Gordon Brown's make or break speech

[Rolfe]

I just don't think full Independence would be in your best interest.

Well, I'm charmed by your concern, but I feel I should point out that Scotland is populated by adults, most of whom aren't terribly concerned by what someone else thinks is in our best interests.

It'd just be a case of moving from being part of a nation that's got a permanent seat on the UN Security Council to a nation that's got an equivalent GDP and influence on the world stage to Slovakia, Iceland or Latvia.

I wonder, if you polled the people of Slovakia, Iceland or Latvia, how many takers you'd get for the suggestion that they'd really be better off it they entered into an incorporating union with a neighbouring country ten times their size? Even if it wasn't the country they succeeded in gaining independence from in the past.

We're better together, you know. If you do vote for Independence, then good luck to you. But I'd be sad to see Scotland go.

"We" are better together? Are you sure you don't mean that "you" feel you'd be better in some way retaining control over Scotland? And as for "go" - where do you think Scotland is going? We haven't yet got the technology to split Great Britain along the Cheviots.

Anyway, there is one aspect of Scotland I really dislike. The Scottish Nationalists who think that the Act of Union 300 years ago was the worst thing that has ever happened in the history of humanity, and that since then, we English have occupied the country, raped and pillaged her of her resources and generally acted like tyrants.

Maybe you should introduce us to some of these entertaining people. Since those of us living in the real world, with an invitation to the SNP Conference lying on our kitchen tables, haven't actually met any of them. Hyperbole, much?

So basically those who think Braveheart is an accurate representation of history.

Er, you do realise that while the Act of Union was indeed, as you say, 300 years ago (1707), Braveheart is a film made by an American (loosely) based on stuff that happened in 1296 to 1305? That is longer before the Union than the Union is before the present day.

Rolfe.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Because I don't trust Nazi's, duh. Sane politicians, however, can change their mind over things. Heck, your list of the Top 10 Flip-Flops contains some of Cameron's quotes on the Minimum Wage.

He's opposed to it in 1996, but in favour of it in 2005. You seem to consider this a flip-flop, but I think it's a rational response to evidence, and changing one's mind because of that evidence. The Minimum Wage clearly didn't cause a rise in unemployment, businesses to close or any of the things that were being put forward by opponents of it in 1996, so it's entirely a good thing to support it now. I consider the fact that he changed his mind on the issue to be a good point in Cameron's favour. A change in ideology when evidence supports it.

Is he going to continue to raise it?

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Incidently, is there any evidence that Scotland would suffer as the result of being made independent?

 

[Uzzy]

No it wouldn't suffer. It'd be a very good small nation, in line with the likes of Slovakia, Latvia and Iceland. I've no doubt an independent Scotland would be successful, in it's own small way. As I've mentioned before, I'm fully in favour of a financially independent Scotland, but keeping Scotland within the Union, as we are stronger together.

Now, I don't know if Cameron will keep increasing the minimum wage. He's not published his manifesto yet, with good reason, given how quickly Labour seem to steal any Tory policies. I certainly hope he does keep increasing it, at least in line with inflation, and would be disappointed if he didn't.

 

[Uzzy]

Well, I'm charmed by your concern, but I feel I should point out that Scotland is populated by adults, most of whom aren't terribly concerned by what someone else thinks is in our best interests.

I'm sure you're aware of the irony here, given your continued interest in the current US Health Care debate. Surely the Americans are adults, and might not be terribly concerned by what someone else thinks in in their best interests?

Either way, it's a debate. Now, if this were a Scottish debate on purely internal matters, then you'd be mostly right, and I'd probably stay out of it. But Scottish Independence essentially involves the disolution of the United Kingdom and given that I'm a citizen of the United Kingdom, why shouldn't I be allowed an opinion?

I wonder, if you polled the people of Slovakia, Iceland or Latvia, how many takers you'd get for the suggestion that they'd really be better off it they entered into an incorporating union with a neighbouring country ten times their size? Even if it wasn't the country they succeeded in gaining independence from in the past.

Slovakia and Latvia were invaded by a hostile force who then subdued them for 50 years, and used horrendous methods to do so. So it's quite understandable that they would not want to be part of the Soviet Union anymore.

"We" are better together? Are you sure you don't mean that "you" feel you'd be better in some way retaining control over Scotland? And as for "go" - where do you think Scotland is going? We haven't yet got the technology to split Great Britain along the Cheviots.

Once again, I'm in favour of financial independence for Scotland. The only control I'd want would be reserved powers, such as Foreign Affairs and the Military.

Maybe you should introduce us to some of these entertaining people. Since those of us living in the real world, with an invitation to the SNP Conference lying on our kitchen tables, haven't actually met any of them. Hyperbole, much?

It's more a feeling I get, when things like most of the MSP's decide to skip the 10th anniversary of the opening of the Scottish Parliament, when Queen Elizabeth the 2nd is there. Rather annoying that. But yeah, that was rather hyperbolic.

Er, you do realise that while the Act of Union was indeed, as you say, 300 years ago (1707), Braveheart is a film made by an American (loosely) based on stuff that happened in 1296 to 1305? That is longer before the Union than the Union is before the present day.

I didn't actually! I've infact never read a history book in my life. Should probably get on that, given that I'm doing a 20th Century History course at Hull University now.

My point was that Braveheart was rife with Anglophobia, and encouraged a view of history that said that the English were basically evil and wicked tyrants. Most of that was Mel Gibson's doing though.

 

[Debaser]

"We" are better together? Are you sure you don't mean that "you" feel you'd be better in some way retaining control over Scotland?

...

Maybe you should introduce us to some of these entertaining people. Since those of us living in the real world, with an invitation to the SNP Conference lying on our kitchen tables, haven't actually met any of them. Hyperbole, much?

Rolfe.

Erm? I didn't know that as an Englishman I had any control over Scotland or the people therein. All this time I apparently had droit de seigneur and failed to use it




Since this thread is is danger of becoming round 10^23 of the Great Anglo-Scots War I might as well add my twopennorth and probably my only point of issue with my northern brethren. I would take it as a personal favour if debacles like Afghanistan and Iraq weren't referred to as 'English' wars, one high-profile culprit being the good Mr. Salmond I'm afraid.
If I wanted to be provocative (and I truly do not) I could of course point out that in the first 'referendum' upon these wars, the last General Election, 'the English' voted against the government which got us involved, 'the Scots' on the other hand voted for it.
Therefore, if anyone were to pull out troops (which seems to be used as a threat in some quarters of nationalism/independance) it would in fact be us damnable English.
At least having all that oil money should allow Mr. Salmond to properly fund a smaller Scottish expeditionary force.





Ducks and covers.

 

[Uzzy]

Oooh, good points Debaser.

 

[Debaser]

Either way, it's a debate. Now, if this were a Scottish debate on purely internal matters, then you'd be mostly right, and I'd probably stay out of it. But Scottish Independence essentially involves the disolution of the United Kingdom and given that I'm a citizen of the United Kingdom, why shouldn't I be allowed an opinion?

I have to agree with Uzzy here. As an English person why is my nation the only one not being given its own voice. Indeed, being vilified and associated with the BNP (that's British not English, by the way).

My point was that Braveheart was rife with Anglophobia, and encouraged a view of history that said that the English were basically evil and wicked tyrants. Most of that was Mel Gibson's doing though.

And? I'm waxing my Dick Dastardly moustache as we speak, whilst my man licks my jackboots clean after a morning spent stamping on leeks. What do YOU do on a leisurely Saturday afternoon.

 

[Francesca R]

I wonder, if you polled the people of Slovakia, Iceland or Latvia, how many takers you'd get for the suggestion that they'd really be better off it they entered into an incorporating union with a neighbouring country ten times their size? Even if it wasn't the country they succeeded in gaining independence from in the past.

Are you kidding? Slovakia wants like crazy to join the euro. Iceland and Latvia are probably the two more glaring examples of countries rushing back in to the arms of monetary, political and economic ties with a union rater bigger than ten times their size, just as fast as they can be accepted, thanks to the developments of the last 12 months which brought them very close to insolvency.

Thanfully for them it is not the USSR. But I don't think you'll find dominating public support for going it alone financially in any of those countries any more.