The reason we went for a common travel area with Ireland was for the benefit of Northern Ireland as opposed to Great Britain itself. If Scotland decided to split off then the sentiment in the rest of the UK would be that Scotland should be fully responsible for its future and that the UK shouldn't unnecessarily support that future, as such there would be more than an urging for ties to be cordial but by no means special or enhanced.
Alex Salmond and Independence
- Thread starter Team Brian GB
- Start date
He's far too pig-headed to care; If he thought it was such a fantastic idea he wouldn't be stalling on delivering the referendum. Alex Salmond wants more power and he wants to be the man that brought Scotland "freedom". He couldn't care less that everyone else is going to be worse off if they leave the Union.
He's so much better at politics than everyone he's up against. Only George Osborne has a comparable flair for partisan strategy... and he's happy for the Scots to leave, I reckon.
As a Conservative you could understand it if he did feel that way; outright majorities would suddenly become very achievable.
I'm not referring to the Common Travel Area, I'm referring to the citizenship situation that existed for Irish people, right up until 1949.
Even now, British and Irish citizens are not treated as foreigners in either country. And they have never been, even during times of seriously strained relations.
It is hard to imagine that Scots will not be given the same status as Irish people.
Yes, and because of Northern Ireland.
Brian, the UK isn't going to kick out a million Scots. The business community would be up in arms. You hate that.
The point is it could happen as could many other things that would make independence unviable - voting for independence and then deciding on the terms is the wrong way round to do it. If I were Scottish I would want to exactly what we were getting ourselves in for before voting.
It could happen that the UK wages war on Scotland solely by firing Scotch eggs as artillery. It won't though.
They'd have a lock on power for a generation
That and with constituencies being eliminated and equalised in size means they'd have a lock on power for many generations.
How many of the 800,000 Scots in England are married to English people? How many kids are living in England with one or more Scottish parent? Just think of all the Scottish people in prominent positions in the British media, business, politics etc. Do you really think there is even the slightest chance a British government could take away the citizenship of nearly 1 million Scottish people living in England, or even worse, take away their right to reside in England?
Not a chance.
It makes it extremely difficult, I am not saying it would happen but you cannot simply ignore the question of citizenship with 1.4 million Britons to be affected in such a way on both sides of the border.
So basically it's win-win. Thanks lads that's really cheered me up on a dreary Sunday evening.
The Lib Dems would be screwed too. Boundary changes mean they are being wiped out in Wales entirely, and of course they're going to struggle to win votes in English constituencies with large university populations for the next two GEs at least. So on top of that, losing 11 seats in Scotland would hit them hard.
Many of their seats in the south west are held with very small majorities to the conservatives with labour nowhere to be seen.
Just picture how messed up the country would be if we were to have back-to-back Tory governments for a generation. Imagine how cocky they would get - guaranteed majorities would mean there would be no need for leaders like Cameron, the raving backbenchers and blue-rinse constituency associations would be able to appoint complete mentalists without fear of losing out to Labour. The social unrest after a decade of it would be unreal.
Well they'd better hope they manage to keep hold of them at the next election. Without Scotland and the inner-city student areas, the SW would be their only reason to exist.
Yeah in reality I'd be surprised if it was more than three terms. After a while most of the country hates the governing party, it's inevitable.
The country is pretty messed up after thirteen years of Labour majorities.
Pretty much a fact of life. And we're in the first term already.
Looked at from an alternative point of view, after a while it would just be more obvious who the Tories actually represent.
And some of those who think it's them now, might just have a re-think.
Eh, no. Not at all.
You're probably right. It would certainly give them much more breathing space, though.
Quite the opposite. Don't let the global financial crisis cloud your judgement. Had Labour left in 2008, they would have been leaving the country with vastly improved infrastructures (most notably the NHS and our state schools) AND a smaller national debt and budget deficit than that left behind by the previous Tory government.
This, every time Cameron says "its not your choice" or "youd be fecked" he will just rile up anti British sentiment further. Hes a fecking moron.
If Scotland broke away, there is no way England are just going to screw them over that far. There will not be a closed border, they will still be British Citizens just like the Irish are.
British opinion wouldn't allow it, and unless the European Commission flouts its own treaties we couldn't have an open border with them.
Yes but they will flout it won't they. In this case, they are simply going to follow whatever we choose to do. We simply haven't been down this road before, the protocols aren't in place.
I'd be amazed if the EU didn't follow the UK in this case.
Higher taxes, higher public spending, masses of waste/bureaucracy, immigration out of control, tuition fees, expensive wars and sovereignty diluted. All this without even mentioning the financial crisis. I find it astonishing that some are trying to rewrite history and pretend that Labour had nothing to do with the recession.
Tory policy promised to stick to Labour spending plans throughout most of the 2000s, so unless you want to call the party you support a bunch of liars, there would have been no change in that department had Labour not been in power. And of course an increase in public spending was necessary after the shambolic state the NHS and state schools were left in by the previous government.
Waste/bureaucracy is a meaningless criticism because it isn't backed up by anything. There is no data to suggest that waste (whatever that is) was more prevalent as a proportion of the public sector under Labour than it was under the Tories. Opposition politicians love to use the term 'waste'/we'll sort out the waste' because it is a nothing-statement.
Immigration was a driving force of growth during that time, and is one of the reasons why the UK will go on to become Europe's largest and most successful major economy. Even if you don't buy that, I don't think immigration policy would have been hugely different under the Tories - business was calling out for it.
I don't have to remind you that the Tories supported Labour's position when it came to Iraq and Afghanistan...even more passionately than Labour itself, I should add. The war situation would have been exactly the same under a Tory government and you know it.
Sovereignty diluted? I don't agree with that at all. The most important issue of sovereignty under the New Labour government was the Euro currency, and the party made the right decision on that one.
Of course Labour had something to do with the recession because they were the governing party. Labour had nothing to do with the global financial crisis and I don't think anyone in their right mind would claim that, had the Tories been in government in the years leading up to the crisis, the UK economy would have avoided recession after the shitstorm going on around us. If anything it would have been even deeper. Alistair Darling and Gordon Brown have been praised around the world for their handling of the crisis. Had your lot been in charge, according to the party stance as it all kicked off, our banking system would have completely collapsed. You might want to talk about irresponsible level of private debt in the UK, but do you seriously believe it would have been any different had Labour not been in power?
Nobody can say with any degree of certainty how this country would look if the Conservative party had been in power for the last fifteen years, it's all meaningless speculation. What we can say is that after thirteen years of New Labour the country is in an woeful state.
That's such a lame argument to keep repeating when you've been shown the counter-argument
Have you not noticed that the recession has kicked the crap out of most countries in Europe and indeed the world?
Have you not noticed that the recession has kicked the crap out of most countries in Europe and indeed the world?
Yep a Labour government acted more or less the same as a Tory one would have, the shame of it.
If you're going to blame Labour for the woeful state the economy, then obviously you have to consider the extent to which Labour are to blame. There isn't a convincing argument to suggest that the country would be in a much better state had the Tories been in government, but there is a very convincing argument that points to the contrary.
The recession was inevitable, unless you think the Tories would have isolated us from the rest of the world had they been in power, and the only way the current debt problem would be considerably less severe had they been in government is if a.) huge surpluses were being run in the years leading up to 2008 in anticipation of the recession or b.) the financial sector had been reined in.
A.) is not very likely, and I would say that only the left can sincerely blame Labour for their failure to regulate/tighten the financial sector sufficiently. You can't do it from the Thatcherite right and expect to be taken seriously. That would be like the neo-cons in the US criticising Obama for his tough stance on military operations in Pakistan.
The politics of envy I see, the one form of discrimination that is seemingly still allowed is against the priviledged.
Of please do feck off.
Government is meant to be for the people, not just the richest 2 or 3 percent of people which this government is increasingly favoring, not surprisingly. The article raises a good point, if Scotland was truly independent then it actually frees up these silver spoon yahoos to do even more damage. Lets just hope the Lords can stop them from wrecking the NHS.
And what were the Lib-Dem's thinking? Surely half the people who voted for them will jump ship at the next election in disgust? Of course Labor are a bit of a shambles so they may not be in a position to take advantage of it.
Of course it could be worse. You could have Australia's politicians. Dumb and Dumber.
So dumb that the Greens are looking good.
Government is meant to be for the people, not just the richest 2 or 3 percent of people which this government is increasingly favoring, not surprisingly. The article raises a good point, if Scotland was truly independent then it actually frees up these silver spoon yahoos to do even more damage. Lets just hope the Lords can stop them from wrecking the NHS.
And what were the Lib-Dem's thinking? Surely half the people who voted for them will jump ship at the next election in disgust? Of course Labor are a bit of a shambles so they may not be in a position to take advantage of it.
Of course it could be worse. You could have Australia's politicians. Dumb and Dumber.
So dumb that the Greens are looking good.
And envy? Kinell, I'd rather top myself than hang out with drooling halfwit Tarquins like that if that was the price of extreme wealth.
You're forgetting that Rupert is a 'drooling halfwit Tarquin' and feels quite at home.
Possibly or possibly the word wannabe needs to be added to the description.
Yeah, he obviously doesn't realise how much Tarquin & co despise minor public schoolboys.