CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

White Paper (THE #indyref thread)

(2915 posts)
  • Started 11 years ago by Morningsider
  • Latest reply from chdot
  • This topic is closed

1…678…98

  1. Roibeard
    Member

    @crowriver - yep, I'm happier now... There's no denying colonial oppression varied substantially and Ireland was treated markedly differently than Wales or Scotland by the "British" establishment, but wider European forces were at work, alongside basic tribalism (even today).

    "Their sort killed my uncle, so I will kill their sort."

    I dislike any of the simplifications, Protestant v Catholic, British v Irish, as they're all dreadful oversimplifications.

    Now to return to your regularly scheduled thread...

    Robert

    Posted 10 years ago #

  2. crowriver
    Member

    Dragging the Irish history question into the contemporaneous debate, the current UK Chancellor is of course an Anglo-Irish aristocrat and heir to the Baronetcy of Ballentaylor and Ballylemon. I presume the Osborne Baronets were dispossessed of their estates in Ireland after 1921, but the title remains. His ancestor, Richard Osborne, "was a Joint Clerk of the King's Court of Ireland between 1616 and 1629 and was created 1st Baronet Osborne, of Ballintaylor and Ballylemon, County Waterford, in the Baronetage of Ireland, on 15 October 1629." (Wiki)

    "King James I created the hereditary Order of Baronets in England on 22 May 1611, for the settlement of Ireland. He offered the dignity to 200 gentlemen of good birth, with a clear estate of £1,000 a year, on condition that each one should pay a sum equivalent to three years' pay to 30 soldiers at 8d per day per man (total – £1,095) into the King's Exchequer." (Wiki)

    Baronets of Ireland "were first created in 1619, and were replaced by the Baronetage of the United Kingdom in 1801." (Wiki)

    "The Baronetage of the United Kingdom started with the formation of the United Kingdom in 1801, replacing the Baronetage of Great Britain. " (Wiki)

    Posted 10 years ago #

  3. crowriver
    Member

    Correction: the Irish estates were still owned by (another branch of) the Osborne family until the 1940s.

    "NEWTOWN ANNER HOUSE (above), near Clonmel, County Tipperary, is a two-storey late-Georgian house with a nine-bay front, the three outer bays breaking forwards and elevated an extra storey above the centre block.

    Newtown Anner was formerly a seat of the Osborne Baronets; as was Beechwood Park in County Tipperary.

    The doorway has engaged columns and a large semi-circular fanlight over the door and side-lights; with a curved two-storey bow at the side.

    The Osbornes purchased the Newtown Anner estate from Clonmel Corporation in 1774, though the present house dates from 1829.

    Newtown Anner passed eventually to the 12th Duke of St Albans, grandson of Ralph and Catherine Bernal (nee Osborne). It was occupied by the Duchess of St Albans in 1906 and still in that family's possession in the early 1940s.

    It is now thought to be the home of Nigel Cathcart."

    http://lordbelmontinnorthernireland.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/the-osborne-baronets.html

    http://igscork.blogspot.co.uk/2010_07_01_archive.html

    Posted 10 years ago #

  4. Instography
    Member

    But I hear we'll be using Sterling regardless.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  5. crowriver
    Member

    How they are connected, part 14, episode 67:

    "William Beauclerk, 8th Duke of St Albans (18 December 1766 – 17 July 1825) was the son of Aubrey Beauclerk, 5th Duke of St Albans.
    He married, firstly, Charlotte Thelwell (c. 1769 – 19 October 1797), on 20 July 1791.
    He married, secondly, Maria Janetta Nelthorpe (c. 1779 – 17 January 1822), on 4 March 1799. They had thirteen children:"

    (snip) One of the thirteen:

    "Lady Mary Noel Beauclerk (28 December 1810 – 29 November 1850), married Thomas Corbett and had issue. Descendants include Samantha Cameron, wife of Conservative Leader and British Prime Minister David Cameron."

    It's a small world, the British aristocracy.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  6. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    All this talk of Baronets reminds me of one of the biggest ironies of the IndyRef. Better Together have tried to spin Yes Scotland as a campaign to have Alex Salmond run Scotland forever, but of course the actual outcomes are these;

    Yes Vote; We get whoever we vote for.

    No Vote; Alastair Darling is enobled as Lord Darling of North Britain and participates in the government of Scotland until he dies.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  7. chdot
    Admin

    In view of Ireland related thread drift (above) -

    "

    Is this the M.P.L.A or
    Is this the U.D.A or
    Is this the I.R.A
    I thought it was the UK
    Or just another country

    "

    Posted 10 years ago #

  8. crowriver
    Member

    You missed:

    "another council tenancy."

    Posted 10 years ago #

  9. wee folding bike
    Member

    Just back from seeing John Swinney and Dennis Canavan in Coatbridge. Standing room only.

    Mr Swinney got the train to Airdrie. Nobody else had a bike with them.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  10. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    Mrs Saddle was at a conference in Glasgow the other day, where Salmond spoke the first day and Darling on the second. Packed on day one, tumbleweed on day two.

    Whatever the relative merits of the arguments, Yes Scotland is genuine grass roots stuff, Better Together very much a top-down operation. Hard to get excited about the UK.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  11. allebong
    Member

    While I lack the energy and motivation to get fully drawn into political threads, I did come across a comment on the Grauniad that should go down well here:


    Scottish independence according to deadline Salmond is pretty much like cyclists in London.

    We can do whatever we want, jump lanes, go through straight red, cheat and endanger everything starting with our health and life...and everyone else will have to help us, do everything we want and watch out for us while we do our thing. Otherwise you are bullies, aggressive, racist, cyclophobes, road raging.

    In a nutshell.

    Right, I'll be leaving now, have fun....

    Posted 10 years ago #

  12. Charterhall
    Member

    Glad to see I'm not the only one predicting the exit of all three of Scotland's financial services big hitters. From Robert Peston, citing Standard & Poor -"Or to put it another way, S&P thinks there is a pretty good chance that Lloyds and Royal Bank of Scotland, both of which have their legal homes in Scotland, would also relocate to England"
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26371454

    Posted 10 years ago #

  13. wee folding bike
    Member

    Robert Peston with the hotline to Alastair Darling during the crash? That Robert Peston?

    Did Mr Peston miss out this bit of the S&P report?

    Standard & Poor’s publication today: “Key Considerations For Rating An Independent Scotland”, includes the following assessment:

    Page 3: The Scottish economy is rich and relatively diversified, with 2014 per capita GDP estimated to be US$47,369 (based on the Scottish government's estimates, which include Scotland's geographic share of North Sea output, abbreviated as Scotland (Geographical) in the table above).

    Scottish wealth levels are comparable to that of the U.K. ('AAA'), Germany ('AAA'), Ireland ('BBB+'), and New Zealand ('AA-').

    Even excluding North Sea output and calculating per capita GDP only by looking at onshore income, Scotland would qualify for our highest economic assessment. Higher GDP per-capita, in our view, gives a country a broader potential tax and funding base to draw from, which supports creditworthiness.

    SL are getting themselves in a position to deal with the problems which might be caused by Westminster playing silly blighters but it's far from saying they will definitely leave.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  14. Charterhall
    Member

    The more that Salmond and Swinney highlight the need for England and Scotland to work together to address the challenges called out by SL and S&P the more they unwittingly highlight the benefits of staying in the Union.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  15. wee folding bike
    Member

    Lots of countries work together. Would you say the French should be run by Germany because they share a land border and have roads crossing it?

    Posted 10 years ago #

  16. Charterhall
    Member

    What a ridiculous question. No-one is saying that Scotland should be run by England. And a 300 year old union has created interdependencies between the two countries that are a great deal more complex than sharing a border.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  17. wee folding bike
    Member

    You see the Union as a partnership of equals?

    Westminster doesn't.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  18. Charterhall
    Member

    The Union isn't perfect and there is room for improvement. Within the Union those improvements could be made without the huge social and economic risks of partition.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  19. chdot
    Admin

    "Within the Union those improvements could be made without the huge social and economic risks of partition."

    Yes, but the key word is "could".

    If the Westminster politicians/BetterTogether were smarter/less arrogant, they could have achieved so many positive things.

    Even if there is a "No" vote the net gain to England/Scotland/UK will be negative.

    The spin may blame the SNP/Salmond. To some extent that will stick - with some justification - but I suspect 'history' (if suitably impartial) will judge differently.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  20. crowriver
    Member

    A couple of alternative perpectives you won't hear or read via the BBC:

    "From our vantage point we both fully expected that the Bullingdon chaps would bring the artillery to bear on the Scots and have a big grown up conversation with their tartan teenagers about the realities of the UK. This is the talk that the Westminster elite had to have with secessionist types in Ireland a century ago. The Etonians tasked with dealing with Paddy during the Home Rule crisis clearly did not think they were dealing with equals."

    http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2014/02/25/the-os-bourne-identity/

    Read all about it! Unionists not keen on Scottish independence, threaten to leave. Details the affiliations of Standard Life executives...

    http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2014/02/tories-campaign-against-scottish-independence-shock/

    Posted 10 years ago #

  21. crowriver
    Member

    Oh, and here's that S&P report in full, minus the media spin:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/209646043/Standard-and-Poor-s-Key-Considerations-For-Rating-An-Independent-Scotland

    Posted 10 years ago #

  22. slowcoach
    Member

    S&P: "In short, the challenge for Scotland to go it alone would be significant, but not unsurpassable"
    - hardly a strong endorsement of the claims made by some in favour of going it alone. And with all the uncertainties and qualifications in the report, it certainly doesn't change my opinion that it just wouldn't be worth taking all the risks.

    I've seen more than enough re-organisations to be convinced that any benefits seldom live up to the promises of those making the changes, and the problems following on from the changes can be worse than expected.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  23. wee folding bike
    Member

    slowcoach, how about the risks of staying with Westminster?

    Posted 10 years ago #

  24. crowriver
    Member

    Here's what we'll get if Scotland votes no in September:

    "Their grand plan motors on in bad times and in better, driven by the ideological imperative that powers the modern Conservative party. That plan says the public sector will shrink in perpetuity, as David Cameron told Guildhall last month. George Osborne has boasted of a million public sector jobs already gone, with more to follow. His scheme outlined for 2018 will see public spending pushed back by 16 years, to 2002 levels. Beyond that if the Tories win again expect a perpetual freeze so that as GDP grows the size of the state falls to something closer to the 30% that visionary rightwingers, such as Oliver Letwin, always advocated."

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/05/osborne-autumn-statement-economic-election

    'Speaking to Wales Online in 2010, Mr Cameron said: "We do think the Barnett formula is coming to the end of its life. But the assurance I would give to people is that if you replace the Barnett formula you have to replace it with a needs-based formula ..." '

    and

    'Gordon Henderson, the MP for Sittingbourne and Sheppey, said: "There is increasing resentment within England about this – there is a feeling that we are treated less favourably," He added: "The Barnett Formula is well out of date and needs to be scrapped entirely."

    In July 2012 Mr Henderson said: "It is simply wrong that English taxpayers are being asked to help subsidise for people living in Scotland a range of services not available in England, including free prescriptions, free hospital parking, free accommodation in care homes and free university tuition fees.

    "There is widespread agreement that the Barnett formula has to be scrapped and replaced with a fairer system. Indeed, the House of Lords made it clear a couple of years ago that the formula was not fit for purpose.

    "Something has to be done before the justifiable resentment felt by many people about the unfair subsidy English taxpayers are expected to contribute towards superior services north of the border, manifests itself in an anti-Scots backlash." '

    http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-economy/8484-p4bn-cut-to-scottish-budget-looms-as-cameron-letter-fails-to-curb-barnett-fears

    Posted 10 years ago #

  25. slowcoach
    Member

    wfb: yes there are risks of staying in UK but I've got used to them and they don't seem so risky as splitting.

    Crowriver: that seems a small risk (although with serious consequences in the unlikely event they happen) rather than a certainty of voting no. I'm hoping the Tories and LibDems will be out of power soon, and sooner than I'd expect separation to be sorted if there is a majority for it.

    Would this be a good thing? "The boss of British Airways has said he expects hundreds of thousands of people to drive from England to Scotland to avoid air passenger duty (APD) if Scotland become independent." http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/feb/28/ba-willie-walsh-scotland-air-passenger-duty

    Posted 10 years ago #

  26. wee folding bike
    Member

    Continued and further austerity. Privatised NHS. End of free education. Out of the EU. Nigel Farage.

    And worst of all…. Noel Edmonds.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  27. crowriver
    Member

    "in the unlikely event they happen"

    Well this is the crux of this whole debate, isn't it?

    The no camps say this will happen, that will happen, the sky will fall in and molten lava will cover the whole of Scotland if we vote yes.

    They are less keen on acknowledging the uncertainty of what might happen if Scotland votes no.

    To believe that it is unlikely that Conservative policies will be implemented after a no vote requires a belief that:

    a. A Conservative led coalition will not be in power in October 2014 (demonstrably a false assumption).
    b. The Conservatives are unlikely to form the next UK government after the 2015 election.

    If you believe b above to be true, then you must believe it is likely that Labour will form the next UK government. I have to ask, just how likely is that?

    Posted 10 years ago #

  28. crowriver
    Member

    "The boss of British Airways has said he expects hundreds of thousands of people to drive from England to Scotland to avoid air passenger duty (APD) if Scotland become independent."

    Arguably this is somewhat better for CO2 emissions than those people flying. I presume a fair proportion would, in fact, continue to fly. Some will take the train instead.

    It would cause more congestion on motorways and A roads, which might persuade some people to train it. Might even make Regional Eurostar a viable proposition.

    So not really a disaster in my book. Flying from the central belt to England or Wales is ridiculous anyway, unless connecting to a long haul flight in London for example.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  29. wee folding bike
    Member

    I'm not even convinced flying saves much time if you're going to London.

    You need to get to the airport, check in, get on the plane, and then find yourself in Heathrow or Stanstead.

    The train gets you to the city centre. So does the bus, my preferred option, but it takes a bit longer.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  30. gembo
    Member

    I wouldn't think the runway at Edinburgh could cope with volume of All the planes needed to cope with all the passengers heading north. Willie Walsh, ever the opportunist just trying to exercise leverage to have the tax dropped

    Posted 10 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

1…678…98

Topic Closed

This topic has been closed to new replies.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin