Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    Who is the bigger idiot? The idiot or the idiot who agrees with the idiot :cool:
    Saying stupid things =/= being an idiot.

    Also I are genius.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Also Cameron is a smarmy lying ****.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    I just won a tournament on http://www.miniclip.com/games/8-ball...ultiplayer/en/
    Pah, I'm already a professional on that :cool:
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13306586

    ^^ Ed Miliband is such a fool - The voters haven't sent a clear message at all. If voters were that angry with the coalition the Conservatives wouldn't have gained seats and the Labour Party would have gained the 1000 seats that the Conservatives have been predicted. Sorry Ed Miliband, but this isn't a clear message at all - rather it's you trying to spin a not so good result.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    :rofl: i have found a article: Why do smart kids grow up to be heavier drinkers?

    these a study on why Why Intelligent People Drink More Alcohol

    i'm going you use that as an excuses of heavy drinking :p:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Student2806)
    I still can't quite believe the SNP. Even though attention seems to have turned to the referendum, the Scottish result is a much bigger story to me, for the entire UK. An SNP majority means all opposition to an independence referendum has gone. And if Salmond sells it right over the next 3-4 years, the end of the UK could be less than a decade away...
    People vote for the SNP because they think that a Scottish focused party will do better for them in a Scottish parliament. If you look at the Westminster elections (even as recently as last year) the SNP get trounced by Labour. Another good example is Quebec, which is about 100% more seperatist than Scotland and has a different language and culture to the rest of Canada, yet has twice rejected independence despite regularly voting for pro-independence parties like Bloc Quebecois.

    I think what we're seeing in Scotland is the Scottish people being savvy. No longer are they going to put up with the major parties treating the Scottish parliament as some kind of irrelevance and nuisance. The big parties are going to have to start sending some heavyweights as MSPs and potential First Ministers of Scotland if they want the Scottish people to think they treat the Scottish Parliament seriously like the SNP.

    This being said the result isn't as incredible as it appears at first. The reason why the SNP gained a majority was because the Lib Dems collapsed up north in a way we havn't seen a party do in many years. The SNP hoovered up most of these voters who probably aren't pro-independence in any way. Thus it gives an inflated opinion of SNP support and also independence support. The next Holyrood elections will no doubt see a reduction in SNP numbers, as the Lib Dems recover, Labour takes the Scottish parliament more seriously and the Scottish independence referendum is probably defeated. There is far from a majority in support of independence in Scotland and I feel a prolonged campaign would reduce it's support even further. That combined with the fact that a large majority of people who voted SNP this week don't even support independence hardly suggests we're looking at independence. Salmond played a very sneaky game, he barely mentioned independence during his entire election campaign and didn't mention it in his speech yesterday. This is all to avoid scaring off the large numbers of anti-independence people out there. As much as I hate Salmond (he's a liar and the worst kind of little Scotlander), he's a very savvy political operator.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Yeah, politicians are having great fun spinning these results in different ways.
    • PS Reviewer
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by robinson999)
    :rofl: i have found a article: Why do smart kids grow up to be heavier drinkers?

    these a study on why Why Intelligent People Drink More Alcohol

    i'm going you use that as an excuses of heavy drinking :p:
    I like :holmes:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ajp100688)
    People vote for the SNP because they think that a Scottish focused party will do better for them in a Scottish parliament. If you look at the Westminster elections (even as recently as last year) the SNP get trounced by Labour. Another good example is Quebec, which is about 100% more seperatist than Scotland and has a different language and culture to the rest of Canada, yet has twice rejected independence despite regularly voting for pro-independence parties like Bloc Quebecois.

    I think what we're seeing in Scotland is the Scottish people being savvy. No longer are they going to put up with the major parties treating the Scottish parliament as some kind of irrelevance and nuisance. The big parties are going to have to start sending some heavyweights as MSPs and potential First Ministers of Scotland if they want the Scottish people to think they treat the Scottish Parliament seriously like the SNP.

    This being said the result isn't as incredible as it appears at first. The reason why the SNP gained a majority was because the Lib Dems collapsed up north in a way we havn't seen a party do in many years. The SNP hoovered up most of these voters who probably aren't pro-independence in any way. Thus it gives an inflated opinion of SNP support and also independence support. The next Holyrood elections will no doubt see a reduction in SNP numbers, as the Lib Dems recover, Labour takes the Scottish parliament more seriously and the Scottish independence referendum is probably defeated. There is far from a majority in support of independence in Scotland and I feel a prolonged campaign would reduce it's support even further. That combined with the fact that a large majority of people who voted SNP this week don't even support independence hardly suggests we're looking at independence. Salmond played a very sneaky game, he barely mentioned independence during his entire election campaign and didn't mention it in his speech yesterday. This is all to avoid scaring off the large numbers of anti-independence people out there. As much as I hate Salmond (he's a liar and the worst kind of little Scotlander), he's a very savvy political operator.
    Excellent analysis. However, most heavyweight politicians of the main parties would rather die than have to stand for the Scottish parliament. Also, if Salmond can get his changes to the Scotland bill through, he can use borrowing to prevent a lot of the cuts that have until yet been only postponed in Scotland. He can also cut corporation tax to help the private sector and give the appearance that Scotland is doing far better than the UK as a whole.

    This would make a referendum vote considerably closer than the current 30/70 it is just now.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by arabcnesbit)
    Excellent analysis. However, most heavyweight politicians of the main parties would rather die than have to stand for the Scottish parliament. Also, if Salmond can get his changes to the Scotland bill through, he can use borrowing to prevent a lot of the cuts that have until yet been only postponed in Scotland. He can also cut corporation tax to help the private sector and give the appearance that Scotland is doing far better than the UK as a whole.

    This would make a referendum vote considerably closer than the current 30/70 it is just now.
    Indeed I believe his tactic is to try and wait out this next term and get as much good economic news as possible before launching the referendum in the last year of the SNP administration. In those four years Ireland should start coming out of the black hole of oblivion it's currently in and the UK economy should be going well. He'll then be able to argue that Scotland is capable of standing on it's own and will use the SNP record as proof of it and hope that boosts support.

    I don't think he'll win though. Even ignoring that the majority of Scots have an attachment to the Union you just need to state these things to kill off independence:

    An acadmic study suggested that under independence Scotland wouldn't be able to maintain free university and prescriptions.
    Salmond double books North sea oil profits when he talks about how much more rich Scotland would be on it's own.
    If Scotland leaves the UK it loses it's position of one of the big three in the EU, a security council seat on the UN, membership of the inner core of the IMF and G20, it overnight ceases to be an important player on the world stage.
    Scotland under devolution runs most of it's own affairs anyways and independence will actually cost Scotland by making it have to duplicate various departments run from England as national departments.
    The banking crisis that threw us into a recession was a Scottish banking crisis (HBOS and RBS mainly, notice Barclays and HSBC came out relatively ok). The UK put up £70bn of tax payers money to save those banks and Scotland could never have done that themselves. Scotland would be in a worse position than Ireland now if it had been independent during the banking crisis.
    Ireland and Iceland often cited by the SNP as being examples of small countries that have thrived on their own are now total basketcases, which is what would have happened to an independent Scotland.

    Even before going into socio-cultural and historical reasons for perserving the Union, you could probably win a referendum based upon those points alone.


    As for heavyweights in Scotland, I agree that would be a problem. Something I was mulling over in my head last night was that if I was Ed Miliband, I'd be trying to get Gordon Brown to run Scottish Labour. He's very public focused and committed to his constituency and has now gone beyond the point where he has a national political career left. He's also well respected in Scotland and a canny political operator (although it strangely deserted him for much of his Premiership aside from bringing back Mandy). He could be just the figure to revive Labour up north and with Cameron seemingly intent on blocking Brown from ever working in a top IMF/World Bank position it's not like he has many career avenues outside of charity work he could continue as an MSP/First Minister anyways.
    Offline

    15
    I have to go to Norwich Post Office on Monday. This is no ordinary Post Office it's one of the busiest and most understaffed in the country so this is what usually happens.

    I take a ticket from the dispenser, it's ticket 496.

    "TICKET NUMBER 42 TO POINT A"

    I sit on an uncomfortable sofa for an hour and a half waiting for someone to spend 20 seconds looking angrily at me for having the cheek to actually want to send some parcels.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ajp100688)
    Indeed I believe his tactic is to try and wait out this next term and get as much good economic news as possible before launching the referendum in the last year of the SNP administration. In those four years Ireland should start coming out of the black hole of oblivion it's currently in and the UK economy should be going well. He'll then be able to argue that Scotland is capable of standing on it's own and will use the SNP record as proof of it and hope that boosts support.
    Sounds about right.

    I don't think he'll win though. Even ignoring that the majority of Scots have an attachment to the Union you just need to state these things to kill off independence:
    It will be a lot closer than I think most people believe. The worst thing Westminster can do is underestimate Salmond. He will crush anyone of the current crop of tory/lib-dem/labour candidates in the scottish parliament in a debate on independence.

    An acadmic study suggested that under independence Scotland wouldn't be able to maintain free university and prescriptions.
    Salmond double books North sea oil profits when he talks about how much more rich Scotland would be on it's own.
    If Scotland leaves the UK it loses it's position of one of the big three in the EU, a security council seat on the UN, membership of the inner core of the IMF and G20, it overnight ceases to be an important player on the world stage.
    Scotland under devolution runs most of it's own affairs anyways and independence will actually cost Scotland by making it have to duplicate various departments run from England as national departments.
    The banking crisis that threw us into a recession was a Scottish banking crisis (HBOS and RBS mainly, notice Barclays and HSBC came out relatively ok). The UK put up £70bn of tax payers money to save those banks and Scotland could never have done that themselves. Scotland would be in a worse position than Ireland now if it had been independent during the banking crisis.
    Ireland and Iceland often cited by the SNP as being examples of small countries that have thrived on their own are now total basketcases, which is what would have happened to an independent Scotland.
    Interesting. A few points though.

    -The SNP will churn out their own "Academics" to support independence.
    -A lot of the oil arguments are very contradictory. The most non-biassed one I have read says Scotland spend slightly more than the earn so to speak, by about 1-2-%
    -Do Scots care about their status on the world stage? And this is the UK that has influence not Scotland. What if Scotland and the UK take different views on something?
    -A lot of departments will already be in place due to the Scottish Parliament and isn't the MOD, FO etc factored into the cost when discussing whether Scotland pays its own way? Also this will mean more public sector jobs as a proportion of spend since we contribute towards these departments at the moment but the jobs are based in London.
    -Can't argue against the banking crisis, although HBOS was a merger, so technically isn't a "Scottish" bank and it was the Halifax mortgage business that caused the problems and not the Bank of Scotland division.
    -Plenty of small countries manage themselves very successfully. The SNP using Iceland and Ireland as examples are a major embarrassment for them though.


    Even before going into socio-cultural and historical reasons for perserving the Union, you could probably win a referendum based upon those points alone.
    You could, if you had capable politicians to argue these points.


    As for heavyweights in Scotland, I agree that would be a problem. Something I was mulling over in my head last night was that if I was Ed Miliband, I'd be trying to get Gordon Brown to run Scottish Labour. He's very public focused and committed to his constituency and has now gone beyond the point where he has a national political career left. He's also well respected in Scotland and a canny political operator (although it strangely deserted him for much of his Premiership aside from bringing back Mandy). He could be just the figure to revive Labour up north and with Cameron seemingly intent on blocking Brown from ever working in a top IMF/World Bank position it's not like he has many career avenues outside of charity work he could continue as an MSP/First Minister anyways.
    I thought of this myself. That would be very interesting. Can't see it happening though. Do you not think he would see it as too much of a come down?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    1. Public opinion in Scotland doesn't favour independence.
    2. It still requires UK approval.
    A lot of things can change in 5 years. Independence is very unlikely, but possible.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13321665
    #
    Nonsense. Aside from the fact that John Denham is a party apparatchik, if it were a message for the coalition as a whole, the Tories would have done worse and they haven't - in fact they have gained. Now Labour accused the coalition of being a Tory machine for spending cuts; if that's the case, the public would surely be attacking the Conservative cuts right? Well as the Conservatives gained seats surely that means the public support the cuts??
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by arabcnesbit)
    It will be a lot closer than I think most people believe. The worst think Westminster can do is underestimate Salmond. He will crush anyone of the current crop of tory/lib-dem/labour candidates in the scottish parliament in a debate on independence.
    Indeed he's a canny sod. However I think Cameron could easily outperform him and Cameron has gone on record saying that he'd fight tooth and nail to protect the Union. I would say the Lib Dem and Labour leaders would pitch into the fight aswell but I really don't know whether Ed and Nick would be any help given Ed's uselessness and Nick's unpopularity. Who's to say whether those two would even be leading their parties by then anyways? No doubt Gordon Brown would be wheeled out aswell and he would be a formidable opponent for Alex Salmond.
    -The SNP will churn out their own "Academics" to support independence.
    Indeed if there's one thing I've learned it's that you can usually find an academic somewhere to support any point of view.
    -A lot of the oil arguments are very contradictory. The most non-biassed one I have read says Scotland spend slightly more than the earn so to speak, by about 1-2-%
    The thing I was referring to is how Scottish oil revenues are factored into the block grant that Scotland gets. Yet Salmond very often speaks of Scottish oil revenues as though Scotland sees nothing of them and when they become independent they'll suddenly recieve this massive bonus. Which is patently not true as what he says doesn't take account of the fact that the removal of the block grant will mean the oil revenues Scotland comes to control will just be funnelled into replacing that. Thus it's zero sum although if you listen to Salmond Scotland will suddenly come into around £3/4bn a year simply from splitting from the UK.
    -Do Scots care about their status on the world stage? And this is the UK that has influence not Scotland. What if Scotland and the UK take different views on something?
    Well Scotland has influence as part of the UK, which enables it to punch above it's weight. Remember that 2 out of 3 of our last PM's have been Scottish (Brown and Blair). Without being a part of the UK Scotland suddenly loses that influence and the ability to shape UK actions. Do it matter? well I'd say it would for a lot of people who are proud of their nation and believe Scotland has a voice to be heard in the world. Scotland would essentially be swapping a position as part of one of the world's five most influential nations for that equivalent to a place like the Czech Republic.

    -A lot of departments will already be in place due to the Scottish Parliament and isn't the MOD, FO etc factored into the cost when discussing whether Scotland pays its own way? Also this will mean more public sector jobs as a proportion of spend since we contribute towards these departments at the moment but the jobs are based in London.
    Indeed a lot are already in place but all funded by Barnett which means they're part subisidied by England. Also economies of scale, Scotland paying partly for something that's supported by 60m taxpayers vs having to replicate it and pay it for solely by itself are two different things. Take for example the FO, Scotland would have to duplicate Scottish embassies in every place that the UK currently has them but pay entirely for them itself. However instead of only paying a small % percentage for each embassy as part of the UK, Scotland would be paying 100% for building it was only paying a small % of when it was part of the UK. When you have over 200 countries in the world that's an expensive project.
    -Can't argue against the banking crisis, although HBOS was a merger, so technically isn't a "Scottish" bank and it was the Halifax mortgage business that caused the problems and not the Bank of Scotland division.
    HBOS was Scottish registered though and Bank of Scotland was the senior partner in it's corporate structure. Thus legalistically it was a Scottish bank and thus the responsibility of the Scottish government. Just like a big chunk of RBS is NatWest but RBS is still a Scottish bank because it's run out of Scotland. Although RBS is slightly different in that it actually bought NatWest rather than merged.
    -Plenty of small countries manage themselves very successfully. The SNP using Iceland and Ireland as examples are a major embarrassment for them though.
    Indeed I wouldn't argue against that. It's just that Salmond was so fond of using those countries so it'll be used as an attack against him. He also uses Norway a lot but that's really a red herring because Norway has so much oil and such a relatively small populationt that you can't really compare the two.

    I thought of this myself. That would be very interesting. Can't see it happening though. Do you not think he would see it as too much of a come down?
    I'm not sure. Brown is very committed to Scotland and his local area, he also unlike Blair seems to genuinely be in politics because he wants to help people and change things. I do think the crux of the issue would be whether he'd think it was below him but I think he knows as much as the rest of us do that he doesn't have much of a career (politically) now the IMF door has been closed on him. He was never a Blair like figure that could have run for President of the EU or anything like that. There's also the possiblity that he wants to have lots of spare time and see his kids grow up, considering he's quite lucky that he's got out of full on politics while his kids are still young.

    If I had to chose I'd say 80/20 chance because I do think it's a bit below him but then again I never thought Mandy would come back and be such an influential figure in British politics. Brown would certainly give Salmond a beasting though, especially well within his element, which he never really seemed like he was when PM.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Most Scots that I know don't really give a damn about our influence on the world stage. Those that do seem to be mainly English people who are also quite proud of the British Empire. I'm not really interested in that. I'd be quite happy for us, as in the UK as a whole, to plummet if it means less international wars/strikes and terrorist attacks against us (and thus also less draconian measures to fight terrorism).
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Smack)
    Most Scots that I know don't really give a damn about our influence on the world stage. Those that do seem to be mainly English people who are also quite proud of the British Empire. I'm not really interested in that. I'd be quite happy for us, as in the UK as a whole, to plummet if it means less international wars/strikes and terrorist attacks against us (and thus also less draconian measures to fight terrorism).
    Funny thing is that Scots contributed a disproportionate amount of the soldiers, colonial administrators and traders that built up the empire. It was as much a Scottish empire as it was an English one.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ajp100688)
    Indeed he's a canny sod. However I think Cameron could easily outperform him and Cameron has gone on record saying that he'd fight tooth and nail to protect the Union. I would say the Lib Dem and Labour leaders would pitch into the fight aswell but I really don't know whether Ed and Nick would be any help given Ed's uselessness and Nick's unpopularity. Who's to say whether those two would even be leading their parties by then anyways? No doubt Gordon Brown would be wheeled out aswell and he would be a formidable opponent for Alex Salmond.


    Indeed if there's one thing I've learned it's that you can usually find an academic somewhere to support any point of view.


    The thing I was referring to is how Scottish oil revenues are factored into the block grant that Scotland gets. Yet Salmond very often speaks of Scottish oil revenues as though Scotland sees nothing of them and when they become independent they'll suddenly recieve this massive bonus. Which is patently not true as what he says doesn't take account of the fact that the removal of the block grant will mean the oil revenues Scotland comes to control will just be funnelled into replacing that. Thus it's zero sum although if you listen to Salmond Scotland will suddenly come into around £3/4bn a year simply from splitting from the UK.


    Well Scotland has influence as part of the UK, which enables it to punch above it's weight. Remember that 2 out of 3 of our last PM's have been Scottish (Brown and Blair). Without being a part of the UK Scotland suddenly loses that influence and the ability to shape UK actions. Do it matter? well I'd say it would for a lot of people who are proud of their nation and believe Scotland has a voice to be heard in the world. Scotland would essentially be swapping a position as part of one of the world's five most influential nations for that equivalent to a place like the Czech Republic.



    Indeed a lot are already in place but all funded by Barnett which means they're part subisidied by England. Also economies of scale, Scotland paying partly for something that's supported by 60m taxpayers vs having to replicate it and pay it for solely by itself are two different things. Take for example the FO, Scotland would have to duplicate Scottish embassies in every place that the UK currently has them but pay entirely for them itself. However instead of only paying a small % percentage for each embassy as part of the UK, Scotland would be paying 100% for building it was only paying a small % of when it was part of the UK. When you have over 200 countries in the world that's an expensive project.


    HBOS was Scottish registered though and Bank of Scotland was the senior partner in it's corporate structure. Thus legalistically it was a Scottish bank and thus the responsibility of the Scottish government. Just like a big chunk of RBS is NatWest but RBS is still a Scottish bank because it's run out of Scotland. Although RBS is slightly different in that it actually bought NatWest rather than merged.


    Indeed I wouldn't argue against that. It's just that Salmond was so fond of using those countries so it'll be used as an attack against him. He also uses Norway a lot but that's really a red herring because Norway has so much oil and such a relatively small populationt that you can't really compare the two.



    I'm not sure. Brown is very committed to Scotland and his local area, he also unlike Blair seems to genuinely be in politics because he wants to help people and change things. I do think the crux of the issue would be whether he'd think it was below him but I think he knows as much as the rest of us do that he doesn't have much of a career (politically) now the IMF door has been closed on him. He was never a Blair like figure that could have run for President of the EU or anything like that. There's also the possiblity that he wants to have lots of spare time and see his kids grow up, considering he's quite lucky that he's got out of full on politics while his kids are still young.

    If I had to chose I'd say 80/20 chance because I do think it's a bit below him but then again I never thought Mandy would come back and be such an influential figure in British politics. Brown would certainly give Salmond a beasting though, especially well within his element, which he never really seemed like he was when PM.
    Economically, in the short term it will cost Scotland, no doubt, but long-term surely it will be much of a muchness?

    I think the SNP would put us straight into the EU and the Euro if they could anyway, so what's the point of it all?

    Brown v Salmond would be interesting. Almost worth paying your TV license for. Almost.

    Calling Blair Scottish is a bit of a stretch.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by arabcnesbit)
    Economically, in the short term it will cost Scotland, no doubt, but long-term surely it will be much of a muchness?

    I think the SNP would put us straight into the EU and the Euro if they could anyway, so what's the point of it all?

    Brown v Salmond would be interesting. Almost worth paying your TV license for. Almost.

    Calling Blair Scottish is a bit of a stretch.
    Born in Scotland, lived half of his childhood in Scotland, educated at Fettes. I'd consider him as much Scottish as he is English. Although he's certainly not Gordon Brown levels of Scottish.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ajp100688)
    Born in Scotland, lived half of his childhood in Scotland, educated at Fettes. I'd consider him as much Scottish as he is English. Although he's certainly not Gordon Brown levels of Scottish.
    Didn't think he spent half his childhood in Scotland? I thought it was in Durham and Adelaide? Let's call him half Scottish then.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 18, 2011
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.