The Scottish Politics thread

[Metal Biker]

You have just constructed a great case why Union politics don’t work. excellent. Well done.

Yet you want to immediately join one after leaving one.

 

[bluethrunthru]

It’s a lot more complicated than saying England subsidises Scotland. There’s so many factors involved and the economies are so inextricably linked that it’s just stupid to make out that Scotland is a drain on England.

Yeah but just saying that without justification is easy and others soak it up anyway

 

[Saddleworth2]

Great, 100% support that, help us fight for it!

No wait, just abandoning the rest of us is the current order of the day.

Ok. Fight for it you say?

Total	615	640	625	630	635	650	651	659	646	650	650	650	650	650
Country	1922	1945	1950	1955	1974	1983	1992	1997	2005	2010	2015	2017	2019	Next
England	492	517	506	511	516	523	524	529	529	533	533	533	533	543
Wales	36	36	36	36	36	38	38	40	40	40	40	40	40	32
Scotland	74	74	71	71	71	72	72	72	59	59	59	59	59	57
Northern Ireland	13	13	12	12	12	17	17	18	18	18	18	18	18	18

English Mp's 543
Rest of the Union 108

Its a little unequal fight wouldn't you say? The facts are it matters little in the scheme of things what the Scots vote for at a Westminster level, after all we did used to vote primarily Labour and still ended up with Tory governments. The facts are that the populations of England and Scotland have, in general, different political objectives. Hence the push to rid ourselves of Westminster governance. Its not just the present government either, remember Thatcher?
Anyway, at least your back to debating real stuff rather than we scots hate the english nonsense!

 

[Saddleworth2]

If you’re referring to Brexit then it was a Uk wide vote and 40% of Scotland voted for it anyway. What was the government supposed to do, ignore the result?

Not sure what point you are making about 40%. Does that somehow give it legitimacy in Scotland when 60% didn't?
The Government did have the option of ignoring the result as it was advisory rather than legally binding. A decision of that magnitude, particularly given the febrile nature of the campaign to leave should have required agreements from all nations and a supra majority.
There is little point asking the general public their views on matters as complex and as important anyway. They will invariably get it wrong (as they did) ;-)

 

[Octavian]

Not sure what point you are making about 40%. Does that somehow give it legitimacy in Scotland when 60% didn't?
The Government did have the option of ignoring the result as it was advisory rather than legally binding. A decision of that magnitude, particularly given the febrile nature of the campaign to leave should have required agreements from all nations and a supra majority.
There is little point asking the general public their views on matters as complex and as important anyway. They will invariably get it wrong (as they did) ;-)

If they had ignored it there would have been huge trouble and quite rightly, everyone knew the rules beforehand and my 40% point was that a significant amount in Scotland did still want it and across the whole union enough did. Wales also voted leave. You can argue the previous government shouldn’t have called the vote but they did and once they did I didn’t hear much about the way it was going to be done, not until the result came in after.

Id give Scotland another vote tomorrow but caveat it with the SNP fucking off and a bit of quiet if you vote no again. I think that would be pretty fair.

 

[Octavian]

Ok. Fight for it you say?

Country	1922	1945	1950	1955	1974	1983	1992	1997	2005	2010	2015	2017	2019	Next
Total	615	640	625	630	635	650	651	659	646	650	650	650	650	650
England	492	517	506	511	516	523	524	529	529	533	533	533	533	543
Wales	36	36	36	36	36	38	38	40	40	40	40	40	40	32
Scotland	74	74	71	71	71	72	72	72	59	59	59	59	59	57
Northern Ireland	13	13	12	12	12	17	17	18	18	18	18	18	18	18

English Mp's 543
Rest of the Union 108

Its a little unequal fight wouldn't you say? The facts are it matters little in the scheme of things what the Scots vote for at a Westminster level, after all we did used to vote primarily Labour and still ended up with Tory governments. The facts are that the populations of England and Scotland have, in general, different political objectives. Hence the push to rid ourselves of Westminster governance. Its not just the present government either, remember Thatcher?
Anyway, at least your back to debating real stuff rather than we scots hate the english nonsense!

The amount of MPs in England compared to the rest of the union is almost exactly the ratio of population.

Devolution means you get a lot of control on a local level in wales, Scotland and NI, whereas we just get forgotten in northern England

 

[Saddleworth2]

Yeah but just saying that without justification is easy and others soak it up anyway

there is a long history to the Barnett formulae mate. Its not all as it seems.
It is a very blunt instrument. Did you know that all regions get a population based share of interest paid on
national borrowing, irrespective of what the borrowing covers or where the money is invested? and don't get me started on the historic treatment of oil revenues that instead of being invested for the long term good of the nation (like Norway did), they have been pissed against the wall by Government after government. Did you know that some of the seeming inequality of the block grant by country is caused by differences in the 'model' applied to each country. for example Scotland has a nationalised water industry (and needs to pay for that) whilst in England it is 100% privatised. The Barnett formula was invented by the Treasury, increases each year are based on the % increase of English spend and Government after government have looked at it and shied away from changing it. But of course its all the Scots fault. :-)

Just as a little foot note, before the BF, the block grant was negotiated by the respective Secretaries of State for each country. Scotland seemed to manage to get more per head than the others anecdotally down to two reasons 1) at the time Scotland was an industrial powerhouse and created a great deal of wealth for the UK. 2) the Scottish sos were just smarter negotiators. The Barnett formulae based as it is on English rises in expenditure, which are then applied in % terms to a smaller cost base in the other countries was supposed to claw that gap back.

I have read many articles about it and you can make a case from all sides about its fairness or unfairness.

 

[Saddleworth2]

The amount of MPs in England compared to the rest of the union is almost exactly the ratio of population.

Devolution means you get a lot of control on a local level in wales, Scotland and NI, whereas we just get forgotten in northern England

Which means that in this Union, whatever England wants it gets...
Leave the EU?
Yes sir, how fast?
Thats the problem.

 

[Saddleworth2]

Id give Scotland another vote tomorrow but caveat it with the SNP fucking off and a bit of quiet if you vote no again. I think that would be pretty fair.

Well that is jolly descent of you. As for the SNP fucking off, they will only do that when the people of Scotland decide not to vote for them.

 

[Octavian]

Which means that in this Union, whatever England wants it gets...
Leave the EU?
Yes sir, how fast?
Thats the problem.

It’s not as simple as that. I didn’t want to leave the EU but got it, whereas 40% of voting Scots did. There’s pros and cons to the current set up for everyone, but I still maintain being a working class northerner in England is the most ignored place to be in the union, as well as parts of Wales.