shagpile

Just like the Conservative shower that denied a Scottish Assembly, way back in 1979...... even though the majority of Scots voted for one!?

The biggest political crime in recent 'British' history seems do be to deny the English something they never asked for, yet grant the Scots what they've voted and demanded through the ballot box for. Truely wow!

The ultimate oxymoron, terrorism bad.... democracy bad..... totalitarianism good, shooting a Brasilian student in the head 7 times good!!!!!

No wonder unionists are confused

Glad I'm not one of you lot!

shagpile

Thank you also my friend.

As previously stated, independence is our first step. Please trust us to do what's best for us. Our history has taught us that we can't rely on the union anymore. Thanks very much for your concern. It's truely appreciated.

Woe betide us if we make a mess of things just like the rest of that 'British' empire which has gone by, with many a tear of farewell. As for the currency bit.... the bank notes DO read Bank of England, NOT Central State Bank of the UK. Who knows how we'll do.

Maybe our fishermen might see some job security, perhaps we can prevent the last of our industries migrating south of the border.

Perhaps as unionissts tell us..... we'll go down the tubes, at least we'll be free!


DO I BELIEVE THIS..........

Rebirth

I like Cassie.

Has a lot of spirit.

response to p18

__________________

shagpile

I like him/her too, what's your angle dude

shagpile

What I on't understand is why you UKIP folk seem to be so entreched in your view that the EU is bad, but UK is good

Tory is good, Labour is good, Lib Dem is good....... SNP is bad!

Could be that the SNP are the perfect medicine for your treatment, yet you'ld rather bleed to death in some bizarre political ritual; waiting for some kind of Pasteur telling you that you can drink the milk of independence. Well, you can, enjoy......

Can't you feel the wind of change?

Gonna be banned here eh?

Don't care, nice tae ken ees aw n'at.......

cassie

(1) Sorry, but I don't know what is the tank scenario.

(2) I presume this is a rhetorical question? Lest it's not, the answer is to increase the chances of obtaining the outcome Labour wants.

(3) I'm sure I don't need to tell you that the political parties in Scotland are now different to their counterparts in Westminster. I'm not sure whether the Tories generally now want England to have a say, but I agree Goldie is likely to distance herself from that position.

(4) Yes, things are simmering! I've been predicting since early last year that the next general election will be in 2010, although some have reckoned on it being held simultaneously with the EU elections in 2009. It is a pleasing though that we will be ridding ourselves of EU shackles in 2010, but I believe that is only really likely if UKIP does much better in 2009 than it has been recently, and the nationalist parties make a break through in England.

---------------------------

BonnieDundee

If they vote there decision should be seperate to the Scots of course. It doesn't make any sense otherwise. If they both vote to save the union then it is saved if either of them vote not to then it should go.

We certainly shouldn't have a referendum for all the UK which takes no notice of thedifferent nations otherwise the union will be saved even if most Scots vote against it.

__________________
"It is poor civic hygiene to install technologies that could someday facilitate a police state."
-Bruce Schneier

How to Overthrow the System: brew your own beer; kick in your TV; build your own cabin and p*ss off front porch whenever you bloody well feel like it.
Edward Abbey

Leopold Kohr.

cassie

Thanks for the flattering references.

My angle will probably seem silly and naive. Quite simply, I'm a democrat and I believe in as much sensible voter participation as possible, in order to try and gauge collective opinion as accurately as possible.

I believe that referenda can assist here, provided they are conducted honestly and with propriety. That means posing the most appropriate questions which can be devised about particular issues.

It also means not cynically using referenda only when a government thinks it can contrive to obtain the result it wants! That not discredits politicians but the referenda themselves as effective democratic processes. To put it another way, a truly representative government will accept the result of a referendum even if it is not the one it wanted, unlike those mendacious EU scum bags who have schemed to ignore the results of referenda held in the Netherlands and France in 2006!!! Yet another reason to remove ourselves from the cloying machinations of those criminals!


------------------------

Britannist

I think you may find, SP, that the majority of Scottish people in Scotland did not vote for a Scottish Assembly in 1979. A slight majority of those who turned out to vote in the 1979 Scottish Assembly referendum backed the proposal to set an Assembly up but the rules of the referendum of 1979 were (I believe) that a majority of all those entitled to vote had to back the Assembly. Only a minority of all those entitled to vote backed the proposal to establish a Scottish Assembly in the 1979 referendum.

You mentioned the Conservative Party (in the quote above) - the 1979 Scottish Assembly referendum took place during the closing period of the 1974-9 Labour Government and the rules of the referendum were set by the Labour Government of 1974-9. The Conservative Party did not deny a Scotland an Assembly. The voters did not vote for one in sufficiently large numbers under the rules, and, consequently, a Scottish Assembly was never set up.

Britannist

When you write "if either of them vote not to (save the Union of the UK) then it should go" I assume you are referring specifically to the Union between England and Scotland.

If Scotland were to quit the Union of the UK then the Union of the UK would just carry on without her (as a Union of Wales, Northern Ireland and England). It would not "go" (your word from the quote above) if Scotland left the UK.