Jump to content

Carefull Dave -


observer
 Share

Recommended Posts

I consider myself a strong unionist and I have several Scottish friends as I work in Scotland.

I am confident the union will stand after a referendum. David Cameron has called the SNP's bluff. Your move.

I do however see a poorer future for the whole of the UK should it break. We are stronger together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A question of delicate timing: the longer the Jocks suffer under a Tory Gov (austerity etc), the more inclined they may become, to believe they'll be better off on their own. Plus, Alex is trying to get his vote by stealth, by adding a third option of "more powers", which just waters down the Union even further, ready for the final step. :unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't make my mind up if this is a stupid proposal from a bunch of ignorant civil servants in London or it is a diversionary tactic to take attention away from the two lies Cameron has at the back of his mind - a referendum on eu membership and repeal of the human rights act that gives priority to thieves and crooks.

Either way it seems a totally waste of time raising the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Wireboy says, Cameron is calling Salmonds bluff. Salmond knows full well that he'd lose a referendum at any time in the forseeable future - because the Scottish people know that they get far more out of the Union than they put in.

 

Even the option of Scotland becomming a small, "independent" state within the EU and therefore receiving big wads of English and German cash via Brussels isn't looking as attractive as it did a year or so ago!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You just can't help yourself can you you bigoted twerp?

 

Fats, without getting into a heated debate, can you please explain what is bigotted about the term 'Jocks'

 

The British 9th (Scottish) Division, one of the Kitchener's Army divisions was affectionately known as the Jocks.

 

As for Independence, is there anyone else apart from myself who couldn't care less if the Scots vote for it or not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fats, without getting into a heated debate, can you please explain what is bigotted about the term 'Jocks'

 

The British 9th (Scottish) Division, one of the Kitchener's Army divisions was affectionately known as the Jocks.

 

 

It is all in the useage, and our bigoted OP always uses the term in a derogatory and condescending manner, in fact I've never seen him use the words "Scots" or "Scottish". He is of course famously bigoted on most topics, so no real surprise here.

 

 

 

 

As for Independence, is there anyone else apart from myself who couldn't care less if the Scots vote for it or not?

Baffles me, you see guffs like Observer waffling on about how bad it would be for Scotland etc, sop what, not your isue is it? In fact you'll be rolling in so much cash you'll never have to work again, so if we want independence, that is our right surely?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder how many "Scottish" people living outside Scotland believe that they will have a vote in such a referendum.

 

I would imagine almost none.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I would have thought it would be restricted to those living in Scotland and registered to vote (even English people living there, shocking isn't it? :shock: )

Why? Doesn't seem shocking at all to me, seems pretty straightforward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Alex Salmond keeps his nerve and goes ahead with a referendum then whichever way it goes it has to be asked "is there a future for the SNP"

 

If it is no then it would seem to be a rejection of what they stand for

 

 

If it is yes and the achieve independence then , once they have renamed the Royal Mile Salmond Boulevard and bunged a statue up, it would seem that the party is pretty well redundant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Scots want to be a small fish in a large pond rather than part of one of the big fish then far be it from me (or Dave for that matter) to stop them. :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one forced the Jocks into the Union btw, it was evidently in their best interests at the time. The ultimate power in this matter is the Westminister Parliament, as a result of the 1707 Act, and it seems Westminister are now taking control of matters. :wink:

It seems you have little grasp of what's going on. Salmond is outplaying Cameron at every move.

 

It only goes to show how out of touch he (and apparently you) is with a large part of his citizens that he thinks this is in any way going down well north of the border.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Under international law, the only effect one Independent State can have upon another Independent State is through the obligation and terms of a bi-lateral Treaty. This principle is embodied in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, that states: a “…party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.”

 

The UK Government draws up on its LEGAL BASIS from Union with Scotland Act 1706 and or the Union with England Act 1707 Article 4 of the Act of Union states: "That all the subjects of the United Kingdom of Great Britain shall from and after the Union………have the same Rights Privileges and Advantages"

 

However, since devolution the people of England & Scotland, have had different rights, privileges and advantages.

 

The treaty of union is therefore null and void and England or Scotland can withdraw using the provision of Article 61 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties .

 

So I guess no need for a referendum. :wink:

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it seems your out of touch with your kinsmen Jock; the most recent polls (in Scotland) only find 38% support for independence; hence Salmon's attempt to manipulate the vote with a third option. The last "independent" Scottish Parliament agreed to the Act of Union in 1707, basically because they were bankrupt due to a massive loss of investments on a failed attempt to start a Colony in the Americas. Powers now rest with the UK Parliament, to decide process and timing. This Balkanisation of Gt Britain, is a consequence of Labour's failed attempts at devolution, where 5million Scots, 1million Welsh and about 1million N/Irish were given Regional powers that the Regions of England (7million in the N/West) should have been entitled to on the basis of devolution. But devolution isn't the same thing as seperatism. :roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it seems your out of touch with your kinsmen Jock; the most recent polls (in Scotland) only find 38% support for independence; hence Salmon's attempt to manipulate the vote with a third option. The last "independent" Scottish Parliament agreed to the Act of Union in 1707, basically because they were bankrupt due to a massive loss of investments on a failed attempt to start a Colony in the Americas. Powers now rest with the UK Parliament, to decide process and timing. This Balkanisation of Gt Britain, is a consequence of Labour's failed attempts at devolution, where 5million Scots, 1million Welsh and about 1million N/Irish were given Regional powers that the Regions of England (7million in the N/West) should have been entitled to on the basis of devolution. But devolution isn't the same thing as seperatism. :roll:

Got to love you trawling up 300 year old facts as some justification for the continuance of this imbalanced partnership.

 

The calls for independence as you once again so sarcastically phrase your snidey digs, is indeed because of Labours devolution bill, but not becasue it failed, but becasue it succeeded. It has succeeded to such an extent with Salmond at the helm, that an unforseeable huge vote in the SNP's favour has given them a clear majority in Edinburgh, that was due to success and positive campaigning, not dragging up failures of the previous or current imcumbents like happenms at every UK election.

 

Success breeds success, and the people of Scotland are waking up, and no longer listening to the belittling messages of little Englanders like yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure how Salmond is outplaying call me Dave. That is yet to be decided. CMD may have erred by allowing Mr Salmond a free run for so long, but the game has only just started.

 

Happy days

From the Spectator yesterday, not I think you'd admit a pro-Independence journal?

 

Earlier today, in the Commons, Michael Moore, the Scottish Secretary, had delivered the UK government’s riposte to the SNP’s referendum plans. Mr Moore was considered, clever and smart. In fact, it was a first cogent and effective strike back by the UK government on this issue for more than a year.

 

But what will lead tomorrow’s papers in Scotland? It won’t be Mr Moore’s statement. It will be the simple, short sentence uttered by Salmond while the Commons debate was still in process. ‘The referendum will be held in the autumn of 2014,’ Salmond told the BBC, standing in front of a crackling open fire and two furled saltires, in a clip that will be played over and over again.

 

What appears likely to happen now is this: Mr Salmond will pass his referendum bill through the Scottish Parliament and he will challenge the UK Government to take it to the court. If it does go to court, he will then accuse the UK Government of subverting the democratic will of the Scottish people and, as far as many Scots are concerned, he will have a point.

 

The UK Government has approached this late, it has approached it half-heartedly, and it is now being outplayed at every stage. Their solace is that the game isn’t lost yet. But it will be unless they can come up with something imaginative and new — and, crucially, something the Nats haven’t thought of.

 

that's from someone who is actually watching both sides of this, not swalloing the party line in England, a party line that has always been full of mis-information since the days of Thatcher, when the UK economy was sorted by north sea oil. Why do you think the unionust parties are always so adamant that there will be no breakaway? Simple, England would be bankrupt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...