Nigel Farage gets hounded off the steets of Edinburgh

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Gergar12:
Well he does make good points. You got to give him that.

Farage is a demagogue.

He does indeed make seemingly good points, because as a party quite some way from power, he has total liberty to say almost anything he pleases - or more specifically, what pleases other people - as he is in no serious danger of having to carry any of it out.

UKIP is in many ways the most political (in a pejorative sense) of political parties. Obliterating truth and complex realities under simplistic slogans that are as inaccurate as they are easy to understand. Contradictory and nonsensical policy simply designed to appeal to as many as possible under the understanding few will enquire hard enough to see the inadequacies. It is fascinating to see the policies people in the UK really care about, and note that UKIP barely comments on them - they make great hay out of very much second-order irritations. Hence the irony that UKIP's recent success has rested on collecting the 'anti-political' vote with sheer politics.

Ironside:
What is the point of fighting to leave the British Union only to apply for membership of another Union which in the next couple of decades will fully federalise and leave your parliament with less power than it has now.

Because the Scottish economy is heavily supported by immigrants from the EU.
Also, I've done many minimum wage jobs in Scotland and I've never worked with a Scotsman yet. I have however, met many Scottish people who live off of benefits and still complain that they're not getting paid enough.

HardkorSB:

Ironside:
What is the point of fighting to leave the British Union only to apply for membership of another Union which in the next couple of decades will fully federalise and leave your parliament with less power than it has now.

Because the Scottish economy is heavily supported by immigrants from the EU.
Also, I've done many minimum wage jobs in Scotland and I've never worked with a Scotsman yet. I have however, met many Scottish people who live off of benefits and still complain that they're not getting paid enough.

I don't know why you quoted that bit, because you didn't answer the question. You wouldn't need to be in the EU to allow immigrants to enter your country - you could make it extremely easy for them to come and settle in your country regardless of whether you were a member or not. The whole point of the Scottish independence movement is to free themselves from Westminster interference in their affairs, but instead you suggest joining a Union where you will instead currently be ruled mostly from Brussels from a parliament where you will have zero influence. Then in a couple of decades your parliament ceases to exist and your short lived period of independence comes to an end - please explain to me what is the point of trying for independence if you are just going to throw it away so quickly.

Ironside:
please explain to me what is the point of trying for independence if you are just going to throw it away so quickly.

I'll argue that nobody owes you that explanation. The right to self-determination is simply one of the basic tenets of modern politics (at the same time conflicting with the concept of a sovereign state, admittedly), and what a people does with that right is their prerogative entirely.

The rest of us, we're observers from the outside, those people do not have any obligations to justify their decisions to us, nor do they deserve this smug and derisive tone directed at them, the tone that deliberately or otherwise suggests that they don't value independence enough to deserve it, that it'd somehow be "wasted" on them.

Ironside:

I don't know why you quoted that bit, because you didn't answer the question. You wouldn't need to be in the EU to allow immigrants to enter your country - you could make it extremely easy for them to come and settle in your country regardless of whether you were a member or not. The whole point of the Scottish independence movement is to free themselves from Westminster interference in their affairs, but instead you suggest joining a Union where you will instead currently be ruled mostly from Brussels from a parliament where you will have zero influence. Then in a couple of decades your parliament ceases to exist and your short lived period of independence comes to an end - please explain to me what is the point of trying for independence if you are just going to throw it away so quickly.

That's never going to happen though. If the EU went fully federal then each country will still have their own parliament that controls their domestic issues - look at how the US is structured; while there's the federal government (senate, congress, etc.) each state has their own version of it that controls internal issues that are state specificand not federal jurisdiction.

The other issue is a countries path. Again looking at the US if you go from Virginia to Alabama to Colorado you will see states that are similar but have enough leeway to be different according to the culture of that area. If the EU went federal Spain will still be Spain, Italy will be Italy and Scotland will be Scotland. While we might have to agree to a set of over-arching federal rules that are the same for everyone but Scotland's culture will still allow us to go our own way inside those rules.

At the moment if England says jump Scotland has no choice but to ask how high. Looking at things like benefit reforms, military spending, taxation rates, etc. Scotland has next to no say in how these things are implemented as those are Westminster powers. Every single MP in Scotland could vote against a policy (lets say getting Trident out of Scotland) and it wouldn't matter because there are 5 times as many Tory MPs alone.

While that's the only fair way of running the House of Commons it still stinks for Scotland (& Wales & N.I.) because if England is going to vote Tory there's next to no point voting in Scotland - you aint going to get the government you want.

England and Scotland have completely different views on certain issues - e.g. free university tuition vs 9000 per year fees or free prescriptions vs selling off the NHS to private companies. The fact that there's 1 right wing MP in the entirety of Scotland and 80% of the Tory MSPs only got in through the Regional list vote should show how different people see things in Scotland compared to England.

That's what Scotland wants; the freedom to decide where to go as a country. We cant do that when we're stuck being pulled in the direction England wants to go. Joining the EU, even a federalised one, would give us that freedom because of the way a federal system works.

This is the thing, if David Cameron had run the NO campaign as reforming the UK into a federal system where each country controls domestic issues and a federal government handles issues that affect them all there would be no chance of Scotland leaving. He would have gone down in history as the man who revolutionised the UK rather that risk being remembered as the man who watched it break.

Ironside:
The whole point of the Scottish independence movement is to free themselves from Westminster interference in their affairs, but instead you suggest joining a Union where you will instead currently be ruled mostly from Brussels from a parliament where you will have zero influence.

Actually, Scotland would have more influence in the EU as an independent state than a part of the Union.

European Parliamentary seats are allocated very roughly on the basis of population. The UK's share of seats are also allocated to different regions on the basis of population. Scotland votes for 6 of the UK's 72 seats. Since 6 is the minimum number of seats a member of the EU can be allocated, there is absolutely no chance that Scotland's representation in EU parliament would be diminished.

However, post-independence Scotland's head of state would be able to sit on the EU Council, which is composed of the heads of state of all EU nations rather than specially elected representatives. Moreover, they could also send ministers to vote in the Council of the European Union (the "upper house" of the EU).

Also, in order for the EU parliament to be suspended then the parliament itself would have to vote for that, and member states would have to ratify it. I don't think I really need to say why that won't happen.

evilthecat:
Cut to save space

I will argue that since Scottish independence is going to cost my country billions of pounds in separations costs and then further billions in propping them up if they join the EU that anyone from the UK is owed an explanation as to why they are going to fuck over the rest of us just to join an organisation that is simply a worse version of the Union they are currently a part of. Having said that though I am wholeheartedly in support of countries striving for independence if that is what they actually want, but that doesn't seem to be the case in this situation.

Also in future I suggest you look up what smug and derisive actually mean if you are going to use them in a sentence.

Karma168:

The other issue is a countries path. Again looking at the US if you go from Virginia to Alabama to Colorado you will see states that are similar but have enough leeway to be different according to the culture of that area. If the EU went federal Spain will still be Spain, Italy will be Italy and Scotland will be Scotland. While we might have to agree to a set of over-arching federal rules that are the same for everyone but Scotland's culture will still allow us to go our own way inside those rules.

This would be true if Scotland was one of the planned regions of a federal Europe, but it isn't. Although I guess the separate regions that Scotland would be split up into would still have their local representation, so you do have a good point here I suppose.

At the moment if England says jump Scotland has no choice but to ask how high. Looking at things like benefit reforms, military spending, taxation rates, etc. Scotland has next to no say in how these things are implemented as those are Westminster powers. Every single MP in Scotland could vote against a policy (lets say getting Trident out of Scotland) and it wouldn't matter because there are 5 times as many Tory MPs alone.

Replace England with EU and you have the same situation in a few years time. Military spending, taxation rates and benefit reforms will be controlled by the European parliament and you would still have to convince all the other MEP's to support your proposals if you wanted to implement them. You would also have very little say over the regulations and whatnot that are currently strangling the economies of Europe. Every single MEP could vote against something in the European parliament (all 6 of them) and you would have the same result as before. Yes Trident and all the MoD jobs and whatnot would leave if you left the Union, but Trident isn't the only problem facing Scotland. Of course anything to do with spending will be beneficial for Scotland though since they will be another leech added to the EU rather than a contributor. However this cant last forever - the EU can't keep adding countries who contribute nothing and keep expecting countries like Germany, France, the UK, etc to keep contributing more and it will be even worse if they were to lose one of the major contributors such as France (who are more Eurosceptic than the UK these days) or the remnants of the UK.

I am not arguing for Scotland to remain part of the British Union - I am arguing that they don't join the EU and remain independent. Perhaps it could be just for a few years (It probably will be anyway whilst they sort out the application process) and if it doesn't work out they can join the EU after that, but at least the people would have a chance to experience other options.

England and Scotland have completely different views on certain issues - e.g. free university tuition vs 9000 per year fees or free prescriptions vs selling off the NHS to private companies. The fact that there's 1 right wing MP in the entirety of Scotland and 80% of the Tory MSPs only got in through the Regional list vote should show how different people see things in Scotland compared to England.

This is the thing, if David Cameron had run the NO campaign as reforming the UK into a federal system where each country controls domestic issues and a federal government handles issues that affect them all there would be no chance of Scotland leaving. He would have gone down in history as the man who revolutionised the UK rather that risk being remembered as the man who watched it break.

I completely agree with you here. People in England don't like having Scottish MPs voting on English issues either, which is part of the reason why support for Scottish independence is so high south of the border. I would also love to see a federal system in the UK, but I differ to your views in that I would want to be outside the European Union as well, which is probably another issue that will exacerbate the split between the two countries. Hopefully we won't end up with a devo-max situation either, which will be a kick in the teeth for England. If you don't like being ruled by the Tories you should bear in mind that they won't have won a majority for 18 years by the time the next general election rolls around and it will be 23 years by the time the next parliament finishes. It would be mutually beneficial for both of us in political terms if Scotland were to leave since we would have a whole lot less Labour MPs trying to destroy the country and you wouldn't have to have a Tory government.

Vegosiux:
Cut to save space

How would it have more influence in the European Union than the British Union. You currently have only 6 MEPS out of 754 and that total number only keeps increasing as new members join despite the commissions pledge to decrease the total. Perhaps your MEPs views will align with most of the other poorer nations of the EU and so it wont matter that your representation is so small. However that wont necessarily be the case - you may end up in a position like the UK who is consistently out voted by the Eurozone, the leech nations or both purely because we have different goals.

According to Alex Salmond the Queen would remain your head of state after independence and I don't think she will be attending any kind of EU council. If you mean head of government then yes they would be able to sit on the EU council and use their veto on certain issues. However we have already seen that the power of veto essentially means jack shit since the EU generally pushes on with whatever mad brained scheme they have come up with using only minor changes regardless of whether or not somebody has vetoed it.

And I never said the EU parliament would be disbanded, so I don't think you need to explain why that wouldn't happen either. It seem you took zero influence rather to literally - perhaps you would be happier if I just picked a very low number for your level of influence instead?

Ironside:
[snip]

I'd like to ask for proof that Scotland would be a leech if we joined the EU.

PiCroft:

Ironside:
[snip]

I'd like to ask for proof that Scotland would be a leech if we joined the EU.

I doubt it exists.

The UK is a net contributor to the EU, but Scotland does slightly better than the rest of the UK on average in returns from the EU. However, as far as I'm aware, estimates are that Scotland is still a net contributor to the EU. Although the complications with money out being routed through Westminster - Holyrood budget agreements makes ascertaining precisely how much tricky.

An important factor is the UK's rebate: Scotland would lose its part upon independence. Given existing opposition to the UK's existing one and how limited Scotland's negotiating power would be, it is almost certain Scotland would not be permitted to negotiate its own rebate. This would make Scotland's net EU contribution quite large - it's more likely it would sort of be subsidising the UK.

Agema:

PiCroft:

Ironside:
[snip]

I'd like to ask for proof that Scotland would be a leech if we joined the EU.

I doubt it exists.

The UK is a net contributor to the EU, but Scotland does slightly better than the rest of the UK on average in returns from the EU. However, as far as I'm aware, estimates are that Scotland is still a net contributor to the EU. Although the complications with money out being routed through Westminster - Holyrood budget agreements makes ascertaining precisely how much tricky.

An important factor is the UK's rebate: Scotland would lose its part upon independence. Given existing opposition to the UK's existing one and how limited Scotland's negotiating power would be, it is almost certain Scotland would not be permitted to negotiate its own rebate. This would make Scotland's net EU contribution quite large - it's more likely it would sort of be subsidising the UK.

I've been trying to find figures myself and I usually head to GERS to find info but all I can find there is that Scotland would - if independant - have a smaller deficit, with an illustrative geographical share of North Sea oil at 7.6 billion (5.0% of GDP) vs the UK 121.0 billion (or 7.9% of GDP), which I believe is the combined UK with Scotland included.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2013/03/1859

Its not exactly informative on the subject of EU funding sadly.

PiCroft:

I've been trying to find figures myself and I usually head to GERS to find info but all I can find there is that Scotland would - if independant - have a smaller deficit, with an illustrative geographical share of North Sea oil at 7.6 billion (5.0% of GDP) vs the UK 121.0 billion (or 7.9% of GDP), which I believe is the combined UK with Scotland included.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2013/03/1859

Ah, excellent - I'm glad they've started including the capital budget in. Even 2-3 years back, they tended not to. You had to do quite a lot more digging to see what Scotland's real financial health was.

I generally don't think there's much meaningful differences between Scotland and the rest of the UK in government financial health. Scotland does better some years, and the UK average others. Although the big increase in the price of oil has favoured Scotland a bit more in the last few years.

Ironside:

How would it have more influence in the European Union than the British Union. You currently have only 6 MEPS out of 754 and that total number only keeps increasing as new members join despite the commissions pledge to decrease the total. Perhaps your MEPs views will align with most of the other poorer nations of the EU and so it wont matter that your representation is so small. However that wont necessarily be the case - you may end up in a position like the UK who is consistently out voted by the Eurozone, the leech nations or both purely because we have different goals.

According to Alex Salmond the Queen would remain your head of state after independence and I don't think she will be attending any kind of EU council. If you mean head of government then yes they would be able to sit on the EU council and use their veto on certain issues. However we have already seen that the power of veto essentially means jack shit since the EU generally pushes on with whatever mad brained scheme they have come up with using only minor changes regardless of whether or not somebody has vetoed it.

And I never said the EU parliament would be disbanded, so I don't think you need to explain why that wouldn't happen either. It seem you took zero influence rather to literally - perhaps you would be happier if I just picked a very low number for your level of influence instead?

I don't see how that responds to what I said at all? I have a suspicion you might have fallen into that "messing up quote tags after a chain of quotes" thing. Annoying, that, happens to me more often than I'd want.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked