You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Standard Life weigh in with a statement which essentially says a Yes vote means they're going to relocate large parts of the business to England:
[url= http://www.standardlife.com/utility/customer_statement-2.html ]Std Life market update[/url]
grum - Member
So how does 'independence' but being in a currency union with a much bigger economy help with that?
It doesn't obviously - in fact it coflicts, the elephant in the room that cannot be rejected. Mark Carney laid it our clear yesterday in a way that is a close as possible for a technocrat to say - please stop spouting bllx.
Then we have lawyers in the FT, nice and clearly refuting the it's our pound/BOE argument (no to both) and good old standard life clearing things up. But the sickly candy floss is more palatable than the facts.
For a supposedly centre left party, the SNP has some remarkably RW policies - further right than Westminster.
Two friends were having a debate on Facebook last night.
Everything on Facebook is nonsense.
That is sophist at best.
The numbers dont lie ; Scotland has the govt that England voted for.
You can spin it how you like but it wont make my point untrue.
Fact remains England picks Scotlands govt almost every time, and will do in the Union, hence the calls for independence get louder as Tory MP's get fewer.
It's really not.
The UK population (including Scotland) picks the UK government - the UK includes Scotland. That's not spinning anything it's just a fact. Talking about what would happen [i]if[/i] Scotland was a separate country isn't really the point because it currently isn't.
Never mind the fact that they also get their own Parliament.
The northern industrial heartlands often gets the government the rest of the country votes for - but no-one suggest they should go independent, because it would be daft.
SL's new Southern address was flagged here many pages ago, along with the typical yS rejections of the blatantly obvious.
For a supposedly centre left party, the SNP has some remarkably RW policies - further right than Westminster.
Like what?
Yes, the Standard Life story isn't a new story, it's an old story dragged up again because Better Together can't give up on Project Fear.
There's going to be a lot more of this in the next few days.
It is a new story today in the sense that the market update was issued today stating which parts of their business would relocate, not just that they're thinking about it. i.e. it isn't a threat - it is a statement.Yes, the Standard Life story isn't a new story, it's an old story dragged up again because Better Together can't give up on Project Fear.There's going to be a lot more of this in the next few days.
Like what?
Don't they plan to keep corporation tax permanently 3% under whatever the rUK's is? Doesn't sound a policy fit for the brave new socialist utopia some are expecting.
Anyway, sorry to keep going on about this, but I heard a Chap on TV saying it this morning.....'we can have a 'fairer society', and I just don't understand what they are expecting to be different/fairer?
I mean, it seems to me that the UK over the past 25 yrs at least, has made massive improvements in all the help we give the needy, disabled etc. To the point where a lot of people depended on it, which was never the plan.
Its all well and good employing the politics of envy and adopting a tax regime to increase the top tax against the wealthy, but those people will just go somewhere else, if they think they are being unfairly treated.
We all know, you can't please all the people, all the time, but think the UK has made a decent stab at it so far.
Yes, the Standard Life story isn't a new story, it's an old story dragged up again because Better Together can't give up on Project Fear.There's going to be a lot more of this in the next few days.
They're just copying the Yes brigade rehashing old oil field discoveries 'news'
I mean, it seems to me that the UK over the past 25 yrs at least, has made massive improvements in all the help we give the needy, disabled etc.
I take it you haven't been keeping up with current affairs since this government came into power then?
Sadly it does. A lot of people voting yes because they think they hate the English.
Hang on - according to most of the Yes voters on here that is utter nonsense and only peddled by nasty English No campaigners. But I believe you're Scottish - how can this be?
Everything on Facebook is nonsense.
This is the overriding thing I've learnt from this whole thing, people will believe and repost any old nonsense on Facebook even if the source is someone's imagination/ass. Even really rather intelligent people have been suckered into it which has surprised me.
bencooper - Member
Yes, the Standard Life story isn't a new story, it's an old story dragged up again because Better Together can't give up on Project Fear.
But happily rejected on here
There's going to be a lot more of this in the next few days.
True along with money transfers.
It's the real world now
What exactly do they deter?
@kona, a conventional war
I take it you haven't been keeping up with current affairs since this government came into power then?
@grum, if we don't fix the overspending we can't help anyone. Any social care programme has to make choices, we don't have an infinite budget. If the "poor"/NHS/... are suffering today it is the prior government who should take significant responsibility as they got things very badly wrong.
The last couple have been highly questionable, but not all of them.
Given we have not been invaded fro a millennia our armed forces have almost exclusively been used for aggression rather then defence.
I think that is KB point as well
Of the last 20 general elections, the majority in Scotland voted for the same party that won in Westminster 13 times. So 65% of the time Scotland got the government it voted for.
You mean sometimes scotland and england agree . I never said that I said England decide. and your point is slightly different to what I said
The UK population (including Scotland) picks the UK government - the UK includes Scotland. That's not spinning anything it's just a fact
My point was england decided you did not negate that fact you merely pointed out it is a UK wide vote when the UK votes.
I dont think that negates my point.
What we are asking is which country decides the outcome - or if you prefer how often does england get the govt they vote for - MPs not %- comapred to scotland
Genuine question - has there been any time where the majority of MP's in england has been different from the overall parliament?
It will be very few compared to scotland and I doubt scotland has decided more than once or twice ever and certainly not since the 60's.
The northern industrial heartlands often gets the government the rest of the country votes for - but no-one suggest they should go independent, because it would be daft.
Who says it is daft? Does it need explaining why a region is not a country?
FWIW i support federalism anyway and many countries dont think it is daft even if you do
Adding to grum's point KB, we have the idea of a banking sector without a lender of last resort with yS advocating work done by the libertarian Adam Smith Institute.
Ballsy free market stuff than not even Mrs T would have dared suggest despite carrying round hayek's road to serfdom in her handbag. The SNP out Maggie, Maggie the very person they demonise.
Genuine question - has there been any time where the majority of MP's in england has been different from the overall parliament?
@JY but with 90% of the population that's what you'd expect. We are all in the UK, the UK gets the government it voted for.
[i]You think our nuclear subs need to surface to re arm/resupply at Faslane?
Yes, where do you think they do it?[/i]
The older jetty is known as the Polaris Jetty, while the newer, covered Explosive Handling Jetty (EHJ) is used for handling Trident warheads.[1]
What exactly do they deter?
@kona, a conventional war
They didn't deter conventional war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact, they just displaced it to Latin America, Africa and Asia and encouraged the use of proxies. The idea of the Cold War as the long peace is a con.
Just to follow up on TMH's comment. Credit Suisse published some research today suggesting there would be a run on Scottish financial institutions as customers moved their money into UK banks due to uncertainties over whether their deposits would be protected. This would create a big stress as anyone with a mortgage on a Scottish property from a UK bank would be well advised to move it to a Scottish bank. This will happen at just the time that Scottish banks (whoever they may be) have less money and no central bank to support them.
@kona, I see that as preventing a conventional war at home and the separate issue of trying to protect/establish interests abroad.
[i]Who says it is daft? Does it need explaining why a region is not a country?
FWIW i support federalism anyway and many countries dont think it is daft even if you do[/i]
Careful, you'll have MT back shortly, spouting his Freedom for Yorkshire stuff.
I could suggest freedom for Surrey as my wealth would rocket, but its not realistic, we are part of England, part of GB....I don't hate everyone else because we pay MUCH more per capita than anyone else.
The older jetty is known as the Polaris Jetty, while the newer, covered Explosive Handling Jetty (EHJ) is used for handling Trident warheads
Aha, you're going for the smartarse answer - yes, technically the subs rearm at Coulport - which, along with Faslane, makes up HMNB Clyde.
our armed forces have almost exclusively been used for aggression rather then defence.
You seriously putting WWII in the illegitimate aggression category? Really? And the UN peacekeeping missions we've been on?
Does it need explaining why a region is not a country?
Yes.
But you wouldn't be alive. Nuclear weapons just mean if you're dead so is everyone else.
And that's exactly why they are a deterrent!
molgrips - MemberBy quoting dictionary definitions we all know? Surely you mean 'let me be an arse cos I can't actually help?'
No, by saying "you know what it means already so why are you asking". Usually I wouldn't dignify a post like his with a response but some people take silence as a confirmation that they're right.
[i]Aha, you're going for the smartarse answer [/i]
If you like.....now about the 'fairer society'?
[i]No, by saying "you know what it means already so why are you asking". Usually I wouldn't dignify a post like his with a response but some people take silence as a confirmation that they're right.[/i]
Me Northwind? 'dignify a post like mine'.....nice!
I even tried to add a bit of perspective to help him along, including MY thoughts about our already pretty fair society, to respond to... but still waiting to an answer!
Edit: just re read and don't think you meant me. 😳
No, by saying "you know what it means already so why are you asking".
What I'm asking is, SPECIFICALLY in actual practical terms, what does 'fairer society' mean?
Wealth redistribution?
Equality of opportunity?
How far do those things need to go?
Is the 'fairer society' just another glib SNP buzz word to trot out, which in reality is as meaningless as 'we're keeping the pound'
I think it really does boil down to, we don't like you, we don't like being told what to do, so we're off to boil our heads if necessary, just to spite you.
Fairer society- things like free higher education encouraging kids from poorer backgrounds to go to university. Things like not introducing housing benefit changes that actually cost the country money, purely to punish the poor. Things like not treating people like dirt for being disabled, or withdrawing legal aid for family disputes, welfare and employment issues.
oldbloke - MemberStandard Life weigh in with a statement which essentially says a Yes vote means they're going to relocate large parts of the business to England:
You should probably read it tbh, because it doesn't say that at all.
"Fairer Society", IMO what this means to the average man
High Income earners - I will pay more tax, possibly a lot more
Middle Income earners - good news, the less well off will be protected at no cost to me, someone else will pay. In fact as I am not rich I will probably get a tax break too.
Low Income earners - great news I will be better off via lower taxes
Unemployed - outstanding I will be given more money
I guaranty you the vast majority of people do not think a fairer society is one where equal opportunity is the primary policy tool
Northwind there is very little evidence that student fees discourage people form going to university, it has much more to do with social sterio-typing in their own communities, there is a lack of aspiration to do well at school/college as they don't see their peer group striving for that. Free University in Scotland isn't delivering a social revolution is it ? The reality is it just keeps more money in the pockets of the middle classes. Student fees are too high but grants and encouraging people to go to Uni are the way to go.
We need to address building of social housing and to ensure it's means tested and not for life. We also need to ensure we have more smaller properties so that we cut down on wasted space within the social housing stock.
Disability benefit has spiralled out of control, its become a catch-all benefit and claimed by those who are not really entitled. It is those people who are taking money away from the most needy.
An iS is actually going to have much mess money to try and address these issues than it does as part of the UK
our armed forces have [b]almost exclusively[/b] been used for aggression rather then defence.
You seriously putting WWII in the illegitimate aggression category? Really? And the UN peacekeeping missions we've been on?
I never used that phrase but we have , pretty much, exclusively waged war in other peoples countries.
Out of a millennia of war you pick that one and a few UN peace keeping missions [ which technically were not wars]. NB the bit I emboldened for you
What % of our wars were done because if we had not done them we would have been conquered/destroyed? What do you think in percentage terms?
Does it need explaining why a region is not a country?
Yes.
No it does not and I am not joining in when you do the molly thing.
I think it really does boil down to, we don't like you, we don't like being told what to do, so we're off to boil our heads if necessary, just to spite you.
Dave has asked you to smother them with love to get them to stay - is this the best you can do for the sake of the Union
Its not true to say that the only motivation is this or that it is the majority motivation. A minority , including the english on here to the scots, dont like the other but it is far from typical.
I guaranty you the vast majority of people do not think a fairer society is one where equal opportunity is the primary policy tool
Ah well if you "guaranty" it, it must be right. Probably a bit of a waste of time asking for any kind of evidence or backup?
exclusively waged war in other peoples countries
JY that's a plus though, if you are going to fight a war you would try and do it elsewhere before that war/conflict has a chance to impact you at home. We have responded to terrorist threats/attacks at home by taking action here and abroad.
Is the 'fairer society' just another glib SNP buzz word to trot out, which in reality is as meaningless as 'we're keeping the pound'
"We're keeping the pound" is meaningless? Is English your first language? The statement may be wrong but it certainly isn't meaningless. Still, that would explain why other simple English phrases like "fairer society" are beyond your comprehension.
We have responded to terrorist threats/attacks at home by taking action here and abroad.
And it's a tactic that has worked so well, eh?
Chances of Scotland voting voluntarily to go to war in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Syria? Pretty low I'd say, except as part of a NATO force (assuming we join)
@BigBut it's a very strong opinion based on speaking to people, observing the debate on here and elsewhere. In many cases the primary evidence of an un-fair society is others, ie the "rich", having too much
Well that speaks volumes. Imo needles conflicts, thousands of civilian deaths, still apparently an high terror threat which is also being used to erode civil liberties. Not what I'd call a success by any means.
t it's a very strong opinion based on speaking to people,e
So that'll be a yes with regard to it being waste of time asking for any supporting evidence? You spoke to someone and read about it on thread with differing opinions. Fact free diets aren't for everyone, I'm happy that you seem to be enjoying yours
You think I don't read what I link to. Interesting. It may use the word "could" but there's no reason to publish it unless it is to satisfy investor concerns over what it will do in the event of a Yes vote. Otherwise its previous statement on contingency planning would have been adequate.you should probably read it tbh, because it doesn't say that at all
Assuming an Independent Scotland does join NATO - what are you going to do with all the troops / aircraft that you will have? Remember that people join the armed forces to fight. Throughout the recruitment process it is made very clear that this is the whole point. You might gain a trade - but the ONLY reason for armed forces is to fight.
All the people I know in the forces (and I live next to Aldershot) understand this and get disappointed when they don't get selected to be deployed. The main problem that they had with the Afgan conflict, was not that they were being deployed, but they did not have enough time at home between deployments
And don't think that by being a small country this won't happen. My cousin is in the Danish Army and was hugely disappointed not to be allowed her second tour in Afghanistan. (During her medicals for deployment they found out that she was pregnant!)
And the whole topic of which army units will be transferred to the Scottish Defence Force has been ignored. This will be interesting as the SNP campaigned for the recent cuts to the Armed Forces to have a minimal impact on the Scottish regiments. Now Scotland is over represented in the Armed Forces. No money in the SDF budget for them
SNP - Tory informal coalition 2007-11 - from the Guardian
[i]Alex Salmond has been accused of total hypocrisy by the former leader of the Scottish Conservatives, Annabel Goldie, for forgetting he enjoyed a long informal coalition with the Conservatives before his landslide election victory.
Goldie, who forged a close working relationship with Salmond as Scottish Tory leader between 2007 and 2011, said the first minister was guilty of double standards for repeatedly attacking Labour's coalition with the Tories in the anti-independence campaign.
Goldie said: "When his political fate depended on us, he didn't think twice before seeking and taking our support. It is quite extraordinary that he's now doing a complete volte-face and now proclaims that the Tories are the worst things on the earth.
"To hear him now dismissing the Tories as the pariah of politics, as the name that dare not be spoken, is to me just utterly incredible and utterly hypocritical."[/i]
Whenever you have a source material, you are immediately asking the obvious questions - who, where, why, what etc.
So you have a major Scottish Institution that tries to maintain political neutrality, giving live information, reflecting actual client concerns and their response in language that they can distribute in news feeds that satisfy various compliance requirements.
It's as close as saying in the event of a yes, we will be shifting significant resources to (100 Cheapside) as we can, and don't worry we are already on top of this.
Standard Life is trying to appear neutral in terms of Yes/No but what it's said is designed to send a very clear message that it will move a significant part of it's business if there is a Yes vote.
Jambalaya - you described progressive taxation, something the UK already does reasonably well on the face of it.
What about VAT? Corporation tax?
Not what I'd call a success by any means.
Hmm yes but you cannot judge that without a) all the information and b) knowing what would have happened had those things not been done.
None of us can know about either of those things.
Assuming an Independent Scotland does join NATO - what are you going to do with all the troops / aircraft that you will have? Remember that people join the armed forces to fight. Throughout the recruitment process it is made very clear that this is the whole point. You might gain a trade - but the ONLY reason for armed forces is to fight.
I'm not sure what your point is. Are you suggesting that if you have an army then it should be used in some way whether there is reason or not? Can't have all those soldiers who've signed up to kill people sitting on their hands getting all frustrated! I think the clue is in the name - Scottish DEFENCE force.
Yup, that could only mean one thing. See Israel Defence Forces for useful naming conventionsScottish DEFENCE force
Hmm yes but you cannot judge that without a) all the information and b) knowing what would have happened had those things not been done.None of us can know about either of those things.
Similar to the Referendum yes/no vote then? 😛
Tbh, the French and Germans did a good job of not getting involved didn't they? There were millions of people marching saying we don't want to get involved in this war and yet we did it anyway. Given the relative size of a SDF our government would be unlikely to have the same reaction.
jambalaya - Member
Standard Life is trying to appear neutral in terms of Yes/No but what it's said is designed to send a very clear message that it will move a significant part of it's business if there is a Yes vote.
Clearly.
But heads remain in the sand......
Can't have all those soldiers who've signed up to kill people sitting on their hands getting all frustrated!
So what are they going to do? Given the only land border is with the UK and we are not going to invade what is the point. If we go the logical point, the only part of the SDF that is needed is an Oil Rig and Fishery Protection Fleet and a few aircraft to assist them.
Soldiers fight, take away the fight and it becomes pointless - see the Japanese Defence Force.
However scrapping the Army does leave money for a fairer society!
And the point about this: We are going on about conventional v nuclear forces. If you start off with the viewpoint that nuclear forces are useless, then follow the argument through about conventional forces. If they are not going to be deployed - they why bother.
Seems to me this whole debate can be summed up:
Yessers: We want change.
Everyone else: What you are planning is seriously risky and problematic
Yessers: Maybe, but it's change so let's do it.
Well, a bit - but the lie is that a No vote is safe and secure. There's risks both ways.
Seems to me this whole debate can be summed up:Yessers: We want change.
Everyone else: What you are planning is seriously risky and problematic
Yessers: Maybe, [s]but it's change[/s] but it can't be much worse than staying here, so let's do it.
Ever been in a job you haven't like and changed just to move, even if it meant a drop in wages?
Ever been in a job you haven't like and changed just to move, even if it meant a drop in wages?
No
Looking a little harder to find the one with better pay and prospects always seemed a better idea.Ever been in a job you haven't like and changed just to move, even if it meant a drop in wages?
And the point about this: We are going on about conventional v nuclear forces. If you start off with the viewpoint that nuclear forces are useless, then follow the argument through about conventional forces. If they are not going to be deployed - they why bother.
You're right. I don't see why Scotland would need a large functioning army. In reality the rUK would never allow Scotland to be invaded by a foreign power anyway so there's really no need. Far better to have an arrangement whereby the rUK defends Scotland in the event of an agressor attacking, and Scotland pays for the protection, with some sort of ongoing contribution acting as a retainer.
jambalaya - MemberNorthwind there is very little evidence that student fees discourage people form going to university,
Not so much. Since the introduction of fees, universities south of the border have thrown huge efforts into widening access (to their credit) but the admissions gap hasn't closed noticably despite that. Meanwhile in scotland, both applications and admissions from disadvantaged kids have increased.
(this is what I do for a job 😉 Widening access is a slow success story in Scotland but we're getting there- college articulations are at a record high, protected places for simd students are increasing every year, contextual admissions policies are in place for most of the scottish universities (maybe now all but there were some lagging last I checked)- still much more to do )
Great idea. Hell, we could even extend that logic to every other aspect of public service provision. Could call it a Union, or something.rUK defends Scotland in the event of an agressor attacking, and Scotland pays for the protection, with some sort of ongoing contribution acting as a retainer
@Northwind, understood and I bow to your greater understanding of the issue and it nuances but the fact the gap hasn't closed is IMO due to the social factors I mentioned.
Great idea. Hell, we could even extend that logic to every other aspect of public service provision. Could call it a Union, or something.
That'd be great! Where we keep full control of everything and pay some cash down south to make it happen? Who's proposing that then? And how long has that offer been on the table? I must of missed it.
Not always possible and sometimes the employer is just so bad you need to move on.
I think we have stretched the metaphor enough.
[quote=molgrips said]Seems to me this whole debate can be summed up:
Yessers: We want change.
Everyone else: What you are planning is seriously risky and problematic
Yessers: Maybe, but it's change so let's do it.
Yes that it is a nutshell You should do a Doctoral thesis
Better to say they want democracy and a fairer society even if the the GDP goes down a bit.
It is like a divorce you are both poorer initially but life goes on and you both end up happier - its not that risky or problematic but it is compared to the status quo.
I'm not sure dazh's suggestion allowed any control. Sort of like the sovereignty debate in a nutshell. maybe.we keep full control of everything
"[i]We're keeping the pound" is meaningless? Is English your first language? The statement may be wrong but it certainly isn't meaningless. Still, that would explain why other simple English phrases like "fairer society" are beyond your comprehension.[/i]
Very cutting Bigbut.....I'm quite distraught! Despite that, it seems just like all the others, you are completely unable to recognise that you have been fed a line...and swallowed the lot. Your contribution to this debate shows your lack of understanding of the bigger picture.
Well if Scotland is attacked we could defend it (*cough* ourselves) by making sure all the fighting takes place there 😉
Great idea. Hell, we could even extend that logic to every other aspect of public service provision. Could call it a Union, or something.
This is the trouble. With a little imagination and creativity there's no reason why a lot of these questions couldn't be sorted out quite easily. What it requires though is both sides to be mature and reasonable, and to recognise the common benefits. In reality though I have little hope of this happening. Instead we'll probably see both sides squabbling over minutiae and cutting their noses off to spite their faces, and this is what worries me the most.
What about VAT? Corporation tax?
The UK tried "progressive" VAT, namely higher rates on Luxury items. That was a disaster for the UK boat building industry with the loss of a lot of skilled jobs as the UK industry was supported by UK buyers who stopped buying. French and Italians kept buying boats in their local markets, the Brits did not. BTW The French can buy a boat via a lease and save the VAT, the government recognizes luxury items like boats actually support working class people's jobs. The UK has VAT free categories and lower rates on certain items in a way that the rest of ht Europe does not. We are already more progressive there.
Corporation Tax. Not sure how we would make that progressive, higher rates just mean companies move abroad and the EU has tied our hands and allowed companies to run rings round most governments (Irish and Luxembourg being beneficiaries). Higher paid employees pay much more employer taxes like National Insurance as it's uncapped, 13% on amounts over 50k (I think that's the threshold)
jambalaya - Member@Northwind, understood and I bow to your greater understanding of the issue and it nuances but the fact the gap hasn't closed is IMO due to the social factors I mentioned.
I'd certainly agree it's a huge consideration, and a really difficult thing to get past. (as someone summed it up to me- middle class kids say "where am I going to uni", not "will I go to uni")
The other thing is, it's just really difficult to make sensible comparisons, the HE environment changes every year (we got record applications this year and all patted ourselves on the back, definitely all down to our hard work, nothing at all to do with the fact that lots of students are going to uni because they don't think they'll get a job!) But the societal factors are generally comparable between scotland and england, and there's a noticable divergence in trends since fee-paying and non-fee-paying started.
(I am not unbiased; I hate this. I was first generation of my family to do any sort of post-school education, it came pretty easily to us but it's harder now, and that's shit)
Don't forget companies don't pay tax - tax is taking money from the employees (opp cost is wages), the customers (prices) or the shareholders (dividends) in isolation or in combination.
Libertarian Alex, seems keen on recusing the tax bill. So he reads Hayek and Nozick before bed. He will be outsourcing NHS services to the private sector next.....
Mainly 13.8% above c. £8k p.a. with no upper limit.Higher paid employees pay much more employer taxes like National Insurance as it's uncapped, 13% on amounts over 50k (I think that's the threshold)
Scottish DEFENCE force.
Just like the UK Ministry of DEFENCE. 😀
It's newspeak init!
There's certainly plenty of duckspeak on here! 🙂
According to Fore live there's a survation poll coming out at 930 tonight.
as someone summed it up to me- middle class kids say "where am I going to uni", not "will I go to uni")
Yes this. My Mum and Dad didn't go to Uni but they certainly encouraged me to do so. I told my kids it was basically compulsory but they chose what they wanted (Economics, Social Policy, Dance). Northwind I think we have found a topic on which we certainly agree the goal if perhaps not the means
Following up on my comment on mortgages the Guardian posted this. [url= http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/sep/10/scottish-independence-create-mortgage-drought ]link (mortgage drought)[/url]
If there is a Yes vote people in Scotland should only borrow from a Scottish entity, Borrowing from one in the UK means they could be asked to repay that loan early (note its happened to me after my lender withdrew from the mortgage market).
Genuine question - has there been any time where the majority of MP's in england has been different from the overall parliament?It will be very few compared to scotland and I doubt scotland has decided more than once or twice ever and certainly not since the 60's.
I'm not keeping up and have just skimmed the last couple of pages, but I don't thin this has been done, and as I know the answer...
Yes, at least three times in the last 20 GEs. Most recently of course was in 2010 - now you can argue as much as you like that we have a Tory government, but we don't we have a coalition and policies have been different as a result (previous to that was I think '74).
So actually all things considered it doesn't seem Scotland suffers that much of a democratic deficit compared to England when it's got the government it voted for 13 times out of 20 against 17 times out of 20. That's 3 times where the wishes of 50 odd million have been overruled by 5 million.
...actually have just checked again and found 4 occasions where a party had a majority in the UK but not in England or vice versa:
http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/ge64/seats64.htm
http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/ge74a/seats74a.htm
http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/ge74b/seats74b.htm
http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/ge10/seats.htm
Following up on my comment on mortgages the Guardian posted this. link (mortgage drought)If there is a Yes vote people in Scotland should only borrow from a Scottish entity, Borrowing from one in the UK means they could be asked to repay that loan early (note its happened to me after my lender withdrew from the mortgage market).
aaargh