[Organ]

(Original post by Tycho)
The people of Scotland were singled out in this scenario.

As somebody whose parents are from Liverpool this makes me angry.

Don't you dare suggest that Northern England, the English Midlands and Wales didn't suffer at the hands of Thatcher.

[navarre]

(Original post by Tycho)
See post above.

Thatcher was 30 years ago. Although I do love history, I was asking for two pieces of evidence that the Scots have been treated as idiots, in recent years.

As expected, you can't provide one.

I strive to base my views on opinions in every aspect of my life; butthurt nationalist feeling is rarely based on anything other than whining, so I didn't expect much.

[Tycho]

(Original post by Organ)
As somebody whose parents are from Liverpool this makes me angry.

Don't you dare suggest that Northern England, the English Midlands and Wales didn't suffer at the hands of Thatcher.

Organ, we're talking about countries. Scotland, as a country, was singled out over England. Obviously if you break it down you'd probably find a few people in Scotland who were quite happy with Thatcher, and more than a few people in England who were devestated by her reign (yes - it was a "reign").

In any case, don't be offended with me, be offended with the current government. The areas of England you speak of are still treated as second class under the current government when compared with London.

[Tycho]

(Original post by navarre)
Thatcher was 30 years ago. Although I do love history, I was asking for two pieces of evidence that the Scots have been treated as idiots, in recent years.

As expected, you can't provide one.

I strive to base my views on opinions in every aspect of my life; butthurt nationalist feeling is rarely based on anything other than whining, so I didn't expect much.

Bull****. You asked: "Can you demonstrate how exactly this is true? Give me a couple of examples.". Nowhere was there any mention - in my post or yours - that I was only referring to recent years.

In any case, what difference does it make? It doesn't make it right and it still absolutely exemplifies my point and makes yours look stupid. So now you're introducing historical "limits" on things so that your arguments are only subject to a much shorter range of opposing ones. The truth is that Scotland has been used as the Tories' testing ground for many years. To fob it off as "thirty years ago" and imply that we should just forget about that just shows how idiotic your stance is. We are still feeling the effects of this TODAY. Many Scots can still vividly remember this decapitation of Scottish public services and housing.

You've lost the debate, and you know it. Your arguments have been becoming more and more ridiculous as this has gone on.

[navarre]

(Original post by Tycho)
Bull****. You asked: "Can you demonstrate how exactly this is true? Give me a couple of examples.". Nowhere was there any mention - in my post or yours - that I was only referring to recent years.

In any case, what difference does it make? It doesn't make it right and it still absolutely exemplifies my point and makes yours look stupid. So now you're introducing historical "limits" on things so that your arguments are only subject to a much shorter range of opposing ones. The truth is that Scotland has been used as the Tories' testing ground for many years. To fob it off as "thirty years ago" and imply that we should just forget about that just shows how idiotic your stance is. We are still feeling the effects of this TODAY. Many Scots can still vividly remember this decapitation of Scottish public services and housing.

You've lost the debate, and you know it. Your arguments have been becoming more and more ridiculous as this has gone on.

I thought it was kinda obvious. 30 years is older than most people on this forum, and it should be treated as a historical event.

But you have failed to provide any modern examples. As I said, not surprised. I would tell you to back up assertions with evidence in future arguments, but I feel that'd be too much to ask, judging from your arguments.

[Organ]

(Original post by Tycho)
Organ, we're talking about countries. Scotland, as a country, was singled out over England. Obviously if you break it down you'd probably find a few people in Scotland who were quite happy with Thatcher, and more than a few people in England who were devestated by her reign (yes - it was a "reign").

In any case, don't be offended with me, be offended with the current government. The areas of England you speak of are still treated as second class under the current government when compared with London.

Which city in Scotland was suggested as being left for managed decline and abandonment?

In which country did the government almost turn the military on it's own people during the miner's strikes?

Absolute bull that Scotland was specifically targeted. I would remind you that Scotland is the third wealthiest part of this country after London and the South East. Neighbouring North East England has a GVA of about £15,000, compared to Scotland's £21,000. I would like to remind you that at least 25% of Scots consistently voted for Thatcher (and in 1983 more like 30%). Don't give me this bull that Thatcher cared for England, go around Liverpool telling people how Thatcher gave them some sort of preferential treatment. Liverpool, Middlesbrough, South Wales, South Yorkshire and other parts of England & Wales suffered far worse than Scotland (or at least as bad) did during the Thatcher recession - and we didn't have the Barnett Formula and a Secretary of State to look after our interests!

[Tycho]

(Original post by Organ)
Which city in Scotland was suggested as being left for managed decline and abandonment?

In which country did the government almost turn the military on it's own people during the miner's strikes?

Absolute bull that Scotland was specifically targeted. I would remind you that Scotland is the third wealthiest part of this country after London and the South East. Neighbouring North East England has a GVA of about £15,000, compared to Scotland's £21,000. I would like to remind you that at least 25% of Scots consistently voted for Thatcher (and in 1983 more like 30%). Don't give me this bull that Thatcher cared for England, go around Liverpool telling people how Thatcher gave them some sort of preferential treatment. Liverpool, Middlesbrough, South Wales, South Yorkshire and other parts of England & Wales suffered far worse than Scotland (or at least as bad) did during the Thatcher recession - and we didn't have the Barnett Formula and a Secretary of State to look after our interests!

The original argument was how the Scottish were treated like idiots. Clearly they were. Thatcher's reign of terror was one example. As I said, I was referring to countries. England - on average - did better under Thatcher than Scotland did. As I also said, that doesn't mean that some areas of England were not very badly effected.

[Tycho]

(Original post by navarre)
I thought it was kinda obvious. 30 years is older than most people on this forum, and it should be treated as a historical event.

But you have failed to provide any modern examples. As I said, not surprised. I would tell you to back up assertions with evidence in future arguments, but I feel that'd be too much to ask, judging from your arguments.

Point proven. You see thirty years as some kind of ancient history, when in fact there are still many who are suffering from the consequences. Many in Scotland can still remember the devestation caused. It's offensive that you'd consider this insignificant now, simply because it was thirty years ago.

If you actually read my previous posts as well then you would realise that I haven't "failed to give any modern examples" anyway. I have. Go take another look. I'd advise you to do a bit of research beyond your pro-unionist rag of a tabloid that's indoctrinating your brain with the ignorance that subsequently spews from your mouth.

[Organ]

(Original post by Tycho)
The original argument was how the Scottish were treated like idiots. Clearly they were. Thatcher's reign of terror was one example. As I said, I was referring to countries. England - on average - did better under Thatcher than Scotland did. As I also said, that doesn't mean that some areas of England were not very badly effected.

I think that some Scots have a severe misunderstanding of England. If you seriously think people in Liverpool and Yorkshire have any sort of affinity to the home county middle classes whom benefited from Thatcherism you are deluded. They inhabit a totally different world, and a totally different England to us.

You still haven't responded to my point regards GVA. Most of England is suffering much worse than Scotland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countri...GVA_per_capita

You don't get it do you? There is no English average, we are tens of millions of people. Entire cities and regions of England suffered exactly what Scotland went through.

[Azog 150]

(Original post by Tycho)
I presume you're not old enough to remember the devestating effects of Margaret Thatcher. In case you're not, she used Scotland as a gunea pig for years. Scotland was savaged under her "leadership". Why do you think people in Scotland to this day will even vote for the likes of tired old Brown and co before they will vote for the Tories again? The people of Scotland were singled out in this scenario. You also fail to realise that Westminster have effectively been telling Scotland that it's too small, too stupid, and too insignificant to run its own affairs for years. Now that this argument has dried up they are looking for more and more ridiculous ways of making the people of Scotland feel worthless and incapable of self-governance. In any case, I didn't actually state that the people of Scotland were exclusively singled out, even although there are numerous examples to suggest they have been.

Mate I'm from Liverpool. You think Liverpool's experience has been any better? If anything it was worse. Pretty much everything you just said applies to this city and then some. My family felt some of the worst that Thatcher had to offer.

At least Scotland didn't have to put up with this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16361170

Or this for that matter:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militant_tendency

"Dry old unionist parties". What about it? What "darker" side do you think it shows? These parties that I speak of essentially offer the same thing on a 4-8 year recurring basis. One comes into power and does one thing, the other comes into power and does another thing, and so the process repeats, whilst each offer the same thing they did the last time on the false promise that it's a "change", and that they've "learned" from mistakes of the past. They haven't learned a thing! If anything they are making even more mistakes as we are worse off now than we were beforehand. I think my anger is very justified, given this

My issue is not with the "dry old unionist parties" comment, it was with the "your dry old unionist parties". Who is "your"? You have an 'us and them' mentality regarding England and Scotland and you have displayed it time and again in your posts.

Wouldn't it be nice if the people of the United Kingdom weren't so intent on dividing themselves along these arbitrary national lines? Maybe then we could even band together to bring meaningful and lasting change to the way the United Kingdom is run and its 62 million inhabitants might be better off for it? Your problem seems to be with the Home Counties, London and Westminster, and yet you keep on referring to 'England' as if it is some kind of entity with a Thatcherite hive mind. Are the borders decided by wars between kings hundreds of years ago that bear no reflection and had no input from the people who lived there really that important to you?

My previous reference to the SNP is because I am genuinly of the belief that they have the interests of Scotland at heart. They have done a good job, and I believe will continue to. I don't support everything the SNP do or say, but - frankly - it's a breath of fresh air in a room where the smells from the other parties are all too familiar.

I think everyone in the UK would like a breath of fresh air so neither you nor the people of Scotland are alone in that. But you are going to be in for a shock when you realise the SNP aren't all you think they are.

[L i b]

(Original post by Tycho)
From which tabloid did you extract this scaremongering bile? The British army is not England's army. Scotland owns its fair share of the hardware, and, in case you hadn't noticed, has its own regiments.

Incidentally, those in favour of independence cannot possibly be considered a "small minority". If that were the case then we wouldn't be having a referendum. There is easily enough support for independence to justify a debate/referendum on the issue - whether you personally support it or not.

I strongly suggest you consider binning that rag of a newspaper you're reading.

You're very aggressive.

In reality, the reason we're having a referendum is because the SNP (around 58% of whose voters support independence), won an election in 2011 (on a c. 50% turnout) with 42% of the vote. It's hardly a groundswell.

As for the military: Salmond has already said he could not possibly compel anyone to join his Scottish military who currently served in the British forces. Unless he's planning to take their kit off their backs, he's not going to have any share of the hardware.

It's just one of many reasons that every military expert who has commented on Salmond's defence plans think they are utterly absurd.

[L i b]

(Original post by candleflame)
Im not very sure tbh, I think it is always portrayed that many want independence but I dont know if this is actually the case?

Makes for far better newspaper headlines if they portray it that way. Ultimately I think the pro-union movement would have to really cock things up to lose a referendum on independence. Possibly involving David Cameron using the old Scottish sceptre as a back-scratcher.

(Original post by Cyanohydrin)
Absolute rubbish. The most popular option by far is "devo max" with every poll giving that a majority.

That's not true, there have been plenty of polls which have shown Devo Max getting considerably under 50% support. It also gets the same results no matter what scheme of extended devolution you present.

Anyway, it now seems relatively clear that neither Devo Plus or Devo Max or Devo Whatever will be on the ballot paper. Whilst I think it may be wise to consider the Devo Plus model - minus the blatantly unworkable parts - it won't be part of the independence referendum campaign.

(Original post by Tycho)
I presume you're not old enough to remember the devestating effects of Margaret Thatcher. In case you're not, she used Scotland as a gunea pig for years.

A complete and utter myth. Presumably you think that's what the poll tax was about? Well that's been well and truly debunked.

Actually, as it happens the Scottish Office at the time did not implement many of the reforms the government was implementing down south - Northern Ireland did this in an even more extreme way.

My previous reference to the SNP is because I am genuinly of the belief that they have the interests of Scotland at heart. They have done a good job, and I believe will continue to. I don't support everything the SNP do or say, but - frankly - it's a breath of fresh air in a room where the smells from the other parties are all too familiar.

A political party considering the national interest? How novel.

[Foo.mp3]

Used to rather like Brian Cox (CBE) and Alan Cummings (OBE).. think they should probably hand their Orders of Chivalry in on their way out; stupid, selfish, divisive ****ing separatists!

[Cyanohydrin]

(Original post by Foo.mp3)
Used to rather like Brian Cox (CBE) and Alan Cummings (OBE).. think they should probably hand their Orders of Chivalry in on their way out; stupid, selfish, divisive ****ing separatists!

Wonder what Cummings would make of the SNP's biggest financier Brian Souter a.k.a. Scotland's biggest homophobe..

[Foo.mp3]

(Original post by Cyanohydrin)
Wonder what Cummings would make of the SNP's biggest financier Brian Souter a.k.a. Scotland's biggest homophobe..

Good point well made, that's another SNP douche that can hand his knighthood in on his way out, these snake people make me sick, so two-faced it's unreal!

[Left Hand Drive]

Hopefully everything will be set out properly the facts figures and a debate for all to see. Not scare mongering unionist drivel.

[L i b]

(Original post by Left Hand Drive)
Hopefully everything will be set out properly the facts figures and a debate for all to see. Not scare mongering unionist drivel.

Doubt it considering that would either harm the nationalist position or involve just making stuff up. At the moment, they prefer the latter, but if they try to come up with a single, comprehensive account of Scotland's position working on the same dodgy presumptions then it could easily be debunked by commentators, economists, academics and so forth.

[TCD23]

To all Scottish nationalists who claim the SNP aren't as bad as the majority of parties, please explain the following:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politi...enses.17366304

http://www.scotsman.com/news/snp-mp-...enses-1-468906

http://the3towns-archive.blogspot.co...-expenses.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...rupert-murdoch

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...nor-links.html


Wake up and face the facts here folks, they're as corrupt as the lot of them and want to sell you out to the EU.

[concubine]

I think that, as is often the case, it's the minority being most vocal and supporting independence.


A sizable minority, but still a minority.




I'm not sure how people can really believe independence is for the best. I can't see it benefiting Scotland or the rest of the UK in the long run. Just idiots being blinded by nationalism, AGAIN.