Page 1 of 3 [ 39 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

thinkinginpictures
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 May 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 965

09 Sep 2014, 12:52 pm

I am a Dane, and actually I should not care at all about this election.

Well, I somewhat do care. I read that the Scottish parliament would increase welfare and make it more fair, than the british "welfare"-system.

I deliberatly put the marks on welfare as in "welfare", because UK does not have any welfare left, since the early 2010's.

The UK government is deliberately starving out the disabled people, so they can die a horrible, and slow death of starvation, in order to cut down further on the welfare costs.

I believe that an independent Scotland is better without the UK government. I can't possibly imagine any country, except developing countries, being more evil towards the needy, than the
UK government. Therefore, I cannot possibly imagine that the Scottish parliament would cut down further on welfare, at least not to the extend the UK government has done it: Starving out the disabled people,
that for sure is only a Chinese, North Korean or UK method. It doesn't even happen in the U.S. to that extend.

Am I right? Or did I get scottish politics completely wrong?

The reason I do care about the election is, that if I am right about this, Scotland may possibly be a frontier country on welfare policies, and the UK government would get punished, thus the Danish and other countries cannot look at the UK anymore and say "hey UK is doing a good job on welfare, let's copy their system!! !"



thinkinginpictures
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 May 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 965

11 Sep 2014, 11:07 am

tern wrote:


That only deals with the immigration policy. Not it's welfare policy. Of course, if you are not a citizen of Scotland, you don't get the right to their welfare.

The reason I was hoping for an independent scotland, was that it might eventually be a welfare paradise for its own citizens, a country that would eventually experiment with Basic Income and Negative Tax
which can be used by some foreign politicians as a role-model and show that it DOES work providing lots of welfare, and so its welfare model could be copied to other countries.



tern
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 1 Oct 2013
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 226
Location: east-central Scotland

12 Sep 2014, 8:15 am

Setting up its own currency would be a big cost, prolonging austerity and dangerously exposing its banking system starting off without any reserves or world credit to base the currency or banking system on. So they are choosing not to do that. So they intend to be a country with no central bank, using someone else's currency. They hope to keep using the British currency unauthorised, without any control over their interest rates, money supply, and security of banks, so not even in control of their own fiscal policy and spedning. They even would really like, and though Britain has said no they keep claiming it could happen, to stay in a "currency union" with Britain in which they would have to agree their fiscal policy and spending plans with the bank of England! which, as No campaigners point out, is not real independence at all.

That is no way they can base funding a welfare paradise and maintaining the money supply to have one. Instead, British governments we could no longer vote for are more likely to be Tory, and they would still be in control of our economy and spending! Salmond could keep saying "oh I want to give you a welfare paradise but nasty England won't let me" even under our own state, while he woos business with big tax cuts as is his policy against in contradiction of left wing hopes. Voting Yes means bringing more Tory government upon both countries.

Price of oil is also unstable and unpredictable, has rarely been as high as SNP costed plans for our economy assume it will be, and is lower now. SNP government has cut health spending too and has chosen never to use our autonomous tax power, then scares voters by claiming spending squeeze from Britain.



Verax
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 9 Sep 2014
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 79

12 Sep 2014, 12:03 pm

Funny how nobody seems to mention that the Celtic people of Scotland are the native aboriginals that had their land stolen by the English as happening in Australia, North America, and many other places.

For me it's a native title issue as my ancestors were hunted like animals by the English on our own soil and had to flee to a foreign land to avoid being indiscriminately killed on mass. As a result, generations of us have grown up disconnected from our land and culture having to assimilate in an Anglo-Saxon culture and only speak the foreign language of English.

Free Alba (that's Gaelic for Scotland you sasanachs)



Statto
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 7 Sep 2014
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 68
Location: UK

12 Sep 2014, 12:29 pm

The OP post on welfare is not accurate. The government is clamping down on those that treat welfare as a career opportunity. There are some areas that they have got it wrong but the UK welfare system is fine, if a little clunky in its transition.

As for independence I personally doing want it to happen. The yes campaign won't address any of the risks and just deflect the issues. There are too many unknowns.



thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

12 Sep 2014, 2:22 pm

tern wrote:

I am sorry but that is utter rubbish. One of the whole points of independence is that Scotland will be able to control its own borders and territory, and seeing as how the consensus is to the centre left in scotland more than it is in England, on the contrary its far more likely independent Scotland will taken in MORE immigrants.

Other reasons to hope for independence

* the right to elect a local government representative of the scottish vote, free of London spivery.

* the removal of trident from Scotland and the associated costs from the scottish treasury

* safeguarding the NHS and other public services from private sector attacks.

* Full home control over the scottish treasury.

* The chance for Scotland to become a progressive beacon to the other three constituent nations.

* Scotlands right to pick its own relationship with the UK's antagonists and to abstain from wars not in its interests.

As for the currency debate, it would not be in Englands interest to deny a Sterling sharing union since it would give Scotland the right to deny its share of the UK national debt. Westminster can not impose the liabilities AND deny it a share of the assets.


_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile


Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

12 Sep 2014, 2:47 pm

I support Scottish independence in so much the precedent it sets for other countries, I'm not sure that the Scots will govern themselves much better nor is their reasoning for pursuing it very sound. Trading Westminster for Brussels doesn't make much sense to me, it doesn't seem like they actually want independence.



Statto
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 7 Sep 2014
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 68
Location: UK

12 Sep 2014, 3:00 pm

Verax wrote:
Funny how nobody seems to mention that the Celtic people of Scotland are the native aboriginals that had their land stolen by the English as happening in Australia, North America, and many other places.

For me it's a native title issue as my ancestors were hunted like animals by the English on our own soil and had to flee to a foreign land to avoid being indiscriminately killed on mass. As a result, generations of us have grown up disconnected from our land and culture having to assimilate in an Anglo-Saxon culture and only speak the foreign language of English.

Free Alba (that's Gaelic for Scotland you sasanachs)

Umm, your history is a little distorted. Our ancestors chose to enter the Union, nothing was stolen. There were wars and conflicts started by both the Scots and the English prior to the Union. It was all swings and roundabouts.

As for the benefits in the UK. The government has gone after that use the welfare system as a career choice. They haven't got it fight in all areas but the UK welfare system is fine.

The independence vote is a worry for me. The financial side is a big worry. The yes campaign just avoid discussing the concerns and deflect the issue, leaving a lot of uncertainty. There is no way a currency union will happen, it makes no sense for the rest of the UK. Why prop up someone else's finances when the other country plans on spending 1 billion a month more than you do. At some stage you'd end up with one party of the other in trouble and being unable to fix it without damaging the other party. Think the Euro on a small scale.

There is no benefit for the rest of the UK at all. Salmond claims they'll refuse to take on their share of debt which won't happen as it would kill them in separation negotiations as well as costing far more than the debt in what it would do for their credit rating. All other options for Scotland except their own currency (which everyone agrees won't happen) would actually give them less control than they have now.

Scotland is fully capable of going it alone but there are risks and issues that the yes campaign refuse to discuss properly. The defence is 'you think Scotland is too weak', 'you show us no respect' and so on. The issue just gets side stepped.



thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

12 Sep 2014, 3:32 pm

Jacoby wrote:
I support Scottish independence in so much the precedent it sets for other countries, I'm not sure that the Scots will govern themselves much better nor is their reasoning for pursuing it very sound. Trading Westminster for Brussels doesn't make much sense to me, it doesn't seem like they actually want independence.


They aren't 'trading westminster for brussels'. They would be choosing analogous sovereignty to any other european country, so they could choose their own relationship with Brussels, something which would be denied to them under the UK as with the ability to choose its own government not imposed by the far greater English vote.


_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile


pluto
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2006
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,569
Location: Paisley,Scotland UK

12 Sep 2014, 4:05 pm

Verax wrote:
Funny how nobody seems to mention that the Celtic people of Scotland are the native aboriginals that had their land stolen by the English as happening in Australia, North America, and many other places.

For me it's a native title issue as my ancestors were hunted like animals by the English on our own soil and had to flee to a foreign land to avoid being indiscriminately killed on mass. As a result, generations of us have grown up disconnected from our land and culture having to assimilate in an Anglo-Saxon culture and only speak the foreign language of English.

Free Alba (that's Gaelic for Scotland you sasanachs)


That view of history is also shared by many Scots,however the reality is more complex. The vast majority of us are Lowlanders and our land has never been stolen by anyone and we've never spoken Gaelic.Only Highlanders spoke Gaelic and it was after their support of the Jacobite cause to claim the British throne that they indeed suffered terribly from retribution by the British (not specifically or just English). The 'British ' included the majority of Lowland Scots and fellow Highlanders who opposed the Jacobites.
It was in Victorian times that Scots in general began to look for more ways of differentiating themselves from England and the idea came about of promoting Highland culture and Celtic inheritance as being the 'default' image of Scotland as a whole.
The Union Kingdom had been entered into willingly,partly after we basically ran out of money due to a failed colony in Panama.
I believe part of the Yes momentum is as much an attempt to once again seek recognition and differentiate us from England. It's not based on logical conclusions that in many ways we are already independent to a large extent with our own parliament,legal & education systems,health,policing and even international sports teams.
The likely outcome of the referendum is that all the publicity generated will serve the purpose of obtaining recognition while common sense and shared British values will prevail in a No majority,preserving a United Kingdom which in its own right is one of the oldest countries in the world.


_________________
I have lost the will to be apathetic


thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

12 Sep 2014, 4:31 pm

The UK as we know it is hardly one of the 'oldest' nations, and even if it was, it is not an argument in itself for opposing independence. We're now at the stage where the union has outlived its utility for Scotland. Mass poverty, unemployment and food banks are the evidence of this.

Furthermore, i would strongly contest there are that great shared values between Scotland and London. I think most scots oppose the sort of neo-liberal economics and rampant privatisation championed by Westminster that is blighting poor families across England.

A yes vote will send a message to the other three nations of the UK that another way is possible.


_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile


pluto
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2006
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,569
Location: Paisley,Scotland UK

12 Sep 2014, 5:57 pm

The key is 'as we know it' because the UK is older than modern Germany,Italy and several European countries as we know them today,
discounting ancient kingdoms,duchies and colonial empires that existed before countries evolved into their modern forms.

Scotland isn't the only part of the UK suffering poverty,unemployment and food banks.As you say they are also blighting parts
of England.The situation is made worse in Scotland,I'm sorry to say,because we probably have a larger minority of people
who take advantage of the welfare system .What we need is to make the system fairer so it can't be taken advantage of so blatantly
and doesn't punish the majority of unemployed who are geniunely doing their utmost to find jobs and to make ends meet.
I don't believe that spreading the burden of cost around 5 million people instead of 60 million will work.We may have natural resources
but the extraction,distribution and finance of the industries depends on major contributions from British and multi-national companies.

As for the other countries of the UK,I've also heard points of view from Wales and Northern Ireland that losing Scotland will deprive them
of their ally and weaken the balance of the union.


_________________
I have lost the will to be apathetic


Fogman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2005
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,986
Location: Frå Nord Dakota til Vermont

12 Sep 2014, 6:28 pm

Verax wrote:
Funny how nobody seems to mention that the Celtic people of Scotland are the native aboriginals that had their land stolen by the English as happening in Australia, North America, and many other places.


Okay, but what about the Vikings that invaded and colonised, and finally assimilated in Scotland, Ireland, and a good part of England over a thousand yeads ago? --These were not Sassenachs, (IE, Saxons, not 'southerners' as you put it) these were Scandinavians. If you listen to Scottish being spoken, or even redneck/hillbilly English being spoken, and know a little of any of the four Nordic languages, you will see the influence.

From what I understand, because of the Scandinavian ties as well as common interests (North Sea oil, and Fisheries), Scotland may move closer to the Scandinavian countries as a result of any independance vote, and also from what I understand.

Scottish people Aboriginals? Yeah, maybe a thousand years ago, but there'e been a lot of cross-cultural mixing since then, so the term is quite redundant at this point.

FWIW, I have no say in what happens in Scotland, as it isn't my concern, I don't live there, a good many of my ancestors left there 400 years ago and
and came to what came to be known as the US over 300 years ago. -- Whatever happens, all the best.


_________________
When There's No There to get to, I'm so There!


0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

12 Sep 2014, 6:41 pm

Countless others too.

In fact the Normans are descendants of Vikings.

To me these view are indicative of a perception of the English as evil colonizers, whcih is not put in it proper historical perspective with all the others powers such as most of Europe, Arab Emirates/Maghreb, Ottomans, Genghis Khan, US internally, USSR, China, etc, etc.

There was actually nothing particularly usually about nation having foreign kings and queens in this period. It was total comparable with nationalism of the time. People were sort of used to being ruled, and the Kings and Queen formed alliances when they weren't fighting each other and intermarried, all over Europe.

Richard the Lionheart was born in England, but the was more Norman, and spend his adult life in France.



tern
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 1 Oct 2013
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 226
Location: east-central Scotland

13 Sep 2014, 9:43 am

Thomas81 numerical count of immigrants is not the point. They are interested in immigrants on a points for skills basis. The point is they are not giving unrefusable citizenship by descent to Scottish people. It doesn't matter if they let in the whole rest of the world, if they don't give Scottish people their own country by family unrefusably that is a racist atrocity and against ECHR article 8 on family life. That is not a progressive beacon, it is a country purging itself in racist hatefulness.

A state without its own central bank or reserves, using someone else's currency (whether in the union or unauthorised formulas) is subject to having its spending and economy directed by the other country: their actions will determine what happens to our economy, the currency union proposal even includes Scotland voluntarily getting its fiscal plans agreed by the bank of England before going ahead with them - the last thing that is is "Full home control over the Scottish treasury"! !! It's not proper independence at all. It means our economic life dictated by another country's governments who we can no longer vote against, who for that reason are more likely to be Tory, and who will have no responsibility to us as part of their country. Indy means more Tory government, for both countries.

NHS is safe already. SNP government itself has been cutting it then blaming Britain, and choosing not to use the devolved tax power.