The General Election

[NARC]

Yeah but the EU does not have sovereign rights over the government of member states (at least not yet).

[Guest tv tanned]

see i get that viewpoint' date=' about self-governance. the thing i can't understand is why are the snp then in favour of joining the eu?[/quote']

Well, for one, not everything the EU does is bad, I agree there are some issues there, but if we take Norway as an example of a European, non-EU nation, they are still bound by a vast number of EU treaties.

Why should Scotland not be able to speak for its interests at the top table like Malta can?

[framheim]

i agree they should be able to have a voice in the eu but i was just pointing out the problem with those dual policies. it looks a bit silly. maybe they need to address that issue more comprehensively. at the moment it just looks like they'd be opting out of one union to join another. and i think european policy has shafted scotland just as much as england has.

[Guest tv tanned]

i agree they should be able to have a voice in the eu but i was just pointing out the problem with those dual policies. it looks a bit silly. maybe they need to address that issue more comprehensively. at the moment it just looks like they'd be opting out of one union to join another. and i think european policy has shafted scotland just as much as england has.

The idea that you would be no more independent if you joined the EU is facetious.

Are you really suggesting that Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are no more independent now that they are EU members than they were when they were part of the USSR?

[Paranoid Android]

I too find the snp's attitude towards Europe (which i do mainly agree with) a bit contradictory.

The thing that annoys me about the independence argument portrayed by the snp, is they want people to believe that we are being ruled and controlled by England and that they wont let us have our "freedom", when actually Scotland and England are both part of one nation which they both entered willingly and the majority of Scots are happy to keep it the way it is. So many of they're arguments are completely irrational, it's not surprising that they gained more support due to a inaccurate Hollywood portrayal of a Scottish terrorist, than any of their own work.

[jimr]

I don't get why the SSP or the SNP are standing in this election. It makes no sense at all. If we are to take Holyrood at all seriously, the parties that advent independence should boycott general elections.

Also, the Guardian, for all it's quibbles about Blair, is a very pro labour paper, considering the biggest fear labour has about this election is the turnout, some tory scaremongering wouldn't really go amiss. "oh look they're catching up, remember to do your bit and not take your country for granted"

Personally I'll be asking a computer to tell me how to vote.

In conclusion, Gerry Adams is a very smart man.

[Guest tv tanned]

I too find the snp's attitude towards Europe (which i do mainly agree with) a bit contradictory.

Nothing contradictory about it. Europe has a lot to offer' date=' and we're governed by the legislation as it is, independence would give us the opportunity to impact upon it.

The thing that annoys me about the independence argument portrayed by the snp, is they want people to believe that we are being ruled and controlled by England and that they wont let us have our "freedom", when actually Scotland and England are both part of one nation which they both entered willingly and the majority of Scots are happy to keep it the way it is. So many of they're arguments are completely irrational, it's not surprising that they gained more support due to a inaccurate Hollywood portrayal of a Scottish terrorist, than any of their own work.

The UK is not a nation, it is a union. We are joined by a Treaty of Union of 1707, it is well established that the composite parts of the UK are nations, not regions. That's why we have retained our distinctive legal and educational system.

It has now been proved that aristocrats were bribed into signing up to the Treaty, Tom Devine and Christopher Whatley are just two historians to have put this thesis forward.

There were also threats of arms against Scotland if the Treaty was not agreed to.

Rioting in Scotland lasted for years afterwards.

It was also seen, initially, as a temporary treaty, not an indefinite one.

So 'happily' my arse, to quote Ricky Tomlinson.

As for Wallace being a terrorist, I think to use a 20th centrury label on a 13th century individual is both stupid and historically inept.

[Guest tv tanned]

I don't get why the SSP or the SNP are standing in this election. It makes no sense at all. If we are to take Holyrood at all seriously' date=' the parties that advent independence should boycott general elections. [/quote']

Good idea, so let people get into the habit of voting Tory or Labour and then just expect them to change come 2007???

As long as there are issues of Scottish importance reserved to Westminster, then these parties should continue to stand for election.

[Pierre Von Mondragon]

Don't forget, that anyone trying to confuse asylum issues with immigration policy is, at best, a CRYPTO-FASCIST, and at worst, NAZI SCUM.

Asylum-people seeking shelter, as their homeland is repressing them, trying to kill them. I say-Let em all In, anyone who has the nous and talent to get themselves out of a situation like that is EXACTLY the sort of driven person that would benefit the country.

Immigration-When people eventually wake up to the fact that this is an ageing country, not the hip, happenin land of yoof seen on telly, then we will realise that we need immigration desparately. I say-Let em all in, I think that the UK must have been a much duller place without immigrants from all over, and we NEED them now.

Michael Howard is a national disgrace, son of an immigrant himself, now making it that much harder for them, evil bastard

[jimr]

Good idea' date=' so let people get into the habit of voting Tory or Labour and then just expect them to change come 2007???

As long as there are issues of Scottish importance reserved to Westminster, then these parties should continue to stand for election.[/quote']

Whatever, all you politicians are just caught up in this ridiculous popularity contest. It's like you're addicted to the vote, "quick i'll democratically show that I am better than you!"

Everyone is obsessed with staying in power and not pissing off the electorate that none of you would consider doing anything that would be good in the long run but highly annoying to the electorate in the short, and with good reason as you would probably be kicked out. It's like being in School again.

[Paranoid Android]

The UK is not a nation' date=' it is a union. We are joined by a Treaty of Union of 1707, it is well established that the composite parts of the UK are nations, not regions. That's why we have retained our distinctive legal and educational system.[/quote']

under all definitions the uk is a nation, scotland is not, there is a difference between a country and a nation.

As for Wallace being a terrorist' date=' I think to use a 20th centrury label on a 13th century individual is both stupid and historically inept.[/quote']

Fair enough i'll give you that one.

[Guest tv tanned]

under all definitions the uk is a nation' date=' scotland is not, there is a difference between a country and a nation.[/quote']

Which definitions?

[Guest tv tanned]

Whatever' date=' all you politicians are just caught up in this ridiculous popularity contest. It's like you're addicted to the vote, "quick i'll democratically show that I am better than you!"

Everyone is obsessed with staying in power and not pissing off the electorate that none of you would consider doing anything that would be good in the long run but highly annoying to the electorate in the short, and with good reason as you would probably be kicked out. It's like being in School again.[/quote']

Have you read any manifestos?

[Project S.A.M.]

Which definitions?

Probably ones which are not obscure and stipulative' date=' and not so obviously devoid of argumentative force.

HIGH REDEFINITION Fallacy in which the meaning of a word is narrowed in an attempt to defend a questionable proposition (No Scot supports water privatisation; well, no true Scot does). Contrast with LOW REDEFINITION.

[Guest tv tanned]

Probably ones which are not obscure and stipulative' date=' and not so obviously devoid of argumentative force.[/quote']

So, that'll be none then, just a witty comment?

It is acknowledged that Scotland, Wales and England are all nations. The Treaty of Union is an international treaty and widely regarded as such.

Again, I refer people to Tom Devine and Christopher Whatley, eminent historians, who have already argued this conclusively.

[Laxton's Superb]

Bang on tanned.......as for the election, i shall vote SNP, though probably rather futile considering the tories or lib dems always take this seat!

[Da Fat Porn Star]

Yup, you seem to have kept out of this thread very well.

And surely those historians are putting forwards their theories, not facts....

[Guest tv tanned]

Yup' date=' you seem to have kept out of this thread very well.[/quote']

I had no intention of getting involved, but since I'm interested in politics, and people are going to use negative tactics, then what the hey...

And surely those historians are putting forwards their theories, not facts....

Actually they've reported what it says on record, you can look their source materials up in the archives if you like, but feel free to put forward some other historians if you want to counter them...

[soundian]

Regional GVA 2001

Area_____________Per head ()

United Kingdom___14' date='500

England__________[b']13,700

Wales____________11,400

Scotland_________13,700

Northern Ireland_11,300

Whoops?!.

[Guest tv tanned]

Whoops?!.

Cheers for pointing that out, is now corrected.

[soundian]

I'll start voting when the lying bastards start fulfilling their manifestos.

There should be a system of fines where the party in power loses seats when it reneges on election promises or pushes them through in a form which bears little or no resemblance to their election promises.

Also politicians who answer a completely different question to the one which they are asked should be banned from all media interviews for six months. I don't mind if they refuse to answer a question but how fucking stupid do they think we are that we wont notice their misdirection. That is not democracy in my opinion, they prove time and time again that they aren't answerable to the people by not answering the questions that the people want to know the answers to.

I know this would cause chaos for a while but you never know, they might get the hang of telling the truth.

.

[Paranoid Android]

At least it looks likely that if labour win again, they will not have a huge majority this time around, meaning htey wont be able to bully their way to getting anything through, in the same way.

[Guest tv tanned]

It is really quite amusing that most of the contentious legislation would not have got through without the support of Scottish Labour MPs...

Top-up fees for example...

[Rachie]

Labour will win it again, but I'm still gonna vote Lib Dem.

[Project S.A.M.]

So' date=' that'll be none then, just a witty comment?

It is acknowledged that Scotland, Wales and England are all nations. The Treaty of Union is an international treaty and widely regarded as such.

Again, I refer people to Tom Devine and Christopher Whatley, eminent historians, who have already argued this conclusively.[/quote']

Wasn't meant to be "witty", just the pretty obvious point that there is a clear sense in which 'Britain', shall we say, is by most people thought of as a nation- ie more or less the same thing as a country, a single economic system, no effective borders etc etc. Whereas there is nothing more than a relatively obscure sense in which Scotland is a distinct nation- ie one dependent on historical legal facts.

Now why, other on the basis of pedantry steeped in historical sentiment, should these facts be at all interesting or constitute a persuasive argument for Scottish independence?

It may be true that Scotland could survive and prosper economically on its own but this can hardly be a strong argument for independence- surely national borders shouldn't be dependent on economic utility. And what if Scotland's economy took a sudden downturn- would that be an argument for unification?

The moral argument doesn't convince me either- even if it's true that the English and the aristocrats 'did the Scots wrong' in 1707, I fail to see the relevance today since, to put it bluntly, everyone involved is dead. A nation is not property, and nor is there anyone to 'return it' to. Nor can I see how an arbitrary construct such as the idea of a particular nation can have any intrinsic worth, and can have anything done 'wrong' to it, or require resurrection.

And if 'we' don't like the existing governmental system, 'we' can change it, because 'we' already have a say in it- Britain is a single democratic unit (devolution aside). This 'we' is bandied about in arguments for Scottish independence, but I've never seen anything other than a rhetorical force to it. I don't see how or why I should think of myself as having any stronger relation (other than geographical) to 'fellow Scots' than to someone in London (or, for that matter, any other human being). Why must it be the case that an independent Scottish system would give me any greater say or role in the political process?

The whole idea of patriotism and belief in a nation just seems to me to be totally perverse- at best I think they are a presently necessary evil, (at the risk of going a bit allsystemsfail) and one should be overcome through integration and dissolution of borders, not entrenched by stating historical facts in a serious tone and assuming their significance on the basis of misplaced sentiment.

Anyway, that's my take on nationalism- to put the admittedly abrupt previous remark in context.