 6:26:41 GMT -1
This list has been presented to me at a recent local 'debate' including some of our MSPs and others and the conclusion was that this is the list of voters that have been identified in my local area: Those who will vote for Independence because they are sentimental - the 'Bravehearts' Those who will vote for Independence because they are 'vindictive' - getting back at the 'Thatcher years' Those who will vote for Independence because they are conviction voters - they truly believe in Independence. Those who will want to retain the status quo because they're intimidated by Westminster and the Media spin. Those who will want to retain the Union because they are fearful of change... My question is, does any of the above surprise anyone? It doesn't for me..... Nope it doesn't surprise me at all, at all but you could also add to the list by saying too Those who will vote no for sentimental reasons, the orange lodge for example
|
|
|
Post by notanimby on Feb 14, 2014 6:52:26 GMT -1
Funnily though, the same old anti-indepence arguments are getting the light of day again, they must have an auld scullery press somewhere full of them....... MALTA An editorial in The Times on 7 January 1959 noted gravely: ‘Malta cannot live on its own … the island could pay for only one-fifths of her food and essential imports; well over a quarter of the present labour force would be out of work and the economy of the country would collapse with out British Treasury subventions. Talk of full independence for Malta is therefore hopelessly impractical. The Times published a letter on 21 January 1964 by a Joseph Agius of Ta’ Xbiex on Malta stating fearfully of: ‘... the folly of giving independence to Malta when we are not economically prepared for it.’ NORWAYOn 6 July 1892, The Times published a letter by ‘R.H’ entitled, ‘A Warning from Norway’: ‘… I may add that, as regards the immediate point of consular representation, the opinion of the commercial class in both kingdoms, as expressed in the chambers of commerce, beginning with the Norwegian capital itself, is decidedly hostile to it… At the same time it seems scarcely possible that the leaders of the movement can clearly realise the fate they are preparing for the country by what may well be termed a suicidal agitation … would not a free national existence but subserviency, not to say bondage to Russia … [Norway] reduced to conditions of a central Asian khanate.’ Norway gained independence on 13 May 1905. It didn’t become a ‘central Asian khanate’. Norway was another country which ‘couldn’t afford independence’. Like Malta prior to independence, it had an amount of self-government, but within Sweden. One of the great bones of contention for Norway was that the consular service and tariffs were biased towards the more agrarian Swedish economy rather than the exporting Norwegian one. Even though the call for greater independence was widely felt across Norway, there were still some who were afraid of it and its consequences. ICELANDIn a rare article on Icelandic politics, The Guardian wrote a sentence on 23 March 1908, which I guess has been used for all former colonies: ‘It is very interesting to note that in this connection that Denmark has to pay a heavy price for her nominal possession of Iceland in the form of a large annual subvention to the Budget of the island.’ Thirty years later........ On, 1 December 1938, twenty years and a World War after The Guardian’s dire assessment, The Times wrote a glowing report on Iceland’s twentieth anniversary of independence from Denmark. Subtitled with the decidedly modernist, ‘Roads and Radio’ the Times notes succinctly: ‘Side by side with the political liberation of the country, developed the gradual economic emancipation of the island.’ As it is very difficult ( they charge for access) to get links to the originals I've plagiarised these from this source thisisnotengland.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=814 I particularly liked the last paragraph Independence would force politicians and us voters in Wales Scotland to grow up. We would be economically viable because we would have to be – we’d have to learn to swim. Let’s look at ‘good practice’. After communism?, bling-capitalism, imperialism, state socialism?, supra-national states or religious statehood, the nation-state and independence is the one political construct which not one state or people has turned its back on. Independence works. It’s time Wales Scotland made independence work for her.
|
|