Will we now see beammeup.gov.scot?
Despite the outcome of last year's referendum on Scottish independence – namely, keeping the union together – Scotland's politicians have declared independence from the UK ... online. On Tuesday, the Scottish Government shifted its internet presence from 'scotland.gov.uk' to 'gov.scot', redirecting the old domain to its new …
"We're going through with UK independence ANYWAY "
Great - so we no longer have to subsidise their economy. And there will finally be a reason to visit the dump - I would gladly pay a few Scottish Groats to cross the border just to get some Duty Free fags and booze as they would be not part of the EU...
I am surprised that there would be any oil left to fund their economy though after they have paid off their share of the national debt at the current oil price?!
"Now at $63 and rising"
That's what is called a 'dead cat bounce' from hitting a bottom at about $50. It's not going to go anywhere fast.
"The fact that independence wasnt to be until 2016 is always conveniently missed too."
That's only 10 months away...
As opposed to doing what?
Expecting the SNP, in particular, to renounce its core policy / wither up and die would be laughable.
The main reasons it's doing well, therefore "carrying on as if they won"? Pick any of the following:
45% loses a referendum, but in almost anything other than a pure two-party system, it landslides a first-past-the-post election - like the rest of the UK, the big thing in politics at the moment is the May general election which looks to be shaping up very well indeed for the SNP - some of the wilder polls predict a constituency map looking like Bart Simpson with a couple of plooks (spots, for the English-speakers) - i.e. most of Scotland going SNP (yellow) with two (red) bits holding out for Labour.
Speaking of Labour, its support appears to have withered spectacularly. Some of this is probably due to the referendum - Labour and the Tories shared a platform, and it should not be underestimated how much some voters in Scotland still hate the Tories. Considering it was the Labour areas that, on the whole, voted "Yes", it's not difficult to see how this political realignment happened. The Lib-Dems are still suffering from being in coalition with the Tories who will be lucky to keep their one Scottish seat.
However, the most sensible reason is probably that a large enough percentage of voters see Lib/Lab/Con as predominantly English parties, focussed (understandably, considering England's far greater population, number of seats, etc.) on delivering what English voters want with little regard for Scotland. The SNP can make a good case for being the only party that will try to get the best deal for Scotland in Westminster, especially if they become the third largest party and either Labour or the Conservatives are unable to govern alone or with the other parties. Lots of Scots find the idea of Ed or Dave being impotent unless conforming to Scottish interests extremely appealing. (Having said that, there is the nightmare option of a Labour/Conservative coalition...)
Surly all MPs represent the area which voted for them. In which case any MP will try and get the best deal for the area they come from.
Of course MPs actually behave quite differently but I can't see that the SNP MPs are any less corrupt than the others.
Westminster is where the parliament sits, not who it represents.
"Surly all MPs represent the area which voted for them. In which case any MP will try and get the best deal for the area they come from."
ROFLMAO ... no, MPs generally (there are notable exceptions) do/vote for what their party whip tells them.
Therefore party donors have more influence on the political agenda than the ordinary voter.
I did say that they behaved differently. My main point was that I don't think SNP MPs are somehow a special breed of honest and unbiased politicians.
My second point is that the physical location of the parliament is not particularly relevant.
'...the physical location of the parliament is not particularly relevant.'
It becomes 'particularly relevant' when you take account of the fact that Westminster is located in a different legal jurisdiction. The following extract is pertinent -
'greater power can only be granted to Scotland by the UK Parliament and here there is potential for conflict. To take the extreme example, constitutional matters are reserved but it is hard to see how the Scottish Parliament could be prevented from holding a referendum on independence should it be determined to do so. If the Scottish people expressed a desire for independence the stage would be set for a direct clash between what is the English doctrine of sovereignty and the Scottish doctrine of the sovereignty of the people.'
SOURCE: 'The Operation of Multi-Layer Democracy', Scottish Affairs Committee Second Report of Session 1997-1998, HC 460-I, 2 December 1998, paragraph 27.
"Speaking of Labour, its support appears to have withered spectacularly"
Maybe the poor turkeys have finally realised that voting for Christmas isn't a great idea after the last labour government left our economy in such a mess and wasted so much money?
Being a "winner" in this sucks too - I still have to listen to them bleat on. Call me selfish but as someone not born there I don't care - except to the extent that my tax is propping up that failed banking behemoth, another financial success story for Scotland. As a group that constitute just 8-9% of the population, I just don't care. As someone else commented, if they'd let the rest of the UK vote they would have had their way.
Requiring Passports for us Sassenachs to travel to Ecosse?
I agree with the sentiments about the SNP carrying on as if they had won the election. Several of my friends who live in Edinburgh are preparing to move south with their respective empoyers. The reason given is the very anti business stance taken by the SNP (but they say that the Labour alternative is almost as bad)
Yes, they'll still want us slimy southerners to bail them out when their socialist experiment fall flat on its face.
I say, rebuild Hadrians wall and keep them out!
I do not care about passports for anyone daft enough to go to the socialist 'paradise of up there' but there should certainly be a need for passports and visas the other way! Ideally man the immigration barriers of the new Hadrian's Wall with clerks otherwise unable to find work, rather than automating the system. Visa charges should be used to meet the inevitable costs. Additional revenue being raised from any broadcaster or print media showing any image or part thereof relating to the poisonous leadership, tripled in the case of sturgeon
"You'll need to move Hadrian's wall a long way north, [...]"
Presumably the western edge of the border could follow the river and split Berwick on Tweed into Scottish and English administration halves. Alternatively it could be a "free port" or "joint enterprise zone" - like the facilities on the North/South Korean border.
>You'll need to move Hadrian's wall a long way north
Make the bits between the Antonine Wall and Hadrians Wall their own country :-). The highlanders would be happy (would keep the lowland Scots out), the southern Sassenachs would be happy (gets rid of those damn Labour-loving northeners) and the only losers are...
"It remains a mystery why Scottish voters didn't put their homegrown politicians in charge of the entire country and economy"
Probably because Cameron and every other politician in Labour and the Lib Dems promised them more devolution. Then the following morning Cameron looked over his right shoulder and saw UKIP accelerating so decided to back track and throw in lots of umss, ahhhs and conditions he hadn't mentioned before. If the promises aren't kept the SNP would be completely justified in asking for a new referendum and I think they would win under those circumstances. Certainly bad for the rump but then we'd have no one to blame but ourselves.
"Probably because Cameron and every other politician in Labour and the Lib Dems promised them more devolution"
No, because the Westminster/Brussels cabal used fear tactics against elderly Scottish voters. The youth vote was compellingly in favour of going it alone, and wasn't swayed by the rash promises of more devolution. The elderly had a reciprocal view, having been told that an independent Scotland would go bust and they wouldn't get the BBC, wouldn't get their pension, wouldn't have cheap postage etc etc.
As the older more conservative voters fade away, and as SNP support continues to climb, a new referendum is inevitable, just a question of when.
"As the older more conservative voters fade away, and as SNP support continues to climb, a new referendum is inevitable, just a question of when."
As a No voter I would like to see another referendum this year, I suggest September the 17th. This time we can put to bed the total and outright blatant lies that where the economic policy of the SNP. Unfortunately there won't be one for a generation by which time the closet Tory "I' all right Jack, we have oil now sod you." policy of the SNP will be dead and buried as there will be very little oil left.
Had there been a Yes vote Scotland would now be staring down the barrel of economic ruin. The SNP's calms of prosperity where all based on a price of ~$100 a barrel for oil. Now at half that there would be a massive black hole in the Scottish government's finances that would only be pluggable with massive unsustainable borrowing or austerity that would make the current round pale into insignificance.
It would have been the Darien Scheme all over again.
"It would have been the Darien Scheme all over again."
Except instead of it being a Westminster/banking cabal that foreclosed on the Darien scheme it would have been OPEC forcing the oil price down temporarily to harm Russia's economy or US fracking profitability depending on who you listen to.
The effect on Scotland just happens to be an unintended consequence of their cunning plan in this case.
Westminster/Brussels cabal? If you're looking for a conspiracy theory, I think you need to find some more likely co-conspirators.
The idea that Scotland is somehow coveted by the rest of the UK is laughable - the overwhelming popular sentiment south of the border was in favour of throwing the argumentative sibling out of the family house.
And it would have been in Cameron's political interests to do so (though not Milliband's) - it would have secured his career (in the absence of Scottish MPs) at least until the inevitable realignment of English politics. The fact that he was campaigning against independence and threw in not only promises of more devolution, but also the promise of money (by protecting the Barnet formula which disadvantages England disproportionately) should tell you that something other than anti-Scottish conspiracy was afoot.
There was fear - real and genuine fear - that the wing-and-a-prayer approach to post-independence economic policy would cause a complete financial meltdown in Scotland with both economic and security consequences for "Little Britain".
Of course there will be future referendums - the Scots will be required to vote and vote again until they come up with the right answer. If, in the intervening time, the SNP have a more deliverable plan for EU membership and for a currency, the rest of the UK will roll out a red carpet to the exit door.
Incidentally, I'm not at all surprised that the youth vote was in favour of independence, you just have to read the graffiti under every bridge. However, anti-English expletives are not in themselves an economic policy.
Getting back to the subject of the article, if anyone is considering registering a .scot domain name, I'd strongly recommend a read of the associated policies first. Your use of the domain is contingent on it being "beneficial to the cause and the values of the Scottish community", so it's not so much a reflection of your geographical location, but your adherence to a cause whose definition is not within your control.
"If the promises aren't kept the SNP would be completely justified in asking for a new referendum and I think they would win under those circumstances."
Given the current oil price and that it is not expected to ever reach the levels Salmond anticipated when working out whether Scotland could be economically independent, I doubt very much that another referendum would yield a different result. If anything it is more likely to swing further away from what the SNP want. England has always supported Scotland financially and probably always will.
With low oil prices the previous SNP claims are more difficult, but oil was a distraction. Denmark has a prosperous economy with little in the way of mineral resources, as do Finland and Sweden, all of which have similar size populations and higher GDP per capita than Scotland. And those countries include one euro member, one in an ERM type of arrangement, and one free floating currency, so the SNP would not be held back by any threats from the incompetents of Brussels to keep them out of the euro.
Scottish independence would be a wonderful thing, because it would force the Scots to reform their economy and that (in the longer term) would be better for the Scottish people, and because instead of Scotland being governed as a policy afterthought by civil servants in London, they really could have policies decided for the benefit of Scotland. And it would be better for the RoUK, since we wouldn't be either leeching off them (the SNP oil argument), or we wouldn't be bankrolling their unsustainable welfare state (the Barnett formula argument).
1) Scotland's books are currently balanced (as legally required)
2) With 8.4% of the UK population, Scotland contributes 9.6% of UK tax revenue and receives only 9.3% of UK gov spending
3) Scotland currently contributes to vanity projects deemed to be 'National' (Trident, HS2, Crossrail, The Olympics (but oddly, the Commonwealth Games were 'local' and funded from Scotland alone)) that won't continue post independence
4) GDP/Capital *without* oil & gas is broadly similar (£20,873 -v- £20,571) between Scotland and rUK
it's no surprise that the economic case was that oil is just a Brucie Bonus: the Scottish economy can manage fine without it.
1) Oil was around $20/barrel for most of the 90s and it was still a welcome revenue to UK.gov
2) The oil companies are investing hugely: while of course the price is variable (which is why you build a sovereign wealth fund like every other oil producing nation except UK to buffer against it), the long term prognosis is still extremely healthy - £12m of investment announced just yesterday http://powerfromthenorth.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/lerwick-harbour-defies-north-sea-gloom.html
3) In an era of ever increasing demand and finite supply, the price is only trending in one direction.
and finally, the kind of fear mongering lies told before the Referendum (e.g. Deutsche Bank who now say Scotland would be better off independent, or that the only way to save the NHS would be to vote No... how's that looking btw?) mean that it's hardly a surprise that many low information voters who unquestioningly rely on mass media (like yourself it would seem) got the wrong end of the economic stick.
"Scotland contributes 9.6% of UK tax revenue "
Isn't that counting oil and gas? Which Scotland doesn't actually produce - it just happens to be offshore. And of course is now much lower in revenue. And much of the receipts of which would be tied up paying off your share of the national debt. GERS has estimated Scotland's share of debt would be £92 billion which is 62% of estimated GDP.
According to the BBC as a percentage of the UK, Scotland contributes 8.2% in taxes (excluding North Sea oil and gas revenue), but receives 9.3% of government spending.
Also Scotland has among the shortest life expectancies in Western Europe - meaning that your future social and healthcare costs would be huge.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019