Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
They're a bunch of wanks.
The SNP haven't attempted to deport me yet.
That's one of the main reasons, I guess.
they kind of are 'in' already :P
SNP & Plaid Cymru are Social Democrats who believe Independence. Their policies are broadly in line with other Social Democrat parties across Europe.
English Democrats consider themselves the English equivalent of the Scottish National Party, but the English Democrat mayor has come a cropper in Doncaster which won't have done them any favoursd in the credibility stakes.
BNP are bacically the renamed NF fascists, who are British in name, but English in heart. If they could stop being a vile crew of flids who make no sense to anyone with mental age beyond primary school when it comes to FORRENERS!!!, their economic policies might actually gain some traction.
UKIP are solid right wingers who send out dog whistles about foreigners to old or ignorant folk. Their policies are easily debunked ( http://drwndnsnd.com/community/boards/social/4254153#r5294202 ).
The Troll party is a non-stop LOLfest.
hahaha not heard that in years :)
(unless the candidate turns out to be thoroughly disagreeable), cos their policies are pretty well LibDem-ish, but they're (obviously) pro-independence.
I'm English, but I've been eligible to vote up here (5yrs) for just about as long as I have down there (7yrs). I voted LibDem for everything when I was in England. I've voted SNP for everything up here (except that I voted Green for the Euro elections - they're in the same Euro party grouping as the SNP).
My seat is a Lab stronghold (ex-Speaker's seat) with next to no chance of anyone else getting a look-in (speaker resigning didn't seem to affect Lab adversely, although the SNP's John Mason sneaked in in the adjacent seat).
I'm quite strongly in favour of independence, though it probably wouldn't be such a big issue for me if there were full fiscal autonomy and an English parliament. I'm not a UK-hater (I'm anti-royalty, but I can't be bothered to hope for removing them - they're fairly constitutionally marginalised as it is), but I do think the current setup is far too Westminster-centric.
In 2005, the LibDems ducked out on a Holyrood coalition (with the Greens, who were up for it) which would've formed a majority. The sole reason seemed to be the proposed referendum on independence (a stance which seemed to be dictated from Westminster). This somewhat undermined the LibDem affinity for STV PR, especially seeing as almost every other policy for that election saw the LibDems aligned with the SNP.
Hey ho, now you know.
*2007, not 2005
The entire premise of their pro-independent stance is fundamentally flawed because they are a bunch of complete spaktards. And that is my mature contribution to the debate, cheers.
But i think we cut to the chase better ;)
you sayin' my arse is big?
simply because i can see there to be no benefits and the problems created by splitting the country outweigh any benefit perceived.
plus they are fat pricks. :D xxxx
it doesn't ask for reasons why you won't be voting for snp.
i don't talk about who i vote for anyway, i just do it.
Compromise: Let the Scots have independence. Then let England invade and annex.
Care to expand?
The economic case that Scotland is dependent on London is, at best, shaky. London gets more spending per head than Scotland. http://www.heraldscotland.com/why-the-figures-peddled-by-scotland-s-critics-don-t-add-up-1.868293 (from 2007, so, pre-crash, but the thrust of the article still stands). Yes, London contibutes plenty cos of banking, etc. But the oil revenue from Scotland ain't to be sniffed at.
I'd suggest there's a strong case that the cultural benefits of the Union are minimal. Scotland pulls it's weight and then some in terms of it's contribution on that front.
Politically, you could quite easily say that Scotland would be better off without the tainted image of the Westminster-sanctioned Iraq adventure and other war on terror policies. The Union needs Scotland more than vice versa, so that it can cling on to the world of yesteryear where it could throw its weight around on the world stage. Those years are gone. And quite apart from the fact that STV PR hasn't seen Holyrood crumble into chaos in the face of a minority government, it has also served as a model for the expenses reform of Westminster.
Unionists often claim that Scotland is in receipt of handouts. If that were the case, then it's not the best advert for 300 years of a fair and equitable Union, is it. What's more, if you're non-Scot Unionists, then why not cut your losses and save some cash? To Unionists in Scotland: if Union has been such a treat for Scotland, why is it that after 300 years its still supposedly too poor, weak and useless even to think about changing the arrangement?
The article I linked to (to be read with with all the caveats I've mentioned) quotes loads of figures:
Here's a sample (not the most favourable, but one of the bluntest):
> "Total "identifiable" spending in Scotland came to £41.7bn in 2005-06, including the £22.7bn spent by the devolved Scottish Government, [compared] with £344.7bn for England."
- That's 12% of the England total, for an population that's 10% of England's. Hardly a massive exercise in sponging when you take into account the disparity in the geographical situation of the two areas.
It goes on to say that:
> "There are other funds that are a bit trickier, with "non-identifiable" spending - money that is hard to pin down to one part of the country or another."
- Which maybe brings us to the London-centric spending you mentioned. I'm not convinced that it's healthy for the UK to have such a disproportionate balance of power and population all in one corner. That sentiment applies with the North of England, Wales, the South West, and the Midlands in mind, as much as just Scotland.