Well done Scotland, some though not happy the Scottish team did not take the knee unlike most of the England team, others though unhappy the England team did
Also it is pretty offensive to compare India and Scotland.
Scotland had a plebiscite to leave, which they declined.
Can you also compare anything similar to say the Bengal Famine or the Jallianwala Bagh massacre that happened in Scotland since 1707?
Next you'll be comparing the Union to the Holocaust.
The 45 trillion number, which I've dissected on this board before, is based on using ridiculously inflated numbers from the period of British (and Dutch and East India Company) occupation and administration of India.
They work out a trade deficit number, without looking at the fact the deficit was financed by... errr... the UK, and without reference to the fact that the India got things in return for the trade deficit. If we send $1 to Ethopia, and they used it to buy food from abroad, that would count as (according the "research") the $1 being extracted from Ethiopia.
Then to make it even more ridiculous, they then compound the sum based around a ridiculous interest rate. So, a sum equivalent to 10% of Indian GDP in about 1900 somehow becomes 20,000% of GDP today.
That someone could actually claim that the UK had extracted massively more from India than their cumulative GDP in the period is just absurd and ridiculous. That it is lapped up and trumpeted is just embarassing.
The numbers are silly, but it’s true that we wreaked devastation on the 19thC Indian economy by taking away their ability to protect a large domestic textile industry against the newly industrialised British cotton trade.
In other words our sin was providing them with cheap clothes they wanted to buy?
Plus of course bringing Westminster style democracy, common law, railways and stopping widows being thrown on funeral pyres, it was not all bad
Hang on, the "widows on pyres" thing was a very effective way of avoiding an inverted population pyramid. Are we sure we did the right thing there?
Widows arent very carbon neutral though as they have often built up glycogen reserves
I somehow share your view that the SNP will fail to win an outright majority. I will freely admit that it is very tenuous and based on pretty much zero contact with the wider electorate!
It's a feeling based on recent elections, Scottish and General, rather than SNP scandals. It just seems that whenever one side in Scotland looks to be powerful and romping away with it, they usually seem to get a slap down. Like the electorate consciously or unconsciously preserves an equilibrium. The SNP would be ripe for this this time around.
Also it is pretty offensive to compare India and Scotland.
Scotland had a plebiscite to leave, which they declined.
Can you also compare anything similar to say the Bengal Famine or the Jallianwala Bagh massacre that happened in Scotland since 1707?
Next you'll be comparing the Union to the Holocaust.
The 45 trillion number, which I've dissected on this board before, is based on using ridiculously inflated numbers from the period of British (and Dutch and East India Company) occupation and administration of India.
They work out a trade deficit number, without looking at the fact the deficit was financed by... errr... the UK, and without reference to the fact that the India got things in return for the trade deficit. If we send $1 to Ethopia, and they used it to buy food from abroad, that would count as (according the "research") the $1 being extracted from Ethiopia.
Then to make it even more ridiculous, they then compound the sum based around a ridiculous interest rate. So, a sum equivalent to 10% of Indian GDP in about 1900 somehow becomes 20,000% of GDP today.
That someone could actually claim that the UK had extracted massively more from India than their cumulative GDP in the period is just absurd and ridiculous. That it is lapped up and trumpeted is just embarassing.
So only idiots believe the 45 trillion figure, no wonder MalcolmG believes it.
I somehow share your view that the SNP will fail to win an outright majority. I will freely admit that it is very tenuous and based on pretty much zero contact with the wider electorate!
It's a feeling based on recent elections, Scottish and General, rather than SNP scandals. It just seems that whenever one side in Scotland looks to be powerful and romping away with it, they usually seem to get a slap down. Like the electorate consciously or unconsciously preserves an equilibrium. The SNP would be ripe for this this time around.
Also it is pretty offensive to compare India and Scotland.
Scotland had a plebiscite to leave, which they declined.
Can you also compare anything similar to say the Bengal Famine or the Jallianwala Bagh massacre that happened in Scotland since 1707?
Next you'll be comparing the Union to the Holocaust.
The 45 trillion number, which I've dissected on this board before, is based on using ridiculously inflated numbers from the period of British (and Dutch and East India Company) occupation and administration of India.
They work out a trade deficit number, without looking at the fact the deficit was financed by... errr... the UK, and without reference to the fact that the India got things in return for the trade deficit. If we send $1 to Ethopia, and they used it to buy food from abroad, that would count as (according the "research") the $1 being extracted from Ethiopia.
Then to make it even more ridiculous, they then compound the sum based around a ridiculous interest rate. So, a sum equivalent to 10% of Indian GDP in about 1900 somehow becomes 20,000% of GDP today.
That someone could actually claim that the UK had extracted massively more from India than their cumulative GDP in the period is just absurd and ridiculous. That it is lapped up and trumpeted is just embarassing.
Quite a lot of assets were relocated as well. For example, India funded the university of Westminster
I somehow share your view that the SNP will fail to win an outright majority. I will freely admit that it is very tenuous and based on pretty much zero contact with the wider electorate!
It's a feeling based on recent elections, Scottish and General, rather than SNP scandals. It just seems that whenever one side in Scotland looks to be powerful and romping away with it, they usually seem to get a slap down. Like the electorate consciously or unconsciously preserves an equilibrium. The SNP would be ripe for this this time around.
Wrong David
Oops - right you are - sorry, @david_herdson - afraid I can't edit now so DavidL will be needlessly bothered either way.
Also it is pretty offensive to compare India and Scotland.
Scotland had a plebiscite to leave, which they declined.
Can you also compare anything similar to say the Bengal Famine or the Jallianwala Bagh massacre that happened in Scotland since 1707?
Next you'll be comparing the Union to the Holocaust.
Yes highland clearances and your colonial preferences that we must stay as a colony are really offensive. The 45 trillion is using some compound interest rate but it does highlight that whilst denuding India of huge wealth , England claimed they were in deficit. This is exactly the same position as Scotland. They also impoverished Scotland since the union and are denying us a democratic vote as they did in India. Your stupid remark at the end is pretty pathetic and juvenile. Perhaps you should stick to topics you know at least something about.
Scotland has a deficit of 8.6%, the UK has a deficit of 2.5%.
Well done Scotland, some though not happy the Scottish team did not take the knee unlike most of the England team, others though unhappy the England team did
Well, that'll teach you to watch the nonsense called rugby union.
I had to play it at school and have loathed it ever since - fortunately, some decent proper sport at Sandown, Musselburgh and Leopardstown to keep me going before the freeze shuts everything down.
I somehow share your view that the SNP will fail to win an outright majority. I will freely admit that it is very tenuous and based on pretty much zero contact with the wider electorate!
It's a feeling based on recent elections, Scottish and General, rather than SNP scandals. It just seems that whenever one side in Scotland looks to be powerful and romping away with it, they usually seem to get a slap down. Like the electorate consciously or unconsciously preserves an equilibrium. The SNP would be ripe for this this time around.
Can't claim the credit for this but I sort of agree, if Sturgeon falls.
How about this as an idea: the UK government passes a referendum act (with retrospective effect) to say that there can be no second referendum on a constitutional matter within 25 years.
Sell it as a brexit measure (but it catches Scotland as well)
Determination of whether it is a constitutional matter left to the government (acting quasi-judicially) with a right of appeal to Supreme Court
Provision that it can only be set aside by a specific resolution in Parliament voted on by both houses
I suspect no one really gets upset except the SNP and may be a few EU obsessives.
Couldn't a future Lab/SNP coalition repeal it?
There will be no such coalition - though possibly a minority Labour Government receiving Confidence & Supply from the SNP and others.
Also it is pretty offensive to compare India and Scotland.
Scotland had a plebiscite to leave, which they declined.
Can you also compare anything similar to say the Bengal Famine or the Jallianwala Bagh massacre that happened in Scotland since 1707?
Next you'll be comparing the Union to the Holocaust.
The 45 trillion number, which I've dissected on this board before, is based on using ridiculously inflated numbers from the period of British (and Dutch and East India Company) occupation and administration of India.
They work out a trade deficit number, without looking at the fact the deficit was financed by... errr... the UK, and without reference to the fact that the India got things in return for the trade deficit. If we send $1 to Ethopia, and they used it to buy food from abroad, that would count as (according the "research") the $1 being extracted from Ethiopia.
Then to make it even more ridiculous, they then compound the sum based around a ridiculous interest rate. So, a sum equivalent to 10% of Indian GDP in about 1900 somehow becomes 20,000% of GDP today.
That someone could actually claim that the UK had extracted massively more from India than their cumulative GDP in the period is just absurd and ridiculous. That it is lapped up and trumpeted is just embarassing.
The numbers are silly, but it’s true that we wreaked devastation on the 19thC Indian economy by taking away their ability to protect a large domestic textile industry against the newly industrialised British cotton trade. Its destruction as a competitor for the raw material cotton was quite deliberate.
Japan’s extraordinary industrialisation in the second half of the nineteenth century could not have occurred had it been a colony.
Major beneficiary, Coats Paton and Baldwin of Paisley. Just saying.
Yes, the cases of India and Scotland really aren’t that similar. Which is not to deny the existence of grievances,
Plus of course it was Scotland who asked to create a Union after the failure of the Darien scheme and the British Empire only developed with Scotland a full part of that Union. Most of the North American colonies, all of the African colonies, Australia, New Zealand and India and the Asian colonies were all colonised by the UK not England and of course Ireland too joined the Union after Scotland with Scots playing a full part as Empire civil servants, political leaders, administrators, soldiers, engineers, traders etc
So what was the Aliens Act of 1705 all about, then?
Ok - any new referendum as of today won’t be valid unless it is at least 25 years since a similar question was asked.
Any restriction on democracy is unconscionable
Agreed, oddly.
So we should have a referendum every week?
If that's what people vote for who are politicians to deny that? They work for us, remember.
We have to trust that people wouldn't vote for a party who has such a policy.
The problem is activists push an agenda and “interpret” votes.
For example it would be a perfectly understandable position for someone who believes in the Union to vote SNP on the grounds that SLab and SCon are both a bit shit & they quite like Nicola as FM.
But committed Nationalists will claim that is a vote for independence
For example it would be a perfectly understandable position for someone who believes in the EU to vote Con on the grounds that Lab are a bit shit & they quite like Dave as PM.
But committed Brexiteers will claim that is a vote for Brexit.
Well the electorate had the chance to reject Boris, but gave him a majority instead
The English electorate.
No the UK electorate
The Union only works if we ALL accept there’s only one U.K. electorate and each vote/MP is worth the same (i.e. Scots don’t feel outvoted any more than the people of Essex do when there’s a Labour Government, they just accept the overall result).
I’d like that to be the case, but we can’t and shouldn’t force it on a region/country where there’s evidence that a majority reject the premise and want to go.
Of course, on the same basis no U.K. PM should view “losing” Scotland as a resigning matter. It’s entirely for the Scots to decide, via expressing a view on whether to have a referendum at the elections in Holyrood. If the SNP then keeps forcing referendums and losing them, it would bear the political cost. That’s the risk it takes.
One thing I do think worth considering for all future referendums is a requirement to get 50% + 1 of the whole electorate.
Scots did accept that in 2014, a once in a generation vote
Do you really not see how self defeating this is? Your approach puts another referendum off for maybe 5-10 years whilst simultaneously fostering a grievance and ensuring you’ll lose it when it comes. Just like Spain.
HYUFD doesn’t give a fuck about Scotland becoming independent as long as the tories aren't in power when it happens.
Actually on present polling Starmer is significantly more popular than Boris in Scotland, so by refusing an independence referendum as long as we are in power we Tories are making it more likely Scotland will stay in the Union.
If Starmer became PM and allowed one he would be less likely to lose it than Boris would, however it would be a risk Labour had taken, there will be no legal indyref2 allowed by the Tories hence no risk of it going for independence.
I suppose the upside for you is the newly independent England, having thrown off the shackles of the Celtic nations, is a million years of unfettered Conservative governments.
Not on the basis of the election results of 2005- 2001-1997 - Oct 1974 - 1966 and 1945!
Comments
https://twitter.com/VBL1986/status/1358103020056240130?s=20
https://twitter.com/leecks28/status/1358095942940041216?s=20
I somehow share your view that the SNP will fail to win an outright majority. I will freely admit that it is very tenuous and based on pretty much zero contact with the wider electorate!
It's a feeling based on recent elections, Scottish and General, rather than SNP scandals. It just seems that whenever one side in Scotland looks to be powerful and romping away with it, they usually seem to get a slap down. Like the electorate consciously or unconsciously preserves an equilibrium. The SNP would be ripe for this this time around.
https://twitter.com/RoyalFamily/status/1358124849529581573?s=20
https://twitter.com/michaelgove/status/1358122920535539712?s=20
https://twitter.com/NicolaSturgeon/status/1358122329335808000?s=20
We are boring, even when we win.
Congratulations to Scotland, deserved victory.
Another reason to have crowds back.
I had to play it at school and have loathed it ever since - fortunately, some decent proper sport at Sandown, Musselburgh and Leopardstown to keep me going before the freeze shuts everything down.
NEW THREAD
https://twitter.com/thecourieruk/status/1358118146360496128?s=21