Ruling Scottish party backs independence

[R. Richard]

Comment?

Ruling Scottish party backs independence

EDINBURGH, Scotland - The leader of the pro-indepedence Scottish National Party was installed Wednesday at the head of the new government in Scotland.

Alex Salmond's party narrowly won elections May 3 that ended more than a half-century of dominance by the Labour Party.

In the campaign, Scottish Nationalists promised to hold a referendum on independence from the rest of the United Kingdom by 2010. However, every other party in the Scottish Parliament favors the status quo and a referendum appears unlikely.

Salmond pledged to work with other parties.

"Scotland is ready for change, ready for reform," he said. "We are a small nation but we have a big future. We also have some big challenges." (I would think that the first challenge would be to dig a ditch long enough and deep enough to separate themselves from England. The Border Reivers live!)

Salmond, 52, led the Scottish National Party from 1990 to 2000, when he surprisingly stepped down. He caused as much suprise four years later when he became a candidate to again lead the party.

 

[gauchecritic]

a) It's a minority government.

b) Scotland still elects members to British parliament.

c) I'm not sure that there is a great deal to be gained since they would automatically lose enormous amounts of funding from both Britain and the EU.

Which then puts a Scottish Parliament in a large dilemma.

They would have to petition the EU for admittance (after they've only just freed themselves). That's after they've held another referendum on whether or not to join.

They would have to come to some kind of agreement with the rest of Britain about Faslane.

And the cross border tax situation (live in one country work in another) would be horrendous.

On top of which a large number of Scots would then become aliens after they've sorted out what kind of passport they want.

A fine idea in theory and jolly good luck to them, but the red tape for the first couple of years, if not decades, would swamp the whole population.

 

[gauchecritic]

(I would think that the first challenge would be to dig a ditch long enough and deep enough to separate themselves from England. The Border Reivers live!)

Wholesale rebuilding of the wall and making good would be cheaper than having to employ thousands of Irish navvies.

Now, who do we know that has experience in separating 'friendly' nations by building walls?

 

[neonlyte]

Wholesale rebuilding of the wall and making good would be cheaper than having to employ thousands of Irish navvies.

Now, who do we know that has experience in separating 'friendly' nations by building walls?

Amicus?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I shared the following last week chatting with a Welsh Pixie (who happens to also be a cultured and accomplished lady):

If I were to bet money it would be against Scotland going the full independence route, and I would put more money on Wales not doing it. I do believe the system will become much more federalist, with much more power devolved from London, but at the end of the day I think going all the way will be like trying to go light speed -the closer you get to it, the more energy it requires to go the next increment, increasing geometrically. All kinds of really good reasons will become apparent as to why the Celtic fringe gets a good deal from being part of the UK. A lot of that will come down to money - it costs a lot to maintain your own army, foreign ministry and other "high politics" institutions. Also, I suspect that a good accounting would show that the two get more from England than they pay in terms of social welfare and other expenditures. And finally, there are habits and shared traditions that will keep tugging as some try to break away.

 

[neonlyte]

I shared the following last week chatting with a Welsh Pixie (who happens to also be a cultured and accomplished lady):

If I were to bet money it would be against Scotland going the full independence route, and I would put more money on Wales not doing it. I do believe the system will become much more federalist, with much more power devolved from London, but at the end of the day I think going all the way will be like trying to go light speed -the closer you get to it, the more energy it requires to go the next increment, increasing geometrically. All kinds of really good reasons will become apparent as to why the Celtic fringe gets a good deal from being part of the UK. A lot of that will come down to money - it costs a lot to maintain your own army, foreign ministry and other "high politics" institutions. Also, I suspect that a good accounting would show that the two get more from England than they pay in terms of social welfare and other expenditures. And finally, there are habits and shared traditions that will keep tugging as some try to break away.

I read the SNP vote as an anti-Labour vote rather than a population desire for independence. It ought to be pointed out that the election was marred by a complex voting system, two elections simultaneously, one with upto 25 candidates and two voting systems Proportional Representation (rank by number) and direct vote (mark with an X). 180,000 spoilt papers were returned with significant numbers in seats won by tight margins. Of course the spoilt votes could easily have been for SNP candidates. Regardless, SNP is a minority government, they have limited experience of governing at the National level and a leader whose mouth occassionally feeds his brain rather than operate in accord with convention.

Scotland has far better welfare services than England, it also has a generally lower standard of living, it would be difficult for Scotland to 'finance itself' particularly now the North Sea Oil boom is winding down. They really have nothing to gain from seperation other than preserve their independence in World Cup Football, there are moves afoot to force the British Isles to play a single team rather than teams from the four nations that make up the Union. This last fact could be critical given the Scottish love of the game.

 

[R. Richard]

Scotland has far better welfare services than England, it also has a generally lower standard of living, it would be difficult for Scotland to 'finance itself' particularly now the North Sea Oil boom is winding down. They really have nothing to gain from seperation other than preserve their independence in World Cup Football, there are moves afoot to force the British Isles to play a single team rather than teams from the four nations that make up the Union. This last fact could be critical given the Scottish love of the game.

Good points! I had forgotten about the desire of Rangers and Celtic to play in the Premiership. Independence would not help that last.

 

[kendo1]

A generally lower standard of living than England?!

I take exception to that. I would bet that there a damn sight more English living in poverty than Scots.

So. Why are so many foreign students wanting to take up university places here? At Edinburgh University there are 57 applicants for every place.
At my kids school there are over 200 applicants for every available place.

Scotland is a wonderful place to live.

It is also highly unlikely to go independant.

 

[neonlyte]

A generally lower standard of living than England?!

I take exception to that. I would bet that there a damn sight more English living in poverty than Scots.

So. Why are so many foreign students wanting to take up university places here? At Edinburgh University there are 57 applicants for every place.
At my kids school there are over 200 applicants for every available place.

Scotland is a wonderful place to live.

It is also highly unlikely to go independant.

I know what you mean Ken, I too think Scotland would be a great place to live.
Taken on GDP the figures are 16900/24503 (Scot/Eng), but that doesn't tell the whole story, at low income levels, Scotland is fractionally ahead of England (fewer people as a % living in poverty) It is the mid and high income levels that distort the figures.

As for students in Scotland - the SO has just embarked on a PhD course, I wish she was doing it in Scotland It might not cost us so much.

 

[kendo1]

I know what you mean Ken, I too think Scotland would be a great place to live.
Taken on GDP the figures are 16900/24503 (Scot/Eng), but that doesn't tell the whole story, at low income levels, Scotland is fractionally ahead of England (fewer people as a % living in poverty) It is the mid and high income levels that distort the figures.

As for students in Scotland - the SO has just embarked on a PhD course, I wish she was doing it in Scotland It might not cost us so much.

It's free for us.

 

[Just-Legal]

Damn, I was going to post about how screwed up the vote count was, and dig out the articles about the legal challenges based on the dicounted votes, but it ate my bookmarks.

*sigh*

 

[cumallday]

Coincidentally, Sherwin-Williams is having a sale on blue face paint.

 

[ishtat]

Unitas

If a referendum was held with only Scots voting I, like others on this thread suspect that Scotland would vote against it. However if the English were allowed to vote I suspect that the Scots would get their independance whether they wanted it or not.

Incidentally I am almost certain that if the rest of the UK had been able to vote on a United Ireland in past referenda the Northern Ireland problem would still exist but it would be an Irish problem.

 

[scheherazade_79]

There's a rumour that Ieuan Wyn Jones is going to be the next guy at the top of the Welsh Assembly

And we all know what his agenda for Wales is...

 

[oggbashan]

There's a rumour that Ieuan Wyn Jones is going to be the next guy at the top of the Welsh Assembly

And we all know what his agenda for Wales is...

Free love for sheep?

Og