Print Topic - Archive

Fishy Forum  /  Archive  /  
Posted by: grimsby pete, September 12, 2014, 4:38pm
For months I have thought I hope they stay in the union,

BUT

After going into all the extra benefits they already receive plus we are now going to give them more if they vote no,

I have changed my mind, let them stand on their own and they can all moan at Salmond instead of English rule,

We might miss the oil revenue but that will be compensated by not giving them the extra cash to stay in.

What's your views or are you not bothered either way.

My thoughts are they will vote to stay with us by 2%.

Posted by: mariner tommy, September 12, 2014, 4:42pm; Reply: 1
I think there ought to be three badges for people to wear.
On one badge it says "yes" for those in favour.
On another badge it says "no" for those not in favour.
And another badge for most Englishmen saying  "I don't give a toss either way"

UTM
Posted by: grimsby pete, September 12, 2014, 4:51pm; Reply: 2
What I think is wrong is, a Scot living in England does not have a vote on his or her countries future,

BUT

An English person living in Scotland does have a vote,

Plain silly imo.
Posted by: Doctor Sanchez, September 12, 2014, 7:07pm; Reply: 3
Quoted from grimsby pete
What I think is wrong is, a Scot living in England does not have a vote on his or her countries future,

BUT

An English person living in Scotland does have a vote,

Plain silly imo.


I think they never went down that route just because of the potential problems it would cause.  Defining who is Scottish for a start would be an issue and then you'd also have Scots around the world claiming a vote as well which would just be impractical.  Just comparing Scots in England with English in Scotland is not the whole picture.  There's plenty of other nationalities living in Scotland and plenty of Scots living outside of Scotland and England.  Making residents of Scotland eligible to vote was just the more sensible and practical option.
Posted by: KingstonMariner, September 12, 2014, 8:04pm; Reply: 4
Inclined to agree with Pete's OP, but it'll probably mean we have a Tory government most of the time if they go. They Sweaties are good to have on your side in a scrap too. Same with the Micks.

Mind you if they do go they're not having the poond without so many controls from the Bank of England that independence will be meaningless.
Posted by: GrimRob, September 14, 2014, 8:41am; Reply: 5
Be a disaster if they leave but it's looking like they won't. The No vote is getting shorter odds every day. Fingers crossed.
Posted by: KingstonMariner, September 14, 2014, 4:23pm; Reply: 6
I'm slightly disappointed by that Rob, because the nasty part of me would love to see that smug git Alec Salmond explain to an expectant nation why he's having to pass another austerity budget because the Bank of England demands it.
Posted by: AdamHaddock, September 16, 2014, 5:31pm; Reply: 7
Wish they'd sod off to be honest.
Posted by: grimsby pete, September 16, 2014, 6:10pm; Reply: 8
I getting bored with it on the news all the time now,

I hope after the vote we do not get another 3 months of what will happen now,
Posted by: scrumble, September 18, 2014, 8:55am; Reply: 9
Its not going to do any of us any good. Separation is going to cost billions to both sides of the border, with the only gain being flag waving rights in  Scotland. The banks in Scotland have all said they'll be leaving, banks that employ 7% of people in Scotland, and bring in more revenue than north sea oil. The main yes arguement I've seen is "Westminster is corrupt" Yes it is, but no more than any other government in the world, does anyone seriously believe that a Scottish parliament would be unique in the world and all its politicians will only do whats best for the voters, and not for themselves? I can guarantee that after a Yes vote there is big money to be made on the change over. New government buildings, new road signs, paperwork, basically the whole infrastructure of a nation starting from scratch. There will stories of corruption as Scottish government officials award contracts to brothers, nephews and anyone with a big enough brown envelope.

Jobs will not appear out of thin air, the streets will not be paved with gold, industry will not invest in a new nation with an unknown economy, and major companies will leave. Not being a member of the EU means no hand outs.

Whatever the vote the average man on the street, be it in Grimsby or Glasgow, will see no benefit at all.
Posted by: grimsby pete, September 18, 2014, 11:00am; Reply: 10
Agree with scrumble the average person will gain no benefit at all,

If they want to be ruled by a government in Scotland rather than in London,

They can moan at them instead, it will not make any difference,
Posted by: scrumble, September 18, 2014, 12:36pm; Reply: 11
Quoted from grimsby pete
Agree with scrumble the average person will gain no benefit at all,

If they want to be ruled by a government in Scotland rather than in London,

They can moan at them instead, it will not make any difference,


The argument that something someone in Glasgow votes for gets over ridden by the masses down south should be taken to its logical conclusion, in an independent Scotland what someone in Shetland votes for will be over ridden by the masses in Glasgow. The only way to make this 'fair' is to go back to tribal villages
Posted by: GrimRob, September 18, 2014, 5:47pm; Reply: 12
Quoted from scrumble


The argument that something someone in Glasgow votes for gets over ridden by the masses down south should be taken to its logical conclusion, in an independent Scotland what someone in Shetland votes for will be over ridden by the masses in Glasgow. The only way to make this 'fair' is to go back to tribal villages


Totally agree. If anywhere ought to become independent it's the South East of England, that's the part of the country that really drives the rest of the economy, and also the contains the most solid Tory areas.
Posted by: Manchester Mariner, September 18, 2014, 10:58pm; Reply: 13
It's a bit of a double edged sword for me. If I was Scottish myself I would vote Yes but I'm English and the potential for permanent Tory majority rule is pretty terrifying. Yes or No I hope it stirs people a bit and this country becomes less London and the Southcentric.
Posted by: LH, September 18, 2014, 11:06pm; Reply: 14
Why should jocks, taffs and paddies get their own parliaments or assemblies when us in the north of England have to put up with millionaires from the south's decisions? If the Scots stay in the UK then the regions should be pushing for our own assemblies - sort of like how Spain's government works (very basic knowledge of this subject, don't quote me on it)
Posted by: Doctor Sanchez, September 19, 2014, 1:19am; Reply: 15
I live in Glasgow and got to vote today.  Considering I'm an Englishman living in Scotland I decided I'd ignore the propaganda of both sides and do my own research into Scottish independence.  I ended up voting No simply because the basis of an independent Scotland under the proposed plan is of a nationalist agenda.  There is no doubt that Scotland has the resources to exist as an independent country however while the SNP is the governing body, they potentially isolate themselves from a favourable standing in the world.  Considering the SNP government are the ones who would be leading the initial negotiations with rUK prior to 2016 they have given the rUK an advantage by Salmond threatening numerous times that Scotland could renege their share of the UK debt if they don't get a currency union.  This is shooting himself in the foot because Scotland will need foreign investment (including rUK) in developing an independent country.  By threatening non-payment of a fair share of debt accumulated isolates themselves from any potential investors whose decisions are purely risk based.  I learnt a lot about the history of England and Scotland that I simply was not aware of and feel it's something that needs to be taught in schools.  I'll always be an Englishman but I've grown to love Scotland, and in particular the passion of the Scots that I feel we English folk often lack.  I agree with their fight against the unfairness of their representation in Westminster.  Scotland is treated as a region by population when in fact it is it's own country that has entered into this union and thus should have it's national beliefs have a more relevant influence within Westminster.  I am hoping for a narrow victory for No which hopefully will be enough of a scare to cause some unrest in our archaic parliamentary system.  Talking to Scots I was surprised how many weren't even aware there was a referendum on electoral reform in 2011.  I'm sure if a rerun of that referendum occurred with more promotion there'd be a different turn out to the poor 42% that voted before.  Anyway I could waffle all night but I hope there'll be enough from Scotland to let Westminster know their dissatisfaction yet giving Westminster an opportunity to fix the old-fashioned failures of our parliamentary system.
Posted by: cmackenzie4, September 19, 2014, 4:58am; Reply: 16
Good post DS.
Posted by: Doctor Sanchez, September 19, 2014, 5:56am; Reply: 17
Quoted from cmackenzie4
Good post DS.


Cheers.  While it looks like No will win I really hope it isn't just left at that, Scotland has a justified reason for more say in the UK Parliament than they have when you consider they're a unified country.  We'll see what happens.
Posted by: moosey_club, September 19, 2014, 9:05am; Reply: 18
Salmond so gracious in defeat....."the people have rejected independance.....at this stage.....and i accept that"  
There is no "at this stage"  you got your way,  you had your campaign, ...they voted...you lost....fck off.

Think we should just refer to Scotland as Northern England from now on.  ;)



Posted by: GrimRob, September 19, 2014, 10:03am; Reply: 19
Now we should have a referendum on a British football team  :)
Posted by: grimsby pete, September 19, 2014, 10:04am; Reply: 20
Quoted from moosey_club
Salmond so gracious in defeat....."the people have rejected independance.....at this stage.....and i accept that"  
There is no "at this stage"  you got your way,  you had your campaign, ...they voted...you lost....fck off.

Think we should just refer to Scotland as Northern England from now on.  ;)





Salmond missed a trick there, He should have insisted on two votes,

One for full Independence and one for part independence,

We could then have south Scotland as an independent country,

Northern Scotland would still be in the UK,

Well it works in Ireland. ;D ;D
Posted by: mariner91, September 19, 2014, 11:52am; Reply: 21
Quoted from GrimRob
Now we should have a referendum on a British football team  :)


Other than Bale, who from Scotland, Wales and NI would improve the English side?
Posted by: LH, September 19, 2014, 12:57pm; Reply: 22
Aaron Ramsey  
Posted by: FishOutOfWater, September 19, 2014, 2:04pm; Reply: 23
Quoted from mariner91


Other than Bale, who from Scotland, Wales and NI would improve the English side?


Fergie?  ;)
Posted by: chrissy, September 19, 2014, 2:06pm; Reply: 24
I hope that's the last we see of Salmond on our TV for a good while.
Posted by: FishOutOfWater, September 19, 2014, 4:22pm; Reply: 25
Quoted from chrissy
I hope that's the last we see of Salmond on our TV for a good while.


Looks like there'll be one final splurge of Salmond on TV and then he'll be on his way

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-29277527

Posted by: GrimRob, September 19, 2014, 6:11pm; Reply: 26
Quoted from FishOutOfWater


Looks like there'll be one final splurge of Salmond on TV and then he'll be on his way

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-29277527



A big blow for the SNP. I confess I don't particularly like the man but he's got a lot of charisma and wins a lot of voters who might not naturally vote for his party if they knew and understood all the policies they stand for- similar to Farage in that respect.
Posted by: grimsby pete, September 19, 2014, 7:09pm; Reply: 27
Quoted from GrimRob


A big blow for the SNP. I confess I don't particularly like the man but he's got a lot of charisma and wins a lot of voters who might not naturally vote for his party if they knew and understood all the policies they stand for- similar to Farage in that respect.


If I was a Scot, I would like him as our leader,

BUT

I am English and I can not stand the man for trying to break up our union.
Posted by: KingstonMariner, September 19, 2014, 11:08pm; Reply: 28
Quoted from Doctor Sanchez
I live in Glasgow and got to vote today.  Considering I'm an Englishman living in Scotland I decided I'd ignore the propaganda of both sides and do my own research into Scottish independence.  I ended up voting No simply because the basis of an independent Scotland under the proposed plan is of a nationalist agenda.  There is no doubt that Scotland has the resources to exist as an independent country however while the SNP is the governing body, they potentially isolate themselves from a favourable standing in the world.  Considering the SNP government are the ones who would be leading the initial negotiations with rUK prior to 2016 they have given the rUK an advantage by Salmond threatening numerous times that Scotland could renege their share of the UK debt if they don't get a currency union.  This is shooting himself in the foot because Scotland will need foreign investment (including rUK) in developing an independent country.  By threatening non-payment of a fair share of debt accumulated isolates themselves from any potential investors whose decisions are purely risk based.  I learnt a lot about the history of England and Scotland that I simply was not aware of and feel it's something that needs to be taught in schools.  I'll always be an Englishman but I've grown to love Scotland, and in particular the passion of the Scots that I feel we English folk often lack.  I agree with their fight against the unfairness of their representation in Westminster.  Scotland is treated as a region by population when in fact it is it's own country that has entered into this union and thus should have it's national beliefs have a more relevant influence within Westminster.  I am hoping for a narrow victory for No which hopefully will be enough of a scare to cause some unrest in our archaic parliamentary system.  Talking to Scots I was surprised how many weren't even aware there was a referendum on electoral reform in 2011.  I'm sure if a rerun of that referendum occurred with more promotion there'd be a different turn out to the poor 42% that voted before.  Anyway I could waffle all night but I hope there'll be enough from Scotland to let Westminster know their dissatisfaction yet giving Westminster an opportunity to fix the old-fashioned failures of our parliamentary system.


Scotland has 59 MPs for a population of under 5.3million or 90,000 people per MP.
England has 533 MPs for a population of 53 million or 99,000 per MP.
Scotland has its own parliament.
England doesn't.
Scotland gets a bigger central government subsidy per capita than any other part of the UK.

Now in what way is it treated unfairly compared with the other nations of the UK? Or compared to say Yorks and the Humber region?
In what way is it not treated as a separate country? Does England have its own parliament? Didn't Scotland have a vote to decide on its future.

I'm not buying this 'poor, wee Scotland, mistreated by the big bully down South'. I admire Scots as a rule, but they should wake up and smell the coffee. they've been pandered to for too long at the expense of hard up parts of England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Posted by: Doctor Sanchez, September 20, 2014, 12:45am; Reply: 29
I did write that when I was extremely drunk and did get carried away with some things.  But you just answered it yourself in your response, in a union of 4 countries, in the Commons where national interests are debated, there's 533 representing England interests and 59 representing Scotland's interests (just pinching your figures, I don't know what it is for Wales and NI but obviously less).  Of course in the Commons it shouldn't matter where they're from because it's a UK government.  However they are elected to represent their local constituencies in that government so naturally there'll be some bias towards their homes.  I know it's just one of the flaws of democracy and there'll always be a part who get left out, or at least feel that way.  I can't help but tthink some sort of devolution of all powers of the individual national interests to England, Scotland, Wales and NI may help.  Therefore keeping a much smaller Westminster parliament, with equal representation regardless of population size, to debate UK-wide interests.  Whatever happens from now on I'm just hoping something positive comes out of this for all of us.
Posted by: moosey_club, September 20, 2014, 12:46am; Reply: 30
Quoted from moosey_club
Salmond so gracious in defeat....."the people have rejected independance.....at this stage.....and i accept that"  
There is no "at this stage" you got your way,  you had your campaign, ...they voted...you lost....fck off.

Think we should just refer to Scotland as Northern England from now on.  ;)


The Fishy strikes again.....are we now in charge of Scottish politics??  :)
Posted by: mariner91, September 20, 2014, 9:46am; Reply: 31
Quoted from LH
Aaron Ramsey  


Yeah forgot about him!
Posted by: KingstonMariner, September 20, 2014, 11:38pm; Reply: 32
Quoted from Doctor Sanchez
I did write that when I was extremely drunk and did get carried away with some things.  But you just answered it yourself in your response, in a union of 4 countries, in the Commons where national interests are debated, there's 533 representing England interests and 59 representing Scotland's interests (just pinching your figures, I don't know what it is for Wales and NI but obviously less).  Of course in the Commons it shouldn't matter where they're from because it's a UK government.  However they are elected to represent their local constituencies in that government so naturally there'll be some bias towards their homes.  I know it's just one of the flaws of democracy and there'll always be a part who get left out, or at least feel that way.  I can't help but tthink some sort of devolution of all powers of the individual national interests to England, Scotland, Wales and NI may help.  Therefore keeping a much smaller Westminster parliament, with equal representation regardless of population size, to debate UK-wide interests.  Whatever happens from now on I'm just hoping something positive comes out of this for all of us.


Yeah me too Doc. I think party interests will put a stop to that though.
Posted by: jock dock tower, October 13, 2014, 7:06pm; Reply: 33
Deliberately didn't get involved in this debate on here as I was too busy with the real life issues affecting us all north of the border. For those who take their politics at least semi seriously rather than swallowing all the guff about "they get more out than they put in" guff, here's my view on things for what they're worth - and don't forget I'm a Welshman with a Grimsby accent living in Scotland!

Labour are toast for disgracefully sharing getting into bed with the Tory tw@ts. They'll be a sad and sorry minority rump come the 2015 General Election, and absolutely deservedly so - they couldn't see a Tory trap that a frigging blind man wouldn't have walked into. Strangely enough, the Tories might even benefit with the SNP eating into the Labour vote.

The SNP are, quite remarkably for a party that tasted defeat, now a genuine mass movement that has seen it's membership rise from 25,000 to over 80,000 in less than 3 weeks, and it's still rising (though I doubt it will end that way) For 6 glorious months, bar the awful BBC and Westmonster parties treating us all with utter contempt, we've had the most vibrant political debate that I can ever remember. It's been great to see tens of thousands of folk who'd never voted before getting involved.

It's not inconceivable that the SNP will get a huge swing in percentage points and votes in the General Election and actually become the deal breakers / brokers in Parliament. Would love that, if only to stick it up to all those who tried to stick it up to the Tories and Labour, but also the threat of UKIP. Watch this space...and if you get the chance of a bet on the SNP and the number of seats they're likely to have go for at least 30, compared to their current 6.
Posted by: grimsby pete, October 14, 2014, 11:41am; Reply: 34
Good post John,

BUT

When we change the voting process in Westminster the bloody Tories will get all their bills through,

Labour will have less MP'S because only English and Welsh + N.Ireland Mp's will be able to vote on non Scotish matters,

I can see Scotland pressing for another referendum in another 5 or 10 years ,

Then I think they will win.
Posted by: KingstonMariner, October 21, 2014, 10:18pm; Reply: 35
Labour (and more importantly the millions of ordinary people who they're there to serve) will pay the price for dropping PR (proper PR) in the late 90s when there was a chance to do something about it.

They cosied up to Paddy Pantsdown and made favourable noises about progressive politics and electoral reform, then when they got the landslide in 97 they thought they didn't need PR so ditched the issue.

Demographics have been heading slowly in favour of the Tories with the southward drift of the country. Now the genie of English votes for English issues is out of the lamp, we'll be locked in to Tory majorities under first past the post. So well done Tony Blair.
Print page generated: December 8, 2019, 12:07am