2015 UK Election Thread

OrbitalDawn said:
Quite a big difference between arguing that something doesn't economically make sense and that the people are too stupid to run their own affairs.
Click to expand...

That's exactly the point OD.

I swore to keep out of the whole thing as I havn't lived there for over a decade now, but the sheer arrogance and lies of the opposion to independence sucked me in.

Very early on, it was not about whether we want to, but whether we can. As evidenced in JayM's posts here, most people fell for it.
 
OrbitalDawn said:
Quite a big difference between arguing that something doesn't economically make sense and that the people are too stupid to run their own affairs.
Click to expand...

Yes. SNP ran the independence campaign on pure emotion which eventually turned me to the other side.
 
JayM said:
A lot of the English would love that, but there is in fact no mechanism to abandon a part of the country. There is a lot of synergy between the two, and both benefit from each other which is why there was a 'better together' campaign. A split would have hurt the UK and Scotland, but much more so Scotland. They would have to borrow in foreign currency from day 1 at silly rates and their own currency would have no credibility whatsoever. It has nothing to do with being incapable of administering their own affairs.

Why would Scotland prefer devo max over complete independence if they dislike Westminster so much? Why not just cut the cord?
Click to expand...

Sorry bud, but you're just trotting out the same propaganda force fed to the population in the weeks before the ref. There was much to figure out and much work to be done, but for example in issues like currency, no one had the answers and the future was sold as either a leap of faith or a jump of a cliff.

But with a different and independent law system, education system and banking system in Scotland, the mechanisms were largely in place. It just required a leap of faith.

Unfortuantely, most saw it as a jump from a cliff having been bombarded with propaganda and lies.

Again, why not just cut Scotland free if they cost so much and were so much trouble?
 
JayM said:
Yes. SNP ran the independence campaign on pure emotion which eventually turned me to the other side.
Click to expand...

Lol. They also had a rather large manifesto but I guess you never read that?
 
Spizz said:
Again, why not just cut Scotland free if they cost so much and were so much trouble?
Click to expand...

Good grief man, I already answered this. A) There are benefits to both being in the union and B) there is no mechanism to abandon a part of the union.

To the rest of your post, we're never going to find middle ground. The only reason I would have voted no is for economic reasons. You're saying those aren't valid, I say they are.
 
Spizz said:
Sorry bud, but you're just trotting out the same propaganda force fed to the population in the weeks before the ref. There was much to figure out and much work to be done, but for example in issues like currency, no one had the answers and the future was sold as either a leap of faith or a jump of a cliff.

But with a different and independent law system, education system and banking system in Scotland, the mechanisms were largely in place. It just required a leap of faith.

Unfortuantely, most saw it as a jump from a cliff having been bombarded with propaganda and lies.

Again, why not just cut Scotland free if they cost so much and were so much trouble?
Click to expand...

Care to comment about the assumption made by the SNP that oil prices would be $110 a barrel?

Also back on the PR debate:

With all seats declared. How many votes to elect an MP?
SNP 25,972
CON 34,244
LAB 40,290
LD 301,986
GRN 1,157,613
UKIP 3,881,129
Click to expand...
 
CEd1g8qUEAA_Egf.png
 
JayM said:
Good grief man, I already answered this. A) There are benefits to both being in the union and B) there is no mechanism to abandon a part of the union.
Click to expand...

I didn't realise that was an answer because A) is a matter of opinion and states no facts, and B) is not true.

JayM said:
To the rest of your post, we're never going to find middle ground. The only reason I would have voted no is for economic reasons. You're saying those aren't valid, I say they are.
Click to expand...

I don't know what those economic reasons are. That's why I'm asking.

Your points about currency and borrowing are speculation and have been refuted as easily by either side as they were made by either side. It brings up back to a leap or a jump. You saw it as a jump, fair enough, I can't blame you. I saw it as a leap because I know my country and I know it's people and I don't need someone else to tell me their strengths and weaknesses.
 
Chris said:
Care to comment about the assumption made by the SNP that oil prices would be $110 a barrel?
Click to expand...

Are you saying it won't be because it is not just now?

And I deliberately haven't mentioned oil in any post btw.

Chris said:
Also back on the PR debate:
Click to expand...

Things are unfair, go figure. We've been on the receiving end of it for decades. Now we can talk about oil if you wish ;)
 
I'm going to stop talking now. I've got work to do and seem to have hijacked this thread big time. So here's a parting shot which is quite funny too that I lifted from Facebook...

OK here's the thing. Up here in Caledonia, we're getting a bit fed up with all this twisting of the facts. So maybe we can get a few things a bit clear???

1. "It's not fair, you've got free prescriptions, no tuition fees, free personal care and travel for the elderly" - well, here's the thing. We have our own parliament and we decided that's what we'd spend our money on. You on the other hand, decided to vote for Eton. Actually there were other things we wanted to spend money on but we had to spend money on mitigating the effects of the Westminster bedroom tax and setting up foodbanks because of the Eton austerity wheeze - thanks for that.

2. "We subsidise all that extra spending" - welcome to our world. Scottish oil subsidised the failed Thatcherite monetary experiment for the past three decades. That's why Norway has the biggest oil fund in the world and we've got fsck all.

3. "You all hate us" - no we don't. Lots of English people were in the YES campaign last year and there are lots of English SNP members. Your continually calling us Jocks, however, is a bit irritating (as is your constant harping on about 1966!!) and your describing the SNP as Nazis is pretty offensive by any measure.

4. "The Scots will hold the UK Parliament to ransom" - how's that going to work exactly? There are currently 650 seats. England has 533 of them (82%). Even if we joined up with the Welsh and the homophobes in the DUP we'd still be out-numbered 5 - 1!!! Anyway, I distinctly remember Cameron last year telling us "don't leave the UK, stay and lead it!". Maybe that was another of those Bullingdon things we just don't get (like cricket).

5. "The SNP brought down a Labour govt. and ushered in years of a Thatcherite govt." Wrong!! First, this was Jim Callaghan - one of the worst PMs ever. Second, actually the Libs were the first to threaten a vote of no confidence when the Lib-Lab pact collapsed. The SNP only threatened one after Labour stitched us up on the 79 devolution referendum - the one where we voted yes but Labour backbenchers fixed the system so we didn't get what we voted for. Actually it was Thatcher who moved the motion. Thirdly, it was 35 years ago (almost as far back as 1966!!!)

6. "The SNP will prop up a weak Labour govt". - actually, this one is true. We would. So pardon us for trying to turn the Labour Party back into a socialist party. Remember that? The party of Keir Hardy? The one that believed in home-rule, and disarmament, and protecting workers rights and stopping the elite from ripping the rest of us off, and erm... oh yeah, socialism - remember that? Sorry about that.

OK - that's it really. Apart from a reassurance that we really don't call you Sassenachs. Hardly anyone in Scotland uses the word (we don't actually say "Och aye the noo" either).
Click to expand...

:D
 
Spizz said:
No they are not.

What is still with us is her selling off of council houses at 1/10th of value that means now that people can't afford property anymore, and private landlords are dictating prices. Council houses that were meant as a step on the ladder are simply not there now. Or what about privatising the utility companies so that they are all now owned by foreign money. Or perhaps the death of the manufacturing industry in the UK, creating the north/south divide. Years of power dressing and opulence in the south while at the exact same time mass unemployment and food banks in the north.

But whatever it was, she polarised and broke large parts of Britain like never before. And you'll notice I haven't mention trade unions at all. There's far more she fscked up than them.
Click to expand...
You must know that in Labour's vision Council Houses weren't a stepping stone, they were the future for everyone in the progressive abolition of private property. Labour's socialist paradise was being implemented at a local level, and it was killing Britain. Maggie had the vision and the courage to mitigate (not abolish, sadly) the unsustainable and vitality-sapping voodoo economics of subsidised public housing. She brought home ownership to more Brits than anyone in history.

Kill industry? My (Michael) Foot! It was the workerist Labour-driving unions that killed so many of Britain's industries, destroying quality and competitiveness. And when things got really bad, it was Labour's nationalisations and taxpayer-sapping state subsidies that poured fuel on the fire, turning Britain into a dark, gloomy place.

This is not my isolated parochial view either. The majority of Brits thought so, too. Which is why they voted her in. Twice. It was her own wet Tories who shafted her.

Today's Tories are mostly wets and wouldn't have my support. I see little difference between them and Blair's New Labour. No principles. Just pragmatism.
 
Last edited:
Spizz said:
Again, why not just cut Scotland free if they cost so much and were so much trouble?
Click to expand...

A number of reasons, the largest purely pragmatic and completely unemotional reason is:

Defense.

We share a border, and we're on an island. A split would seriously undermine the UK's geostrategic defense which has been designed with the idea that we have control of the whole island.
Current defenses are only worthy because defense is under the control of a single entity. If you split that up, then neither entity can control the other, so we will need a lot more defense spending to shore up defense to be equivalent to current levels of security, which are already considered too low by people in the know.
 
Last edited:
Just watched "Have I got news for you" on iplayer. Was quite funny because of the timing as the show kept being interrupted with news of opposition leaders resigning
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X