We need three referendums. [Archive] - UK Youth Parliament Forums

Matt. P

01-11-2008, 23:05

I don't really mind the Queen much. The only difference if we adopted a republic (like India) we would just have an equally cermonial president, with no of the "uniqueness" or tradition as the Royals, which makes Britain quite famous. We'd just have more elctions and political divide. Its not as if they're exercising any real political power seeing as they're not eleted. It probably wouldn't even matter who was the Monarch at the time.

and they're not the legitimate heirs to the throne.

I think the Act of Union makes it quiet clear the rules for succesion to the throne, so what makes the illegitimate I do not now.

And we should have a refferendum on the EU too.

Hamsterwaffle

01-15-2008, 19:48

We aren't going to get an EU referendum, if we left where would all the politicians who get sacked go?

Hamsterwaffle

01-15-2008, 19:53

It would be a crime to vote against the royals on the referendum.

Conzales

01-15-2008, 20:23

Lol! You make me laugh!

It wouldn't be a crime.

Hamsterwaffle

01-15-2008, 20:56

Treason anyone?

Conzales

01-15-2008, 22:06

We aren't in the dark ages you know!

Hamsterwaffle

01-15-2008, 22:07

The law still stands.

Conzales

01-15-2008, 22:15

Laws can be changed.

Hamsterwaffle

01-15-2008, 22:56

Not without the signing of said law by the Monarch.

DomMather

01-16-2008, 06:18

I think that Gordon Brown is doing something that will allow him to bypass the queen, when passing laws

ender

01-16-2008, 09:53

I do think that there should be more non-binding referendums... that way the government could more easily establish whether something is popular or not... although there will never be a referendum where everyone votes the same way, it could enable the government to see who/what the majority support - afterall that is what democracy is; the dictatorship of the majority over the minority...

I personally feel that we should be trying to protect and uphold some of our British traditions - such as the Queen and the Monarchy, she's not hurting anyone is she? Rather than giving in to hte Zeitgeist and following everyone else in getting rid of the monarch... is that a fair comment to make?

DomMather

01-16-2008, 10:03

Keep the monarchy! The Queen has dedicated her whole life towards this country and more refurendums would be good, but they would need to be online as it would be to big a drain on public money otherwise

:Vampiress:

01-16-2008, 11:14

I love the monarchy and if the Queen was still young i would say lets give some power back to her but since she's near death i DO NOT want Charles or William getting some power.

Hamsterwaffle

01-16-2008, 12:17

I may be wrong here, but doesn't the act of union state that one cannot inherit the throne if they are; a roman catholic, married to a roman catholic or if either parent was a roman catholic.

Matt. P

01-16-2008, 12:31

but they would need to be online as it would be to big a drain on public money otherwise

But a large minority of people don't have access to the internet who have an equal right to vote.

Austin Sheridan

10-12-2008, 16:07

One on the EU. One on the Scottish Independence issue. One on the Monarchy

That would settle everything.

What do you think?

Great Idea. All these things should be done as soon as possible.

Gotlieb Alexander

10-12-2008, 16:28

Great Idea. All these things should be done as soon as possible.

If we held them and the people voted for no Scots independence, would you :

a) Say, Woohoo for democracy!
b) Keep on the campaign

Austin Sheridan

10-12-2008, 16:30

If we held them and the people voted for no Scots independence, would you :

a) Say, Woohoo for democracy!
b) Keep on the campaign

I would like to keep on the campaign but not right away. You would have to leave it for around 10 years before starting a new Scottish Independence campaign.

Gotlieb Alexander

10-12-2008, 16:34

I would like to keep on the campaign but not right away. You would have to leave it for around 10 years before starting a new Scottish Independence campaign.

So what would the SNP do for all this time, disband?

Austin Sheridan

10-12-2008, 16:37

So what would the SNP do for all this time, disband?

No. We would plan for our new campaign and stand up for Scotland while still in union.

Gotlieb Alexander

10-12-2008, 16:39

No. We would plan for our new campaign and stand up for Scotland while still in union.

Other than Independence, in what way does it want to "stand up" for Scotland?

Austin Sheridan

10-12-2008, 16:43

Other than Independence, in what way does it want to "stand up" for Scotland?

We will do what we do now.

Liam Hannan

10-12-2008, 17:08

Other than Independence, in what way does it want to "stand up" for Scotland?

For example;

Westminster is with holding 40 million quid of council tax rebate claiming that if we have a different system of council tax then we shouldn't get it.

We are being shorted by about 8 million a year for criminal justice using the barnett formula.

The Scottish parliamentary remit is to wrangle to get those bits of the budget, or to alter the budget settlement so inter party pettiness doesn't interfere with government.

After the suspected outbreak of Bird flu in england all livestock transport was shut down - this cost the scottish sheep market an estimated 13 million in animals that couldn't be sold or transported for slaughter and so had to be culled for winter. The Scottish Parliament was lobbying westminster to exempt scotland from the ban seeing as the outbreak was nowhere near us and being contained.

Time and again the scottish populace as a whole have said no to nuclear, but the UK government still wants it and insists on putting facilities in scotland. The Scottish parliament has secured a concession of no nuclear new builds in scotland.

They also have a remit to negotiate with the EU fisheries on our behalf, or to enact reforms to local government which have been beneficial - despite going against westminster advice. (reason for this is the scottish and english local government systems are totally different, something most english MPs aren't particulalry aware of.)

The debate with Douglas Alexander over who should have authority for elections - considering how badly he messed up the last ones...

there's a few examples that are a wee bit more substantial than rhetorical drivel.

Austin Sheridan

10-12-2008, 17:17

For example;

Westminster is with holding 40 million quid of council tax rebate claiming that if we have a different system of council tax then we shouldn't get it.

We are being shorted by about 8 million a year for criminal justice using the barnett formula.

The Scottish parliamentary remit is to wrangle to get those bits of the budget, or to alter the budget settlement so inter party pettiness doesn't interfere with government.

After the suspected outbreak of Bird flu in England all livestock transport was shut down - this cost the Scottish sheep market an estimated 13 million in animals that couldn't be sold or transported for slaughter and so had to be culled for winter. The Scottish Parliament was lobbying Westminster to exempt Scotland from the ban seeing as the outbreak was nowhere near us and being contained.

Time and again the Scottish populace as a whole have said no to nuclear, but the UK government still wants it and insists on putting facilities in Scotland. The Scottish parliament has secured a concession of no nuclear new builds in Scotland.

They also have a remit to negotiate with the EU fisheries on our behalf, or to enact reforms to local government which have been beneficial - despite going against Westminster advice. (reason for this is the Scottish and English local government systems are totally different, something most English MPs aren't particularly aware of.)

The debate with Douglas Alexander over who should have authority for elections - considering how badly he messed up the last ones...

there's a few examples that are a wee bit more substantial than rhetorical drivel.

I know people don't like me doing this but I'm not here to be popular so here goes.

Well said and I agree with you.:D

Gotlieb Alexander

10-12-2008, 18:20

We are being shorted by about 8 million a year for criminal justice using the barnett formula.

Do you really think the Scots can complain about the Barnet formula screwing you over when it gives so much money to Scotland?

Austin Sheridan

10-12-2008, 18:22

Do you really think the Scots can complain about the Barnet formula screwing you over when it gives so much money to Scotland?

Scotland would be better off independent.

When we become independent we will stop complaining about the Barnet formula;)

Gotlieb Alexander

10-12-2008, 18:28

Scotland would be better off independent.

When we become independent we will stop complaining about the Barnet formula;)

You see I had always considered the Barnet formula to be the main argument by Scottish people against independence and the main argument of English nationalism

Austin Sheridan

10-12-2008, 18:32

You see I had always considered the Barnet formula to be the main argument by Scottish people against independence and the main argument of English nationalism

Maybe it's the main argument for both Scottish and English independence.

Scotland think we don't get enough money (well Scottish Nationalists do)

England think Scotland gets too much money.

Way to solve the problem.

Independence for all.;)

Gotlieb Alexander

10-12-2008, 18:34

Maybe it's the main argument for both Scottish and English independence.

Scotland think we don't get enough money (well Scottish Nationalists do)

England think Scotland gets too much money.

Way to solve the problem.

Independence for all.;)

If you think that getting rid of Barnet can give both England AND Scotland more money then you need to retake a maths lesson

Austin Sheridan

10-12-2008, 18:36

If you think that getting rid of Barnet can give both England AND Scotland more money then you need to retake a maths lesson

No I don't think that.

I think Independence will.

Matt. P

10-12-2008, 19:19

No I don't think that.

I think Independence will.

?????????????

In case I didn't get the message across, I don't understand.

Now, you may complain about the paltry 8 million you are being "short-charged" by the ******* Englsih oppressors, or the billions "siphoned" from Scottish oil revenue into UK treasery coffers (in fact, I think the SNP website has an online counter of "oil money stolen across the border"), but lets not forget this UK treasury also spends money back to Scotland, and here's the simple truth.

Tax revenues in Scotland - 41 billion
Government spending in Scotland - 53 billion

It does not take a genius to realise thats a deficit of £12 billion. If you don't like the barnett formula than I will gladly sign your petition for fiscal devolution instead of just political one. You get to keep you 8 million and we keep are £11,992,000,000 so everyone is happy. Frankly if you want more political independence you should first prove yourself capable of financiall supporting yourself. Its like the child or winges that he wants to leave home and escape his parents, but still needs to be paid an allowance by them, and until that stops your never going to prove yourself independent.

Austin Sheridan

10-12-2008, 19:23

?????????????

In case I didn't get the message across, I don't understand.

Now, you may complain about the paltry 8 million you are being "short-charged" by the ******* Englsih oppressors, or the billions "siphoned" from Scottish oil revenue into UK treasery coffers (in fact, I think the SNP website has an online counter of "oil money stolen across the border"), but lets not forget this UK treasury also spends money back to Scotland, and here's the simple truth.

Tax revenues in Scotland - 41 billion
Government spending in Scotland - 53 billion

It does not take a genius to realise thats a deficit of £12 billion. If you don't like the barnett formula than I will gladly sign your petition for fiscal devolution instead of just political one. You get to keep you 8 million and we keep are £11,992,000,000 so everyone is happy. Frankly if you want more political independence you should first prove yourself capable of financiall supporting yourself. Its like the child or winges that he wants to leave home and escape his parents, but still needs to be paid an allowance by them, and until that stops your never going to prove yourself independent.

I'm not an economist I can't prove exactly how Scotland will fund independence. No one can really answer that question until we start negations for Scottish Independence.

Gotlieb Alexander

10-12-2008, 19:25

I'm not an economist I can't prove exactly how Scotland will fund independence. No one can really answer that question until we start negations for Scottish Independence.

In that case why are you so sure it will work?

Austin Sheridan

10-12-2008, 19:28

In that case why are you so sure it will work?

No one can be sure it can work before the negotiations open but what we can do is look at how much Scotland puts into the UK and how to improve our income. e.g lowering corporation tax to attract business.

Gotlieb Alexander

10-12-2008, 19:30

Paul

10-12-2008, 19:35

No one can be sure it can work before the negotiations open but what we can do is look at how much Scotland puts into the UK and how to improve our income. e.g lowering corporation tax to attract business.

Surely it would be best for Scotland to become a Special Administrative Region within the UK - allowing it to have its own currency and taxation policy, and any other areas currently devolved to the Scottish Parliament - leaving Westminster to deal with defence issues only - Scotland would receive no subsidy and would pay a charge either per head or per acre by Westminster for defence [as in Scotland keeps % of oil revenue as decided upon] ... see if it works?

Austin Sheridan

10-12-2008, 19:39

Surely it would be best for Scotland to become a Special Administrative Region within the UK - allowing it to have its own currency and taxation policy, and any other areas currently devolved to the Scottish Parliament - leaving Westminster to deal with defence issues only - Scotland would receive no subsidy and would pay a charge either per head or per acre by Westminster for defence [as in Scotland keeps % of oil revenue as decided upon] ... see if it works?

If you want to give us all that why not go all the way and just give us Independence ?

Paul

10-12-2008, 19:44

If you want to give us all that why not go all the way and just give us Independence ?

To try it out - see if its OK ... as the transition period perhaps.

Austin Sheridan

10-12-2008, 20:02

To try it out - see if its OK ... as the transition period perhaps.

Yes I algee with what you say here> The transition period will be a good time to put independence to the test before full independence.

orcprocess

10-12-2008, 20:19

We need a referendum on the EU and Scottish independence but not on the monarchy.

Hopefully in Scotland they shall have the sense to vote no to an independent Scotland.

Austin Sheridan

10-12-2008, 20:23

We need a referendum on the EU and Scottish independence but not on the monarchy.

Hopefully in Scotland they shall have the sense to vote no to an independent Scotland.

Thank you as you think the Scottish people have the right to decide on their future even though you don't agree with Independence.

I'm going to add you to my buddy list now:D

orcprocess

10-12-2008, 20:26

Thank you as you think the Scottish people have the right to decide on their future even though you don't agree with Independence.

I'm going to add you to my buddy list now:D

Well of course they deserve to have the choice; I would want a referendum on bringing in 42 days even though I do not agree with it.

Plus if one was taken away the right to vote for or against scottish independence then one could be infuriated and thus increasing support for Scottish Independence.

Marcus89

10-12-2008, 20:36

Well of course they deserve to have the choice; I would want a referendum on bringing in 42 days even though I do not agree with it.

Plus if one was taken away the right to vote for or against scottish independence then one could be infuriated and thus increasing support for Scottish Independence.

The idea of referenda scare me. Why have a Government or Parliament for that matter, if we keep holding referenda. The idea behind a Govt is to take the difficult decisions, its one of its key roles, passing it onto the people in fear of 'screwing up' is cowardly at best.

No referendum on 42 days. No referendum on the Monarch. No referendum on Scotland, allow the 2010 GE sort that out. A referendum on the EU maybe, as that affects our rights, mobility and migration etc etc.

Austin Sheridan

10-12-2008, 20:38

The idea of referendums scare me. Why have a Government or Parliament for that matter, if we keep holding referendums. The idea behind a Govt is to take the difficult decisions, its one of its key roles, passing it onto the people in fear of 'screwing up' is cowardly at best.

No referendum on 42 days. No referendum on the Monarch. No referendum on Scotland, allow the 2010 GE sort that out. A referendum on the EU maybe, as that affects our rights, mobility and migration etc etc.

So you think if the SNP get a majority of the Scottish seats in Westminster the SNP should start negotiating Scottish independence without asking the people of Scotland ?

Marcus89

10-12-2008, 20:43

So you think if the SNP get a majority of the Scottish seats in Westminster the SNP should start negotiating Scottish independence without asking the people of Scotland ?

Actually, I take back letting the 2010 GE determine it. No Referendum. Allow the Govt of the day to decide, it has the authority and power to do so.

Liam Hannan

10-12-2008, 22:07

If you think that getting rid of Barnet can give both England AND Scotland more money then you need to retake a maths lesson

Austin - what you need to do is stop saying things you can't back up, these guys have been told this at least a million times, but if you say it without evidence I have to give them the whole lesson again, which eats into their time in the sandbox. ok?

Gotlieb, if you want it there's a fuller list here:

http://ukyp.org.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=61&highlight=scottish+independence

but the basis is, we can survive independently, oil revenues short term (discounting monies whisked away be foreign companies and any residual payments to westminster) would bump our national budget to roughly £2billion in surplus of what we get from the Barnett Formula (which is seen as unfrai because it gives a higher per head allocation of government funding than english government has, but fails to take into account both the intense rurality of scotland and the fact that per head we contribute more to the economy than england does).

The plan is to use that surplus to invest in renewables technology (where we have a world lead) and develop towards being a major energy supplier to our buddies in the EU with a simultaneous cut in business rates to encourage foreign investment to kickstart the scottish economy plus, because of our small and rural stature we qualify for EU block grants :D

On the flipside of the coin, the UK would lose a source of revenue, but when you consider what it contributes to us in terms of international representation, the military etc. Stands to make a slight profit (I don't know how much, but I doubt it's much more than a billion) because of the cuts in these services it can have without us tagging along.

Gotlieb Alexander

10-12-2008, 22:22

Liam Hannan

10-12-2008, 22:26

Liam, all those things you are suggesting could be applied to the UK just as easily as they could be applied to Scotland. With renewables the UK would be in a better position to develop these technologies due to economies of scale and a larger budget. Also a cut in corporation tax would probably work better as the UK than as an independent Scotland because London is already established as an international centre of business.

Therefore these are not valid reasons for independence, only suggestions of how to improve the economy.

1) they are not being done within the UK.

2) the point wasn't which they would be better for, but that scotland could be viable economically, which you have just conceded it could.

(oh, and just as a matter of interest, despite having the biggest potential for energy in europe, the govt of the UK has adopted a pro nuclear policy with a paltry £40 million going to wave renewables research p.a. - france, with less than a fifth of our potential had ten times the budget. If investment doesn't come soon we'll fall behind and lose our market edge, and that investment has been rules out time and again at a UK level. It's independence or bust for our market)

Gotlieb Alexander

10-12-2008, 22:32

1) they are not being done within the UK.

2) the point wasn't which they would be better for, but that scotland could be viable economically, which you have just conceded it could.

(oh, and just as a matter of interest, despite having the biggest potential for energy in europe, the govt of the UK has adopted a pro nuclear policy with a paltry £40 million going to wave renewables research p.a. - france, with less than a fifth of our potential had ten times the budget. If investment doesn't come soon we'll fall behind and lose our market edge, and that investment has been rules out time and again at a UK level. It's independence or bust for our market)

1) They could be, and I see no reason why an independent Scotland would do it.

2) Your point was that any economy can be viable if it uses a few simple measures, and independence for Scotland needn't be a stepping stone to reform of corporation tax.

Yes, we have the greatest potential for rubbish energy in europe, therefore we are investing in energy that works instead. If you want Scotland to be run by a windmill then good look to you but I guess we'll have a lot less ScotNat debate on here on still days. But aside from the energy debate, you still haven't said why these measures would work in an Independent Scotland any more that in the UK under a different government (A lot of these are in the conservative plan)

Paul

10-12-2008, 22:37

On the flipside of the coin, the UK would lose a source of revenue, but when you consider what it contributes to us in terms of international representation, the military etc. Stands to make a slight profit (I don't know how much, but I doubt it's much more than a billion) because of the cuts in these services it can have without us tagging along.

Do you think the UK would lose its delusions of grandeur and cut its level of international representation [only really on a EU Fisheries level] and armed forces [only by the 5000 troops in the Royal Regiment of Scotland and emm maybe 3 ships].

Liam Hannan

10-12-2008, 23:02

1) They could be, and I see no reason why an independent Scotland would do it.

Because it's in the economic plan for an independent scotland

2) Your point was that any economy can be viable if it uses a few simple measures, and independence for Scotland needn't be a stepping stone to reform of corporation tax.

It isn't, the reform is to make the economy viable. not the other way around, as far as we're concerned the economy exitsts to serve the people, not vice versa.

Yes, we have the greatest potential for rubbish energy in europe, therefore we are investing in energy that works instead. If you want Scotland to be run by a windmill then good look to you but I guess we'll have a lot less ScotNat debate on here on still days. But aside from the energy debate, you still haven't said why these measures would work in an Independent Scotland any more that in the UK under a different government (A lot of these are in the conservative plan)

The Scottish tories haven't been prominent on these plans, and have been backing nuclear to the hilt - are they out of waac or indicative of the UK party?

(And you just summed up the attitude of england which is why there hasn't been more commitment. The majority of scots believe either it could work or could be made to work. Can you think of a day without wind, waves or solar power? In fact, is there ever a day without offshore wind or tidal movements?

the inefficieny of renewables only stacks up when they are used on a small scale)

Gotlieb Alexander

10-12-2008, 23:44

Because it's in the economic plan for an independent scotland

It isn't, it's in the SNP plan, and there is no guarantee or reason why Scotland would vote SNP post-independence.

The Green party are an example of how a political group can campaign for green energy without requiring the slicing up of the country to do it.

The Taxpayers Alliance are an example of how a political group can campaign about the benefits of lower corporation tax without requiring the slicing up of the country to do it.

These proposals have nothing to do with Scottish independence, and are of equal merit regardless of the fate of the UK.

If the UK introduced them all tomorrow then I am sure that the SNP would just come up with another handful of reasons why Scotland should be independent in order to justify their patriotic aims

Liam Hannan

10-12-2008, 23:54

It isn't, it's in the SNP plan, and there is no guarantee or reason why Scotland would vote SNP post-independence.

The Green party are an example of how a political group can campaign for green energy without requiring the slicing up of the country to do it.

The Taxpayers Alliance are an example of how a political group can campaign about the benefits of lower corporation tax without requiring the slicing up of the country to do it.

These proposals have nothing to do with Scottish independence, and are of equal merit regardless of the fate of the UK.

If the UK introduced them all tomorrow then I am sure that the SNP would just come up with another handful of reasons why Scotland should be independent in order to justify their patriotic aims

I think this is about the third or fourth time ive said this: these aren't reasons to go independent - they are a way of making sure we can sustain independence.

Read that again to make sure it sinks in this time.

The Green party in england and the green party in scotland have different measures and goals; in scotland they are having far more effect on the legislative programme.
(they are also two seperate parties, with the Scottish Greens promoting independence as a way to complete energy self sufficiency. Check these things more thoroughly in future, shoudl prevent this sort of mishap)

The tax payers alliance have been singularly ineffective in achieving this aim. Furthermore, the tax cut is not an end, it is a means to an end (see the start of this post), the stattos are suggesting scots wouldn't mind paying a slightly higher level of tax under certain circumstances - provided it was fairly distributed of course.

And, once again, these things are possible within the UK, but have been rejected. The SNP are 110% for, the greent, SSP, and solidarity are all for them, the lib dems are split over them, labour backbenchers admit it's the most prudent way to develop a post independence economy, and there's only been half hearted dismissal of the tories, with some party members admitting it seems a sensible plan.

It appears the parties are reaching a consensus that if independence happens that's the way to go. And that if independence happens they would keep the economy going.

There's a load of other reasons for independence, but economic factors motivate precious few people (there's precious few who can understand them... economics is hard - not that i've an essay due soon and am putting off work because I don't get it or anything)

Gotlieb Alexander

10-12-2008, 23:57

Liam Hannan

10-13-2008, 00:02

Liam, disagreement is not the same as ignorance.

Doesn't the fact that you need radical industrial reform in order for your economy to survive slightly counter the idea that Scotland will be prosperous?

Considering one of the reasons we need that reform is because of a lack of investment from the UK government into industries we're leading in - I don't think so.

Matt. P

10-13-2008, 16:37

I think this is about the third or fourth time ive said this: these aren't reasons to go independent - they are a way of making sure we can sustain independence

So this could is just a theoretical debate? If we do not deny Scotland can support itself independently, but that is (as you pointed out) not a reason for independence, just a testamont to Scotland's strong economy. Surely if these same reforms were pushed through with the UK scotland could become even stronger economically.

So what are the reasons for Scottish independence?

Matt. P

10-14-2008, 09:20

(which is seen as unfrai because it gives a higher per head allocation of government funding than english government has, but fails to take into account both the intense rurality of scotland and the fact that per head we contribute more to the economy than england does).

GDP per capita Scotland - $39,000
GDP per capita England - $38,000

Government spending per head

Scotland - £8623
England £7121

Under my calculations the average Scotsman contributes £500 more to the economy, asnd recieves £1500 more back in taxes.

As for the intense rurality of Scotland, I decided to check the Scottish executives own facts and figures.

Scotland is highly urbanised, with some 82% of the population living in settlements

Gotlieb Alexander

10-14-2008, 10:22

Within England, the regions which get the most spending are the poorest, with a lot more money going to the North-East than the South-East. So if Scotland is as wealthy as they say surely they should get less money?

Liam Hannan

10-14-2008, 14:40

82% of thge population are urbanised - i.e. living in towns of 5,000 or more.

nearly 60% of scotland lives in the greater glasgow area - VERY urban.

Around 10% live in the edinburgh area - Very urban.

the remainder live in places like perth, dundee, aberdene and inverness - bringing you up to about 82%

considering that this is less than 25% of scotlands landmass with around 80% of the population living there, you could argue fairly that these areas are not rural - and I'd agree with you.

You seem to have missed the point though - of intense rurality.

Roughly 75% of scotlands landmass holds 18% of the population; can you contest that this is not intensely rural?