Hazelnut

I read more than I ever care to ever again. I also read the information on and talked to many people who work in life sciences who would have lost jobs once funding was lost. I saw multi million pound contracts go down south and I read company relocation plans and had to start conversations about forced relocation to keep jobs.

You'll never persuade me that a small country with a tiny population, an unstable economy and that is not a member of any international organisations is a place to live. Can we just agree to disagree? I didn't see the point of the referendum in first place as there is no problem with what we have now.

AllenSmith81

Not necessarily. It's true that the Scottish government does not hold the power to call a legally binding referendum in scotland unless Westminster permits it under UK Law. That said there is precedence in international law for an body properly elected by the people of a country, region or area to hold a referendum and make the result of said referendum legally binding in international law. Do I think the Scottish parliament will go this way? no I think they will avoid that at all costs. Even by simply making independence the only policy the SNP stand on in a Scottish election. If they win by a majority of votes then that could be construed as a mandate to negotiate independence from the UK.

All of that feels somewhat underhanded though and I would prefer that we hold another referendum and I wouldnt want to be the elected body that says "No you cant have one".

as for your earlier points - There are plenty of good reasons for independence, some of which we have already explored here, from economic policy control to help set a progressive tax regime that is suited to the commercial environment in Scotland to focusing the resources we do have to deliver the services the scottish people want and not blindly renew weapons we do not want.

The next referendum will only be held when the SNP feel there is a realistic chance of us winning it. Something will need to change in the political landscape for that to happy. The damage caused by another Scottish independence referendum pales into insignificance compared with the cost of the proposed in/out eu referendum.

I think a UK wide Scottish independence referendum could be interesting indeed because the UK government would need to tell England, wales and NI the truth.. which is that economically rUK is better off with Scotland in the Empire.

AllenSmith81

Hazelnut,

if there is one thing the referendum taught me is that I can argue the benefits of independence till I am blue in the face, some people will just not support it and so to you I say, of course we can agree to disagree.

For the benefit of anyone else reading this thread I would like to pick up on a couple of points you have made, but please feel free to ignore them Hazelnut.

The issue around funding for life sciences was due to a feeling that in the event of a new border funding for cross border research would be cut. Could this have happened? sure it could have but it would not have been in the best interests of these research labs or companies to do that. Instead i suspect a workable framework would be setup to share funding and results between the countries, in the same way we do with US and they do with us.

To my knowledge there were no companies who started forced relocation talks with any employees as a result of the referendum. There were one or two is said they might have to, subject to any regulatory cross border agreement. If you are aware of any then please share company names as I would be delighted to reach out to them and ask for formal comment. Lets keep in mind moving organizations like this to a new site would be extremely expensive.

Small countries work very well, look at Luxembourg or any of the other 133 countries of the same size and smaller than Scotland. Ask for international organization membership we already had confirmation from the UN and IMF that they would recognize an independent Scotland and I suspect the EU and NATO would have also fallen in line too once a yes vote was secured.

Ask for if there is a problem with the current settlement, I guess that's a reflection of how you view yourself in Scotland. From the basic needs - i.e. the rise of food banks, the bedroom tax etc - to the constitutional - i.e. 94% of all seats elected in scotland are filled by one party yet scotland still gets a party it didnt vote for thrust upon it. So there is a reasonable proportion of the population who may not agree with the statement there is nothing wrong with what we have.

Anyway Hazelnut I appreciate you dont want to get into this and please my intention was to pick up on issues you raised for the benefit of the thread not to keep this dragging on for you.

Allen

Pulaski

That is somewhat the problem of living in a democracy. You can devide a country in two equal parts in a huge number of different ways and then argue that one part has foisted a government on the whole country that the other part didn't vote for. The urban centers have a nasty habit of voting for Labour who then enact legislation on the rural areas - fox hunting being a case in point. But the biggie, as it happens relates to Scotland, because without the Scottish Labour MPs most of the Labour governments wouldn't have existed - I think that since WWII only Tony Blair at the height of his popularity would have been able to form a Labour government, so there is long history of Scotland foisting a government on England.

Has anyone mentioned recently the average size of Scottish constituencies compared to those in England? I am sincerely hoping that the quid pro quo for more devotion is a level playing field in the size of constituencies north and south of the border.

holly_1948

The most obvious division would be the line from the Bristol Channel to the Wash.
If we had divided that way in 1951 we would have had a Tory government continuously in the South. And never had a Tory government in the North.

Which surely would have been better than what happened.

Pulaski

Except my point above is that you'd have an almost identical outcome if your Wash-Bristol channel line were moved northwards all the way to the Scottish border. I.e. England and Wales without Scotland has a natural Conservative leaning.

not2old

Constituency breakdown across the UK

There are currently:

533 constituencies in England
59 in Scotland
40 in Wales, and
18 in Northern Ireland.

Electorate

The typical size of constituencies differs between parts of the UK. The Office for National Statistics gives the median total parliamentary electorate across constituencies of about 72,400 in England, 69,000 in Scotland, 66,800 in Northern Ireland and 56,800 in Wales.

Electoral Statistics for UK, 2013 - ONS


its all in the number of votes

United Kingdom general election, 2015 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Elections in Scotland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

formula

She has before. Whipped up a storm in Scotland about voting SNP and what she would do to the English, while forgetting that the English would vote to stop that. Her dream of ruling with Labour in a coalition government was then over and now the SNP sit on the toothless oppostion side representing their 1.8 million voters. She did the Conseratives work for them.

Cutting Scotland loose now would mean the end of Labour.

not2old

With only one seat there, Labour has no foothold in Scotland

Elections in Scotland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of course with 56 seats the SNP in 3rd place way behind Labour.

United Kingdom general election, 2015 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As for the number of votes the SNP received, that puts them 5th in the pecking order

From those two points, could the SNP totally be ignored in Westminster by the toffs?

Pulaski

The fact that the SNP has reached its maximum potential means that yes, it can be largely ignored. The fact that many more people voted for the UKIP, scattered across the country, means despite only having one MP the UKIP is more likely to impact government policy.

formula

Now they have, thanks to Sturgeon and her claims.

They lost a lot of seats in England too and not just the marginals in this election, also thanks to Sturgeon and her claims. Labour have gone right back to just the seats they use to have in England in their dark days.

Labour would never allow England to have devolved powers too as the other 3 union countries have because Labour would never rule England as they don't get enough seats. England is Conservative. This would mean that if Labour ever agreed to England ruling herself not only would they not rule England but a Labour UK government would then not have the power to change much. They always needed those Scottish seats to change laws in England and the UK.

Hence why with the Conservatives now in a majority government, by cutting Scotland loose it would see the end of Labour as a UK government.

formula

I can't see all those areas on the election map down to the Humber, wanting to become Scottish. In addition to that, some of those areas have always been Tory safe seats.

Look at the images of the 2015 election maps: it's a sea of blue below the Scottish border.

formula

They are in the toothless opposition benches. They did not get to join Labour to form a UK government. Sturgeon did her part in giving Conservatives a majority to form the UK government. I'm sure Sturgeon will keep reminding everyone about her 1.8 million voters though.

It looks like the SNP MPs have already had their first big battle in Westminster by trying to bully a Labour MP but picked on the wrong 83 year old, Labour's firecracker MP Dennis Skinner. They should have done their homework #twats. Skinner sent them away with a flea in their ear about Scotland still wanting to keep the extra money from the Barnett formula, with much laughter from the rest of the MPs.


Labour's Dennis Skinner WINS fight with SNP to keep Commons seat | Daily Mail Online

Dennis Skinner wins Westminster turf war against the SNP - Spectator Blogs

holly_1948

That's a myth.

Labour gained more seats than Labour lost in England and Wales. LAB gained 10 seats from CON (more than the 8 seats that CON gained from LAB). And LAB also gained from LD.

This election is in many ways like the 1951 election as regards England & Wales. LAB gained from both LIB and CON. But CON gained many more votes from Liberals (in 1951) or LibDems (in 2015).

The Labour Party did not lose seats overall in England and Wales. But Labour Party did lose heavily in Scotland. And the Conservative Party gained massively from the collapse of the LibDems.

CON gain from LAB (8)
Vale of Clwyd, Telford, Southampton Itchen, Gower, Plymouth Moor View, Corby, Morley & Outwood, Derby North,

CON gain from LD (22)
Brecon & Radnorshire, Kingston & Surbiton, Eastleigh, Sutton & Cheam, Bath, Torbay, Twickenham, Cheltenham, Hazel Grove, Somerton & Frome, Thornbury & Yate, Solihull, Portsmouth South, Lewes, Devon North, Taunton Deane, Cheadle, St Austell & Newquay, Dorset Mid & Poole North, Chippenham, Wells, St Ives

CON gain from UKIP (1)
Rochester & Strood,

LAB gain from CON (10)
Ealing Central & Acton, Ilford North, Enfield North, Wirral West, Brentford & Isleworth, Wolverhampton South West, Chester City, Dewsbury, Hove, Lancaster & Fleetwood,

LAB gain from LD (12)
Burnley, Redcar, Brent Central, Cardiff Central, Hornsey & Wood Green, Bermondsey & Old Southwark, Norwich South, Manchester Withington, Birmingham Yardley, Bradford East, Cambridge, Bristol West,

Moses2013