Lol and which party should I support if I don't want elites gaming the system?

Excuse this off topic and irrelevant article on 'Scottish history', which to be fair is kinda, let's say, trying to talk about uk politics, but I'd really like to hear anyone's opinion who might take the time to read it. For some reason though, I can't help reading it with Ian Paisley's voice narrating, so it is tricky for me.

Skip the first 6 paragraphs (inb4 skipping all paragraphs) about the indy debate.

With freedom comes responsibility. FWIW I also have pet hate about the "squeezed" middle classes as well as those earning average salaries who claim they are on the breadline, plus other factors that define my political views.

The bottom line is that if a party pledged to put up income tax by 5p for everyone, and the money would go on the NHS and education I'd vote for it. Most people would rather have Sky TV though.

I read it along with a couple of other parts of the series.

There's parts I agree with, certainly accusing the Yes campaign of appealing to emotions while the No campaign built a campaign around scaring people was particularly dishonest.

I also think history is important and having a distinguishable tradition a significant part of what makes Scotland Scotland. There's nothing wrong with calling that out nor calling out the independence tradition but I'm not sure of the relevance to the question posed last year. The reasons wars were fought in history aren't relevant to the question the Scots were given last year. I also doubt whether the Declaration of Arbroath provides sufficient grounds for a constitutional challenge and as such while it's interesting doesn't add much to the current debate.

fwiw I'd have voted Yes had I lived in Scotland and think the Union is better for England than it is Scotland. I would have wanted the Scots to remain in the union if I lived in the rest of the UK for pretty selfish reasons, reducing the chance of future Tory government for one.

Other than trying to keep the blues out of Westminster, which is obviously super subjective, what arguments are there to suggest England benefits more from the union than Scotland does?

Scotland has a higher GDP per person when accounting for North Sea oil. The Scots also account for their share of the national debt for projects there is no appetite for in Scotland, this is true of both Trident and HS2.

There's other considerations like the UK's seat on the UN Security Council would be up for discussion and it would have a weaker position in the EU, whether the English should care about this is debatable.

Do you have a source for either of these?

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-24866266

Is a source for GDP figures, given that the UK leverages national debt against future receipts that the Scots contribute means they sustain some of the burden of this debt.

Dereds, I'm interested in your reasons for this

This is a good article, thanks for sharing it.

What about the Barnett formula? Would that not go some way to redressing the GDP imbalance?

Furthermore, the oil and gas revenue is sure to go down in the future. Whether its the optimistic or conservative estimates, it may not be the best idea to get too wedded to the idea of GDP inclusive of these when in a few decades there will be very little left.

Firstly the English tend to get the Government they voted for. In recent years there are no examples of Westminster Governments ruled by a party that secured fewer seats in England than the opposition. The English generally get the governments they vote for, it's true in 2005 the Conservatives secured more of the popular vote in England but ended up with 91 fewer seats than Labour in England, lol fptp. In any case the English do not have unpopular governments foisted on them by the Scots and this is clearly not true of the Scots.

Secondly the benefits derived from theUnion, a greater say at the UN, the position within the EU and Nato, are greater for the English, if the government at Westminster is often out of step with sentiment in Scotland it's hard to see what benefit they derive from the UK speaking on it's behalf.

Unions seem to privilege the larger partner, understandably but with the result that smaller partners may feel their interests don't receive adequate representation. Given there is already an existent framework, the EU, for England and Scotland's relations as, and to other, independent countries, and given the existent and future devolution of Scottish government I don't know what benefit the Scots get from a layer of government at Westminster.

Dereds, that's assuming that Scotland will be able to continue as a member of the EU without going through a lengthy process first, which is far from clear.

Without oil their GDP is within a couple of hundred £. Conservative estimates of reserves still have a value of 120bn, against a population of 5.5m the taxes derived from that are substantial. You're right it doesn't do to have your nations future prosperity reliant on an undetermined source of income but that's no ones plan. Personally I prefer governments that are better equipped to respond to it's populations needs. This generally means a greater focus on local politics and the Scottish government is closer to the Scottish people.

It does and it's not clear but I am entirely convinced that no one in the EU wants Scotland out of it. Given the motivation to find a way a way will be found.

The EU referendum is actually a pretty interesting issue though given that there is greater anti EU sentiment in England than there is in Scotland.

I've never really bought the idea of Scotland not getting the government they voted for being a compelling argument. The same arguments could be used for the North East of England, Wales etc. It's the nature of our democracy. I don't really see each country or region within the union being seperate entities.

There is a certain irony though in the fact that the current Scottish government are actually reducing political decision making at local levels and centralising it.

We'll I'd be in favour of devolution of significant authority to the regions and this doesn't seem to be the case in England either, the pressure local authorities are coming under to decide on fracking applications being a current case in point.

It's a compelling argument in the presence of an already existing and viable alternative. That there is a Scottish Government with significant powers devolved to it, that the Scots have discrete, legal and political traditions, that they are historically a nation are reasons to consider compelling in their case arguments that aren't compelling in others.

Voting patterns can change though. It's only really been from 1959 onwards that Labour (and now the SNP) have taken the majority of seats and there have been a few Labour governments during that time. If we're using the argument about Scotland historically being a nation then we've also got to, imo, look at how Scotland has voted historically and not just in recent history.

Since 1945 Scotland has been subjected to 40 years of Conservative government at Westminster they returned a majority of Conservative MP's once in that time, 1955 in 1951 they tied Labour. The Conservatives have not secured more than 1 seat in any general election in Scotland since 1997. They have a clear case that Westminster does not adequately represent them.

In 1951 and 1955 the Unionist parties held the majority of the vote (this was the Scottish equivalent of the Conservatives). They also took the majority of votes in 1959 but due to fptp Labour took the most seats. . Although Labour then went on to take the majority of the seats the Conservatives still managed a substantial number of votes. It's only really been since 1997 that it's fallen away substantially.

With regards to them not having had more than 1 seat since 1997, again that is partially due to fptp. If we look at 2001, they managed 360,658 votes and got 1 seat. The Lib Dems got 378,034 votes and took 11 seats.

I just don't think looking at recent history is reason enough to consider it a case for independence. I think the political landscape will go through further big changes in the years to come. Maybe not in the next couple of elections but the ones beyond that.

Only if you attribute all of the benefits of British oil to a single part of Britain. Otherwise gdp per person is pretty close to identical outside of some of London.

It's £300 per head less than the UK average if you exclude oil/gas and £400 more per head if you include a geographic share of oil/gas. That was before the dramatic drop in oil prices though

I don't expect arguments around political representation to be compelling to everyone, they may rank higher or lower depending on how the result reflects my preferences. Doubtless Scottish Tories are delighted with getting Conservative governments they may not get in an independent Scotland but I can understand why they are compelling for some.

Lib Dems seeking to attract Labour MPs

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34305994

I thought it was written by some ****in psycho narcissist who thinks he speaks on behalf of all 'the people'. His idea that he knows how folk felt in medieval times, and even that medieval Scotland is somehow connected to modern day Scotland is ludicrous. Just wondered if it was only me who thought so.

btw a lot of that 'tradition' we in Scotland attribute to 'being Scottish' was manufactured by the elite over the last few hundred years, much like the Scots language was oppressed out of us.

This is something that makes me proud to be Scottish. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015...tml?1442820560