Is Scottish independence a 'good or bad' thing?

Like russians in Ukrain,Scottish people should be let to control their own destiny.

Posted from TSR Mobile

The likes of yourself, L i b and Midlander will never change your spots.

No matter how many times your lies have been exposed, you return with the same ones again and again and again.

Which lies would they be?

The same universe that requires every member state of the EU to agree on an outside nation becoming a member. Sorry.

Other countries AGREEING to accept a country as a member is the same as ONE COUNTRY SIGNING ANOTHER COUNTRY'S MEMBERSHIP AGREEMENT ON ITS BEHALF in your opinion?

Well of course, if Scotland was going to enter the EU through treaty change then the only way to bring about that change within the mechanisms of the EU would be for the UK (as the member state) to negotiate that, if Scotland wanted a deal before Independence Day. Otherwise they could wait for independence and then apply externally. Do you know how the EU works at all? I can promise you I've got an exam on it in a few weeks and it's wry dry and very dull if you're not in to that sort of thing. It is not, however, as simple as you seem to be suggesting. Scotland can't negotiate anything until it is independent.

I asked you when there had been a landslide result for any party with a vote share in the 30s. You made that assertion, I asked you when it had happened. It is not up to me to answer questions not even relating to the original assertion.

Back up your claim or retract it.

I asked you when there had been a landslide result for any party with a vote share in the 30s. You made that assertion, I asked you when it had happened. It is not up to me to answer questions not even relating to the original assertion.

Back up your claim or retract it.

We have a more proportional system for electing the Scottish Parliament than we do for the UK Parliament elections, however it is clearly still a far way off being proportional. Note how we have a majority government elected without being close to a majority of the popular vote.

Lie number 3:



Truth:

The banking collapse happened under the incompetence of Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling and the London based Financial regulator, NOT under the watch of Alex Salmond.

RBS chief Fred Goodwin was given a knighthood by Westminster, NOT by Alex Salmond.

The gambling department of RBS did its gambling which led to the collapse from London, NOT from Edinburgh.

RBS's major operations, through its subsidiary National Westminster Bank, were in England, NOT in Scotland.

Bank of Scotland's major operations, through its subsidiary Halifax, were in England, NOT in Scotland.

The banks were bailed out by the countries according to the proportion in which they carried out their businesses. The USA put in much more money to bail out UK banks than the UK.

The UK BORROWED and PRINTED money to bail out banks.

Whatever an independent Scotland would have done is THEORETICAL.

Scotland could have contributed ITS share of the bailout. It is a lie to claim that Scotland would have had to bailout the entire UK operations of RBS + Natwest or Bank of Scotland + Halifax.

Alex Salmond wished good luck to Fred Goodwin in the acquisition of AMRO bank in the anticipation that it would bring benefits to Scotland. He was in no way aware of or responsible for the decision making at RBS. So it is complete lie to claim "backed by Salmond".

Northern Rock, a bank in England, "led the way", not RBS.

Lie number 8:



Truth: SCOTLAND will finally sign any agreement on the dotted line when it is INDEPENDENT, NOT rUK.

In which universe does one country sign agreements on behalf of a 'foreign' country?

Other countries AGREEING to accept a country as a member is the same as ONE COUNTRY SIGNING ANOTHER COUNTRY'S MEMBERSHIP AGREEMENT ON ITS BEHALF in your opinion?

Lie number 5:



Truth: The FACT was already pointed out but you are unable to accept the truth:

Lie number 3:



Truth:

The banking collapse happened under the incompetence of Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling and the London based Financial regulator, NOT under the watch of Alex Salmond.

RBS chief Fred Goodwin was given a knighthood by Westminster, NOT by Alex Salmond.

The gambling department of RBS did its gambling which led to the collapse from London, NOT from Edinburgh.

RBS's major operations, through its subsidiary National Westminster Bank, were in England, NOT in Scotland.

Bank of Scotland's major operations, through its subsidiary Halifax, were in England, NOT in Scotland.

The banks were bailed out by the countries according to the proportion in which they carried out their businesses. The USA put in much more money to bail out UK banks than the UK.

The UK BORROWED and PRINTED money to bail out banks.

Whatever an independent Scotland would have done is THEORETICAL.

Scotland could have contributed ITS share of the bailout. It is a lie to claim that Scotland would have had to bailout the entire UK operations of RBS + Natwest or Bank of Scotland + Halifax.

Alex Salmond wished good luck to Fred Goodwin in the acquisition of AMRO bank in the anticipation that it would bring benefits to Scotland. He was in no way aware of or responsible for the decision making at RBS. So it is complete lie to claim "backed by Salmond".

Northern Rock, a bank in England, "led the way", not RBS.

Salmond advocated even more de regulation of the banking system and clearly stated that he'd follow that policy in the event of a yes vote.

You haven't actually grasped that Salmond seems to have no consistent policy. He yells people what they want to hear in order to gain support. In the last five years he's wanted to adopt the €, then the £. Then it was outside NATO now he wants to be in it.

Lie number 4:

Truth:

Well you can understand why he doesn't want the Euro anymore.

Well you can understand why he doesn't want the Euro anymore.

As for NATO, I agree that it is just a u turn in order to try and get some more support. It's so these people who have doubts about whether we will be able to "defend ourselves" can feel secure. I was personally very annoyed with SNP when they announced that they want to join.

Then he should probably have been more careful about championing it as a currency and calling the pound 'a millstone around Scotland's neck'. By advocating the pound he is admitting that being in the union does indeed confer some financial benefits to Scotland.

I have now checked the figures and I accept that I made a mistake.

Little more than 40% of the popular vote can and does result in 'landslide' wins in the Westminster parliament.

Not little more than 30% as I had stated earlier.

However, otherwise my point relating to the post is still valid: the Scottish parliament HAS proportional representation, Westminster is VERY FAR from it.

1983: 42% of the vote gave 61% of the seats in parliament(19% points more than deserved)

1987: 42% of the vote gave 58% of the seats in parliament(16% points more than deserved)

1997: 43% of the vote gave 63% of the seats in parliament(20% points more than deserved)

2001: 41% of the vote gave 63% of the seats in parliament(22% points more than deserved)

2005: 35% of the vote gave 55% of the seats in parliament(20% points more than deserved)

There would not have been a majority in Westminster in any of those elections, let alone a 'landslide' majority.

The best result in 1997 was 7% points short of a majority.


Contrast that with the 'landslide' in Scotland:

2011: 45% of the vote gave 53% of the seats in parliament (8% points more than deserved)

That was 5% short of a majority, a better result than Labour's 1997 "historical landslide".

L i b, a staunch supporter of the undemocratic Westminster parliament and Westminster rule over Scotland claims that the Scottish parliament is not proportional enough.



5% short of a majority in Scotland in 2011 is far more proportional and democratic than the 22% short of a majority of Labour's 2001 'landslide' majority.

It is NOT a "far way off" and it IS "close to a majority".