I realise there are very few people on here with an interest in the topic. However - I just wanted to have my say on the matter (politics is allowed here right?). I'm not posting it to stir...I just wanted to say my piece. For those interested then feel free to comment...I'm not going to argue with anyone or try and change anyone's mind or convince anyone...just my thoughts on Independence.
My general political stance is left of centre. It's a curse I've had to bear all my life. Having said that I've never had allegiance to any one party. I generally voted Labour (though I wasn't allowed to vote at all until 1990 as I was in the forces). The political parties in this country have both had great ideas. Unfortunately, they couldn't agree on the colour of shite and so we end up in a cycle of never-ending dismay at missed opportunities. I've watched this country boom and bust so many times it makes me cry a little inside!
Anyway - that's my historical stance.
In 1979 a very "infamous" political leader, Margaret Thatcher, took control of the UK with her party, the Conservatives. I think it's fair to say they were (are?) pretty far right of centre. I also think it's fair to say Britain was in a dire slump at the time.
Given the failure to take control of their own destiny in 1979, Scotland has again been given the chance to do so. I was only young then - but even then I remember it saddened me that Scotland didn't take the chance it had been offered.
This time the vote is for full independence. That's a fully independent Scotland with all that goes with that.
Scotland, historically, has always been more of a Social Democratic country. And this independence vote would allow them to become that country. There have been very few elections in the UK where the Scottish vote has swayed the government put in power and in fact often gets a government that the majority of the people of Scotland do not care for. Such is the political system.
Anyway - my thoughts are these...
My want for Independence for my country is not borne out of a dislike for the English - though that is being used for propaganda reasons.
My want for Independence for my country is not borne out of a dislike for being part of the UK.
I've lived in England since I was 16. I am now 46. I have lots and lots of good English pals. I made a lot in the forces and keep in touch with them through social media sites and meeting for reunions. They understand - unfortunately, the venom being spat out in the media is turning some peoples heads to the more negative aspects.
I was a proud member of Her Majesty's British Army for 7 years. I watched the United Kingdom hold a very successful Olympics event and the British athletes punch above their weight in the medals table. I watched Andy Murray win Wimbledon for Britain. Even though he was ripped apart by the media for a joking comment he made to Tim Henman about the English football team - saying he'd support anyone who played against England, a comment both English and Scottish used towards each other all the time. That same media praised him as "The Best of Britain" - he was finally accepted.
Anyway - I digress.
Scotland for me has always been full of very proud people. We are famous for our friendliness and open hearts. I want Scotland to have governments that carry that torch. And for me - the only way that will come about is through Independence. Taking control of their own government and looking out for their own people and - more than that - giving the people of Scotland a vote - something they do not currently have.
Would Independence be best for Scotland? I think so....I don't know, but I think so. At the very least they could kick the government out when they are being arses - something they don't have the clout to do at the moment.
I'm a very, very proud Scot. I have always been a proud Brit also - but Scotland needs to determine it's own future. It's sick to death of bouncing from one useless left to another useless right and back again. In fact the last Labour government left people wondering where the hell the party for the left had gone!
To all you English, Irish and Welsh out there - I love you all - but I love my country more and I think my country would be better served by a government they put in place.
By the way - I do not get to vote.
Just wanted to air my views. I love you all xx
One last thing - what I hope for - most of all - whether you vote Yes or No is that the Scottish electorate get off their arses and get to vote. The UK voting system has dampened peoples desire to change government - they've become disillusioned and I hope that changes for this referendum.
i wouldnt feel so bad about it
except
when/if it all goes tits up youll come south of the border and say 'we're sorry, can we have some money please' your tax income does not cover your planned expenditure in any way whatsoever
if the iran navy turns up to blockage edinburgh - what are you going to use to unblock it?
you want BACK PAYMENTS on the north sea oil and gas?????????????????????????????? fine, can we have 300 years back payments on defending you and paying for you
ps - i love the Scots and Scotland - i wasnt even aware of nationalist animosity until i was up there and gave a guy in a highlands monsoon a lift to phone box (before mobiles) because his car had cut out in a flood, he made the call and i waited, he got back in to take him to his car and he said 'you didnt have to wait', i told him i didnt expect him to walk back in the weather, he just shrugged and said 'i thought all you english were wankers' and laughed
What are the practical aspects of independence for Scotland? Does it's government function in a semiautonomous fashion now as regards to internal matters such as taxation and healthcare? Does it already have some kind of internal national police or investigative service such as the FBI or, ehem, Scotland Yard?
I'm curious as to the economic situation. The company I work for is based in Glasgow but has a worldwide reach; I'd be concerned about economic impact/business taxation/that sort of thing.
Not that I wouldn't support you guys either way - you should determine your own destiny of course after having all the facts on the table. I just love my job and this company and don't want it going tits up for any reason. :)
Quote from: Staggerwing on December 13, 2013, 07:45:34 AM
What are the practical aspects of independence for Scotland? Does it's government function in a semiautonomous fashion now as regards to internal matters such as taxation and healthcare? Does it already have some kind of internal national police or investigative service such as the FBI or, ehem, Scotland Yard?
It's been so long since I've really had much to do with Scotland in terms of understanding or knowing their policies. They have a separate judicial system. They have a separate education body. Those I know of.
They do not however have powers of taxation. In fact, one of the issues is that Scotland gets a "grant" given to it using what I believe is called the Barnett Formula. Scotland pays it's revenues to the UK and gets a grant back - that's it in a nutshell. One of the points being made is that the UK taxation process (and this might help you too Banzai_Cat) is an all for one thing...it's set nation wide...and that doesn't fit for the Scottish layout...and in fact, there are plenty of other UK residents who might even concede that it doesn't fit for parts of the country they live in either. Scotland needs to entice more businesses in and cannot do so because the tax they charge is the same across the board (why setup a company in Scotland when you can set one up in the South East and the tax is the same)?
Ironically - Scotland and the SNP wanted a two question referendum...Independence and Devo Max. Devo Max was to have more powers transferred to the Scottish Government. Cameron and his cronies refused - saying it was to be a one question referendum...Independence or not. If they would've allowed for Devo Max, I believe Scotland would still be part of the UK after 2014...but Cameron was too short sighted and stubborn to see that - and the likelihood is he could lose the union.
In order to entice international business, Scotland needs to have the powers to adjust the likes of Corporation Tax. The current Government (The SNP or Scottish National Party) have said if they get into power they would reduce Corporation Tax to entice other businesses to invest in Scotland. It's in no way guaranteed the SNP will get in power - the first elections in an Independent Scotland would follow in 2015 or 2016...I don't recall. Alot of people believe the SNP gained a majority vote in the Scottish elections last time around to push the referendum and will not vote SNP afterwards.
Regardless...that is exactly what the point is - choosing a government that you vote for - not being lumbered with one that has almost no representation in Scotland.
I am currently reading the White Paper now. Of course I understand it's propaganda. But they want the same things I always wanted - not just for Scotland but for the UK as a whole. unfortunately, with the current crop of idiots in Westminster - the kind of UK I would want isn't round the corner and indeed doesn't ever look likely to be arriving any time soon.
Undercovergeek - that's sad that you experienced that. I would like to think the guy was joking - but perhaps not. All I can say is wankers aren't restricted to any one nationality ;D
Also - in terms of "it all goes tits up youll come south of the border and say 'we're sorry, can we have some money please'" - all I can say is that's exactly the path the Better Together campaign are taking - the negative one. I don't believe it will ever happen. No country has ever went independent only to go cap in hand to the country it broke away from...it really is a non issue.
As for wanting back payments for Oil and Gas - I haven't heard that one. It's certainly not in the White Paper (up to where I have read). They are asking that whilst Scotland takes a fair share of the National Debt that it also gets a fair share of the National Assets - which seems wholly fair.
There's ALOT of animosity about it. Alot of bad feeling. There really ought not to be and in my eyes there isn't. I love the UK but I love Scotland more and I think Scotland deserves to be allowed to vote for a government - and with the current political system in place, Scottish votes seldom sway any election. Unfortunately - with the media we have (I suspect both north and south of the border) that animosity will only grow.
Alot of people in the UK are totally fed up with the current government and would change it in a shot. There's just no other option really.
I want what is best for Scotland - not what is worst for the UK. There's a huge difference.
The guy was definitely joking and we had a laugh for the rest of the journey - I just never knew that it was present - since then I've watched vids on you tube of the murray field crowd and man I would not like to get dropped in there with a geroges cross t shirt!
All the people I've spoken to about it here don't bear animosity so much as a parent with a teenager 'if you want to go, then go, there's the door' but you are not keeping the pound - no fkng way!!
Years ago I met a girl from the UK (English IIRC).
She was quite firm in pointing out that the UK consisted of four different countries.
I never truly felt I grasped why she needed to place so much emphasis on that, but as a result I'm not entirely surprised to find there is a movement afoot to challenge the unity of the UK.
I don't have a dog in that fight and certainly cannot claim to have an educated thought on it beyond the above.
I will note that, as a general trend, it seems as though separatism is the historical trend these days. Especially after the break up of the USSR ethnic and religious separatism seems to be quite fashionable. In some cases the results have been good (Czech Republic and Slovakia) and in others not so good (Yugoslavia).
On balance these things seem to have been for the worse and not the better, but that may simply be due to human nature as opposed to the merit of the concept.
^ Good. (this was meant for UCG's post - LB slipped one in there!)
I agree - my wife is the same and has said much the same thing actually..."Just go and get on with it"...it's not quite as clear cut as that though. There's plenty (over 50% I believe in current polls) that don't want to. How do you think that statement sounds to those people? For me it's fine and I understand why people don't care - but there's a large chunk of Scotland who want to remain part of the UK - and all they hear is "If you want to go then go"...that doesn't exactly sound like a country with any love for the ones that want to remain part of the UK.
My mum, my eldest sister, my younger brother, his wife and my younger sister all want to remain part of the UK.
Well - the pound - it's a tradeable commodity - can be bought and sold. The idea is I believe something like 40% of Englands business is dealt with north of the border and as such it would be foolish of the UK government to force price increases on companies in England by "refusing" Scotland the use of the pound (which is debatable whether it can be done or not). And as has been stated - it's as much Scotland's pound as it is Englands. Whilst the UK government has been saying it's not a foregone conclusion that Scotland would keep the pound, they have refused to say Scotland would not be "allowed to keep" the pound - because they know it's in their interests and the interests of the UK to keep the currency of your closest trading partners the same.
However - I see your point and I think it was a bad move for the Independence drive not to push for their own currency or at least mention it as a backup plan. Plenty of currencies have been floated over the years and survived.
I'm not here to argue whether Scotland would keep the pound or not. That decision will be made between those in power north and south of the border.
I hope there's a break, I hope it's clean and I hope it's peaceful (as in the rhetoric ends) - but most of all - I hope it's beneficial to all.
Quote from: JudgeDredd on December 13, 2013, 08:54:39 AM
However - I see your point and I think it was a bad move for the Independence drive not to push for their own currency or at least mention it as a backup plan. Plenty of currencies have been floated over the years and survived.
If you don't have your own currency your economy's fate will be less in control of your leaders. In all likelihood Scotland will continue to be highly dependent on England due to historic trade ties, but it you'll be even more dependent if you don't have your own currency: look at how the Euro is affecting different countries in the EU.
As a practical matter, I wonder how existing treaty obligations might carry over from the UK. Would Scotland automatically be a NATO member, or would they need to sign their way into the alliance? Would they even want to? How to go about separating the military? Money? A new Scottish pound? Would Liz II still be the titular head of state (like Australia) or would you guys dig up some ancestor of Bonnie Prince Charlie to install as a figurehead?
Personally, I'm less concerned with the desire to do it - I think if you want to, you should, and there should be a peaceful mechanism to do so - than I am with the mechanics of how it would happen if it did. Those sorts of processes fascinate me.
Quote from: JudgeDredd on December 13, 2013, 08:54:39 AM
^ Good. (this was meant for UCG's post - LB slipped one in there!)
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1081.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fj349%2Flongblade%2FSmilies%2Fninja1.gif&hash=619a05a87bfd2b42750178c8694a0891355832d0)
Is there a plan for the billions of pounds the uk tax payer put into save the royal bank of scotland - would you buy that debt out?
And would you now be considered an immigrant worker? Would that effect the tax you pay?
I don't have the answers for everything. Unfortunately my knowledge of it is only in what I read and hear - and that changes dramatically between both sides.
Regarding RBS - I have no idea.
NATO - Not automatic - they plan to request entry into NATO as a non nuclear party.
Queen Elizabeth would apparently still be Head of State as she is for the likes of Australia
Military - would come under splitting assets and debt
Keeping the pound - I agree LB...I do believe it would give them "less control"
Naval-wise, Glasgow has quite a shipbuilding port IIRC. Or is that incorrect?
Yes it does. Glasgow (though not alone in this) has a deep history of great ship building.
It's been run down on and off over the years but investment is happening again. Another reason why Scotland needs control of it's own taxation - to encourage that kind of business back. Ports are strategic assets and need long term plans.
If it's anything like the 'Quebec Independance' movement, then I can't say I'm fan of seeing a referendum over there for this thing. It really brings out the worst in people over here.
All I can say is good luck.
PS: if you don't need that British Passport anymore, can we work out a citizenship transfer? I worked 1/3 of the year in Cornwall last year and before. 8)
Quote from: JudgeDredd on December 13, 2013, 09:12:46 AM
NATO - Not automatic - they plan to request entry into NATO as a non nuclear party.
NATO - I do not think it means what you (they) think it means.
Quote from: LongBlade on December 13, 2013, 09:56:50 AM
Quote from: JudgeDredd on December 13, 2013, 09:12:46 AM
NATO - Not automatic - they plan to request entry into NATO as a non nuclear party.
NATO - I do not think it means what you (they) think it means.
I might be getting things mixed up...I'm reading so much at the moment and with a short term memory problem, I'm not going to be right on more than half the things I've recently learned :(
Quote from: JudgeDredd on December 13, 2013, 10:16:58 AM
Quote from: LongBlade on December 13, 2013, 09:56:50 AM
Quote from: JudgeDredd on December 13, 2013, 09:12:46 AM
NATO - Not automatic - they plan to request entry into NATO as a non nuclear party.
NATO - I do not think it means what you (they) think it means.
I might be getting things mixed up...I'm reading so much at the moment and with a short term memory problem, I'm not going to be right on more than half the things I've recently learned :(
I'm sure you're not mixed up - it's just that the entire point of NATO was to ensure Europe's safety by pledging up to and including nuclear war. By removing the nuclear caveat, they seriously defang the concept. And I'm not even sure if you can join without the full monty.
oh - I was of the impression there were many NATO countries without nuclear weapons.
Still...what do I know...I'm just a simple jock that would like to see his country do well :)
Only 3 of NATO states are Nuclear Weapon states
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO
Interesting, I had never really looked into NATO's nuke policy for non-nuclear members
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing
Quote from: mirth on December 13, 2013, 11:02:03 AM
Interesting, I had never really looked into NATO's nuke policy for non-nuclear members
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing
Wow. Luftwaffe Jabos with nukes... That must have made for some
very unhappy Russians.
Quote from: JudgeDredd on December 13, 2013, 10:31:08 AM
Only 3 of NATO states are Nuclear Weapon states
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO
Then I stand corrected :)
I noted that the referendum for independence is in September this year.
I've read several stories indicating that most Scots think they should remain with the UK, but there's some indications that the independence movement is gaining ground.
Anyone over there in the UK, can you say the mood has changed much in the last half a year or so?
From what I gather (from friends/family) there has been a slow, creeping rise towards independence. The votes are still with the "Better Together" campaign currently. If the vote was tomorrow, Scotland would remain part of the UK.
The Better Together campaign have ran a shockingly bad campaign from what I've seen. If there's one thing that will get a Jock's back up, it's being lectured to, especially by right wing, toffee nosed public school boys from government and told you can't do something...they'll just dig their heels in. The other thing is some stuck up Tory politician sticking their oar in...shouting something then ducking away. Cameron (the PM), The Chancellor and others seem to pop up in Scotland and shout something then duck back down south.
What they OUGHT to be doing is telling people in Scotland what benefits there will be if Scotland stay. They are not doing that. They're just saying "You won't be able to do this" and "You can't do that" and "You won't make it". Nothing will get a Scot's X in the YES box quicker than those kind of arguments.
I was very much for independence. That was based on my heart - not any of the rubbish falling out of any politicians mouths. I've just always felt Scotland was hanging on to the shirt tails and the success of Great Britain and I've always wanted her to take her place in the world.
I am still for independence...but there is a creeping feeling in me that regrets it would mean the break up of something great. The UK has endured a lot over the years. It's survived a great many things and, in the past, punched above it's weight.
But - I just think Scotland should be it's own nation. Unfortunately, plenty of people here take that as a personal slap. I can't post anything about it on FB...people just get angry about your views. But it's not a snub to the English or the British or Great Britain or being British. It's just a desire to make it on it's own. That's what it's about for me. Everyone has their own thoughts on it.
Part of the bad feeling is created by the media and how it's reporting it.
Any time I have mentioned it, the normal response is "Well, why don't you go and live there". Well, I've lived in England more than I have in Scotland. 16 years in Scotland, 31 in England. I am married to my English rose and I have two fantastic kids, 17 and 13. They are English (though my youngest would slap me for saying that as she's rather taken with her dads passion of being Scottish)...and, most of all, I LOVE where I live. I love England. I love the UK. BUT - I would like the country I am truly in love with to be in control of it's own destiny...not accepting pocket money from Westminster which is how it is perceived in England.
For the record, my family is split. My mum, my youngest sister, my eldest sister and my younger brother all want to remain part of the UK. My other brother and my other sister and myself want independence. I can't vote - I have not been resident in Scotland and nor can my younger sister. But we have a view. It doesn't amount to much - but you can't not have an opinion on it.
I just hope the break, if it happens, is as painless as possible. I'd hate to see people on either side of the debate become enemies because of it.
*edited for spelling*
The House of Commons does enjoy a good shouting match, doesn't it? I'd watch coverage of their debates long before I ever turn on CSPAN to watch our boring PC politicians BS their way through the latest stupid laws.
By the way, JD, thanks for the discourse and insight into the politics there. Will be interesting to see if this happens and affects things in a negative way, not the least of which is my company.
np
I hope there's no negative consequences for anyone.
Quote from: JudgeDredd on May 20, 2014, 01:29:31 AM
I was very much for independence. That was based on my heart - not any of the rubbish falling out of any politicians mouths. I've just always felt Scotland was hanging on to the shirt tails and the success of Great Britain and I've always wanted her to take her place in the world.
I'm Scot/Irish and have a lot of emotional ties to the lands of my ancestors, but in terms of cultural identity, I regard myself as a Texan. Texas has a different culture from the rest of the USA, including the states which border Texas. It may sound odd to you, but there has always been a significant part of my psyche that wished Texas was it's own nation. When push came to shove, I've
always understood why Robert E. Lee chose his home state of Virginia in our Civil War over leading the Union army. It was home, people talked like he did, people understood who he was. That's how I feel about Texas, and if that's what Scotland means to you, I can completely understand where you're coming from.
I'm much the same, SG. Irish descent, born in New York state, grew up in Norther Virginia, but consider Texas my home.
Not that anyone would secede from the Union down here, but the state Constitution here in Texas makes for some interesting reading.
This site is pretty :D but makes some interesting points: http://www.texassecede.com/faq.htm
Just reading about the fire at Glasgow School of Art. I've been there, it's a beautiful building. So sorry to hear about it.
http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2023679994_apxbritainartschoolfire.html
GLASGOW, Scotland —
A major fire has devastated the Glasgow School of Art, a landmark in the Scottish city.
The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service said the blaze, which broke out just after noon on Friday, was a "very significant fire."
Flames flared through the roof and windows of the sandstone Art Nouveau building, designed by architect Charles Rennie Mackintosh and completed in 1909. A 2009 poll by the Royal Institute of British Architects voted it the best British building of the last 175 years.
RIBA president Stephen Hodder called the fire "an international tragedy."
The school said students and staff were evacuated safely. Many students had been setting up work for an end-of-year degree show.
Students' Association Vice-President Alex Misick said "that's everyone's work over three or four years. Everyone's in tears."
my sister got her art degree and then her phd there...she's gutted
i left Glasgow at 11:25 - it wasnt me
lol
It is a crying shame though. A very popular building and very successful university.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-27541883
It looks like the building and a lot of the work inside has apparently been preserved, according to fire fighters
Quote from: LongBlade on December 13, 2013, 08:49:02 AM
Years ago I met a girl from the UK (English IIRC).
She was quite firm in pointing out that the UK consisted of four different countries.
Tell that to two of my cousins! They are Cornish first, and English as a very long second. That said their Dad is Welsh (and Welsh speaking), and our Great Grandad was a Scot. So how do we work that one out. Oh, BTW we don't get a say in the referendum.
I can see where Judge Dredd is coming from. Frankly, I find the twits at Westminster are Londoncentric in their outlook, completely divorced from their understanding of ordinary people, and show a particular delight in using their public role to promote their own self interest. I don't particularly want to see the break up of the UK, but I do think their is a case for the SNP to expand the ambit of their politics southward to challenge Westminster. As things stand, the only practical alternative to the big parties who all suck for self interest, is UKIP, and I'm not really sold on some of their policies. I hate politicians, and how they want to screw over the ordinary guy in the street for their rich backers to avoid paying taxes. :tickedoff:
Quote from: Boggit on May 23, 2014, 10:53:27 PM
Quote from: LongBlade on December 13, 2013, 08:49:02 AM
Years ago I met a girl from the UK (English IIRC).
She was quite firm in pointing out that the UK consisted of four different countries.
Tell that to two of my cousins! They are Cornish first, and English as a very long second. That said their Dad is Welsh (and Welsh speaking), and our Great Grandad was a Scot. So how do we work that one out. Oh, BTW we don't get a say in the referendum.
I can see where Judge Dredd is coming from. Frankly, I find the twits at Westminster are Londoncentric in their outlook, completely divorced from their understanding of ordinary people, and show a particular delight in using their public role to promote their own self interest. I don't particularly want to see the break up of the UK, but I do think their is a case for the SNP to expand the ambit of their politics southward to challenge Westminster. As things stand, the only practical alternative to the big parties who all suck for self interest, is UKIP, and I'm not really sold on some of their policies. I hate politicians, and how they want to screw over the ordinary guy in the street for their rich backers to avoid paying taxes. :tickedoff:
Quite aside of my passionate Scottish side, it's also this.
I don't know if Scotland is going to have a different kind of system. I don't know if it's going to be better off...but given the alternative - staying with the "twits" in Westminster and the London-centric and self-obsessive politics that are occurring government after successive government - I think it's at least a chance to change things.
I'm pretty sure if parts of the UK could divorce itself from London - they would do. We are currently heading for another boom and bust. They're talking on the TV about the superb growth in the UK and house prices rising significantly - and they seem to be bragging about it when in fact just about everyone else knows there's a bust heading round the corner...but they don't see it because they just aren't affected by it!
As for independence, from what I gather alot of Scots don't want to vote independence purely because it's being driven by the SNP and they don't want the SNP in power. But it's not a vote for the SNP - it's a vote to choose a future NOT set by London-centric politicians.
Anyway - as I said a break up of something great is a shame - but politicians in the UK just won't listen. They are too detached from normal life and too busy lining their own pockets and making their beds for when they get out of politics.
I, like a lot of my English, Welsh and Northern Irish counterparts will be stuck with the same bunch of muppets as now. When the General Election comes around - do you know what peoples choices are in the UK?...
"Do I vote for that muppet that's going to screw everyone over except the well off, that muppet who's going to go spend mad with money they don't have or one of the other muppets who simply don't have a chance of government"
...those are the choices. Change is required and Scotland has a chance to do that and not ONLY do that, but send a message to Westminster that people in this country are fed up of boom and bust politics, their fed up with London getting everything and they're fed up with politicians not listening. And that, by the way, is why UKIP did pretty well in the local elections.
Sorry for the rant - but I am so disillusioned with political system in the UK at the moment...it needs a shock and a shake up.
Quote from: JudgeDredd on May 24, 2014, 02:38:11 AM
Quote from: Boggit on May 23, 2014, 10:53:27 PM
Quote from: LongBlade on December 13, 2013, 08:49:02 AM
Years ago I met a girl from the UK (English IIRC).
She was quite firm in pointing out that the UK consisted of four different countries.
Tell that to two of my cousins! They are Cornish first, and English as a very long second. That said their Dad is Welsh (and Welsh speaking), and our Great Grandad was a Scot. So how do we work that one out. Oh, BTW we don't get a say in the referendum.
I can see where Judge Dredd is coming from. Frankly, I find the twits at Westminster are Londoncentric in their outlook, completely divorced from their understanding of ordinary people, and show a particular delight in using their public role to promote their own self interest. I don't particularly want to see the break up of the UK, but I do think their is a case for the SNP to expand the ambit of their politics southward to challenge Westminster. As things stand, the only practical alternative to the big parties who all suck for self interest, is UKIP, and I'm not really sold on some of their policies. I hate politicians, and how they want to screw over the ordinary guy in the street for their rich backers to avoid paying taxes. :tickedoff:
Quite aside of my passionate Scottish side, it's also this.
I don't know if Scotland is going to have a different kind of system. I don't know if it's going to be better off...but given the alternative - staying with the "twits" in Westminster and the London-centric and self-obsessive politics that are occurring government after successive government - I think it's at least a chance to change things.
I'm pretty sure if parts of the UK could divorce itself from London - they would do. We are currently heading for another boom and bust. They're talking on the TV about the superb growth in the UK and house prices rising significantly - and they seem to be bragging about it when in fact just about everyone else knows there's a bust heading round the corner...but they don't see it because they just aren't affected by it!
As for independence, from what I gather alot of Scots don't want to vote independence purely because it's being driven by the SNP and they don't want the SNP in power. But it's not a vote for the SNP - it's a vote to choose a future NOT set by London-centric politicians.
Anyway - as I said a break up of something great is a shame - but politicians in the UK just won't listen. They are too detached from normal life and too busy lining their own pockets and making their beds for when they get out of politics.
I, like a lot of my English, Welsh and Northern Irish counterparts will be stuck with the same bunch of muppets as now. When the General Election comes around - do you know what peoples choices are in the UK?...
"Do I vote for that muppet that's going to screw everyone over except the well off, that muppet who's going to go spend mad with money they don't have or one of the other muppets who simply don't have a chance of government"
...those are the choices. Change is required and Scotland has a chance to do that and not ONLY do that, but send a message to Westminster that people in this country are fed up of boom and bust politics, their fed up with London getting everything and they're fed up with politicians not listening. And that, by the way, is why UKIP did pretty well in the local elections.
Sorry for the rant - but I am so disillusioned with political system in the UK at the moment...it needs a shock and a shake up.
I totally agree with you. Every word. Start a new party and I'll vote for you! :smitten:
Seconded.
I'd third if I could. Does being an ex-subject allow me to vote in your elections?
^We have enough of a mess over here to concentrate on.
Quote from: Banzai_Cat on June 01, 2014, 09:27:11 AM
I'd third if I could. Does being an ex-subject allow me to vote in your elections?
Yeah! Why not? ;)
and whats the typical Scots stance on mel gibson?
I've no idea.
Personally I think he is (was?) a great actor who opens his mouth before thinking - and does so the more he gets older.
As for the historical accuracy of Braveheart - well, it was all over the place - but at least people found out who William Wallace was and, more importantly, got them looking. That was a good thing
http://news.yahoo.com/fear-loathing-sully-debate-scottish-independence-104115437.html
QuoteRetired military general Norman Arthur represented Queen Elizabeth in his Scottish neighborhood and is passionate that the country should remain part of the United Kingdom. Stuart Campbell, a pro-independence campaigner based hundreds of miles south in England, disagrees fervently.
But both men have one thing in common: They have called in police after being threatened for their views.
The sinister side of the debate on Scotland's Sept. 18 referendum is coming to the fore as opinion polls narrow on the outcome. The "Better Together" campaign is particularly keen to draw attention to this: Its leader has likened independence champion Alex Salmond to Kim Jong-il, the North Korean autocrat, blaming Salmond for a "culture of intimidation" in Scotland.
"I did hope the campaign would not get hotheaded and beastly," said 83-year-old Arthur, in front of an open fire in the sitting room of his country estate home, framed photographs of the royal family on the windowsill. "But it has. But I won't stop."
Nationalists argue that oil-rich Scotland should be in charge of its own decisions and not have policies it opposes imposed by politicians in London. The rest of the United Kingdom says the union of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is strongest and best together.
On average, the latest polls show support for independence - the "Yes" vote - has risen to about 35 percent from 30 percent six months ago, while opposition has dropped to 46 percent from 50 percent and a significant number of voters remain undecided.
But as the poll nears, voters say the atmosphere is making it harder to discuss the issues.
Hostilities have intensified online, some cinemas have pulled campaign ads after viewers complained, posters are being defaced, neighbors have engaged in graffiti wars and the row has resulted in at least one pub brawl.
Pro-unionists have said a Yes vote would be "cataclysmic", feeding the "forces of darkness" at a time when stability is needed. Independence campaigners accuse rivals of "the most miserable, negative, depressing and thoroughly boring campaign in modern political history."
Some verbal attacks have been so vitriolic that the Church of Scotland has intervened to call for calm. Queen Elizabeth also supported church efforts to heal rifts, whatever the outcome.
"I have had the odd abuse but ... they are not going to stop me from speaking and they know it, so what they go after is the softer targets," politician Alistair Darling, head of the Better Together campaign, told Reuters recently. "It really reflects very badly on Scotland."
more at the link
It IS a very hot subject and like everything involving opinions, can get nasty.
The important thing I think is to just acknowledge that people will vote based on what and who they believe.
From the YES individuals perspective, they can't understand why the NO individuals can't see why Scotland would be better off...and likewise - NO campaigners can't understand why YES campaigners want to break up the union.
The poor people caught in the middle are the people I feel for. I think people have to make up their own minds. No amount of shouting or goading from either side will sway them...and in fact likely have the opposite effect.
clients here have already cancelled conferences at the SECC in september and october and moved them south - not because of business but because theyre advised of an upswing in nationalism if the yes vote comes in September - their advisors (whoever they are) have stated union jacks flying in glasgow will not go down will the morning after
good to know that the US 'tradition' of overly-divisive rhetoric isn't limited to our shores...
Quote from: bayonetbrant on June 09, 2014, 08:10:38 AM
good to know that the US 'tradition' of overly-divisive rhetoric isn't limited to our shores...
Where do you think we got it from. :2funny:
Apples do land close to the trees.
Well - there's a debate on STV (Scottish Television) tonight between 8pm and 10pm GMT.
I find it breathtaking that such a HUGE debate - and make no mistake, Scotland's position within the United Kingdom is of huge concern to both Scotland and the rest of the UK - is being shown on a channel in Scotland and not across the rest of the UK.
I know it's for the people of Scotland to decide...but some people may not be in Scotland during the debate.
But more than that, Westminster has time and again got the leaders of all 3 parties (Tories, Liberal Democrats and Labour) to stick their head above the parapet and and shout about staying part of the UK and keeping Westminster as it's governing body and then ducking down again. There's also a very recent call from Mr David Cameron himself to ask the people of the UK to call their friends in Scotland and tell them to stay part of the Union - and yet the debate is not shown on national TV.
Meanwhile, Cameron will not debate will Alex Salmond, saying Alex Salmond is "First Minister" of Scotland and Cameron is "Prime Minister" of the UK - which I feel is a very comprehensive snub.
Anyway - anyone who wishes to watch can actually do so online here
http://news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/news/284650-how-to-watch-stvs-alex-salmond-vs-alistair-darling-referendum-debate/
What's yer take on this JD? Is it likely to be a close vote either way?
It'll be close - but (to my personal dismay) Better Together will win on the day....there's too much fear and uncertainty for people to take the chance.
I believe more people will vote no to independence because it's better the devil you know
Assuming independence, just out of curiosity, what would Scotland have for an at-home military capability? Would there be Scots-based units of the current UK that would fall under Scottish control or would there be a need to create a 'national guard' type apparatus to handle any issues such as home-soil terrorism threats or widespread natural disaster since the current regular army units answer to the current UK gov't?
What about coastal and air defence?
Another question if I might: Is this a vote for a total break from the UK? Separate economy, money, armed forces/defence etc. or less extreme than that?
I ask because over here we get the Quebec separation thing every 10 to 15 years or so. To try and make it more palatable to the masses in Quebec the separatists try using tactics like "Well, we'll still use theCanadian dollar, and the Canadian Forces will still defend us." Mostly that just infuriates the rest of Canada. But really how can you run a separate country when you economy it directly tied to another through the money and major expenditures?
The last vote here was very close, 51% for staying in Canada. I'm glad it turned out that way but I'm on the other side if the fence from your position.
Quote from: Staggerwing on August 05, 2014, 06:15:45 AM
Assuming independence, just out of curiosity, what would Scotland have for an at-home military capability? Would there be Scots-based units of the current UK that would fall under Scottish control or would there be a need to create a 'national guard' type apparatus to handle any issues such as home-soil terrorism threats or widespread natural disaster since the current regular army units answer to the current UK gov't?
What about coastal and air defence?
The White paper suggested a small force for self defence and external humanitarian/UN operations. Any scots personnel in the UK armed forces I believe will be given the opportunity to transfer to a Scottish unit, should one of the correct arm be available with recruitment spaces
Coastal and air defence would be under Scottish control and be part of the Scottish Forces.
I'm not sure of the details.
There is unlikely to be any nuclear deterrent based in Scotland. Quite aside from the people that work in the industry, generally the Scots have never really wanted nuclear weapons.
I'm certainly not speaking for everyone here though.
don't you guys have all (or most) of the UK's shipbuilding capacity? You could always build aircraft carriers for export :)
Quote from: Barthheart on August 05, 2014, 06:20:32 AM
Another question if I might: Is this a vote for a total break from the UK? Separate economy, money, armed forces/defence etc. or less extreme than that?
I ask because over here we get the Quebec separation thing every 10 to 15 years or so. To try and make it more palatable to the masses in Quebec the separatists try using tactics like "Well, we'll still use theCanadian dollar, and the Canadian Forces will still defend us." Mostly that just infuriates the rest of Canada. But really how can you run a separate country when you economy it directly tied to another through the money and major expenditures?
The last vote here was very close, 51% for staying in Canada. I'm glad it turned out that way but I'm on the other side if the fence from your position.
No - it's that extreme...a break from the UK. Money is a sticking point Alex Salmond (SNP for Independence and current Scots First Minister) has suggested Scotland will continue to use the pound. Westminster and all 3 parties (in a totally uncharacteristic union) said NO rather resoundingly.
I agree about Salmonds currency union and I think it was a mistake for him to suggest it.
Forces will be separate.
Quote from: bayonetbrant on August 05, 2014, 06:51:25 AM
don't you guys have all (or most) of the UK's shipbuilding capacity? You could always build aircraft carriers for export :)
Not at all. And the Better Together's very negative campaign has already said Scotland would lose the contracts for UK ship building because the UK doesn't get warships made abroad.
But the UK has ship building capabilities
What they don't have is a Nuclear facility. The SNP has said they would remove Trident from Faslane and not invest in more (the upgrade). I don't know where the UK would place those. However......there's another point here - the SNP won't necessarily be in power in 2016 - so it's entirely possible that it would be used as some sort of bargaining tool.
But I'm speculating there..as is most of the media tbh.
wasnt there some dispute over the new carrier been yours?
I don't know to be honest.
I think the other ship building yards in the UK were a bit pissed (and I have to say, rightly so) because they saw the contracts being offered to Glasgow as a "buy out" - and I happen to agree with them. Not that I don't think the Scottish shipyards are not worthy of the contracts - but I do think there was some "manipulation" being applied to BAe by Westminster.
No proof again - and not something I bandy about because of that lack of anything solid - just my opinion.
Quote from: undercovergeek on August 05, 2014, 07:12:21 AM
wasnt there some dispute over the new carrier been yours?
Oh sorry UCG - you mean Scotland "keeping" one of the carriers? If so, I have no idea and I haven't heard anything about that - nothing at all.
The SNP and Westminster have to work out splits of liabilities and assets. I have no idea what those are likely to be or involve and neither do the SNP or Westminster because no-one is talking about it before the referendum...but that does have to be discussed in the year following a yes outcome.
A nuclear armed, independent Scotland...would be like me arming myself with a .50 after a really bad day and some whiskey.
Quote from: JudgeDredd on August 05, 2014, 07:19:34 AM
Quote from: undercovergeek on August 05, 2014, 07:12:21 AM
wasnt there some dispute over the new carrier been yours?
Oh sorry UCG - you mean Scotland "keeping" one of the carriers? If so, I have no idea and I haven't heard anything about that - nothing at all.
The SNP and Westminster have to work out splits of liabilities and assets. I have no idea what those are likely to be or involve and neither do the SNP or Westminster because no-one is talking about it before the referendum...but that does have to be discussed in the year following a yes outcome.
yeah, when she got launched the other month and Liz broke the whisky on the ship the newsreaders were commentating about whether it should be a Union Jack or a St Andrews flag on the back
oh - I never heard any of that - though I was probably still reeling from a wasted bottle of whisky! :D
lmao - so true :buck2:
just invade south.
wear kilts.
and get laid.
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on August 07, 2014, 11:08:13 PM
just invade south.
wear kilts.
and get laid.
I already did that in 1983 - 'damned beautiful girls down here got me smitten and I never exfil'ed! ;D
.
I watched a program on how Independence for Scotland would affect the rest of the UK - and it was a bit of an eye opener.
Whilst I want independence for Scotland, I do not want any negative effects to affect the rest of the UK
Regarding nuclear weapons specifically - in the event of a Yes vote (and I have to say - in the "unlikely" event) the nuclear weapons will have to be removed from Scottish waters by 2020. Personally I'm all for it. I was never in for the arms race much. But it was what it was.
So for Scotland to be Nuclear free would be fine by me. It is possible the rUK would not have a nuclear deterrent. But that is an unlikely scenario. The likely scenarios are the 2020 deadline would be extended to allow the rUK to redeploy their WMD. That is the likely scenario. There's also the possibility that Westminster holds a gun to Scotland's head and says "Yeah but..." and by that I mean it will be on the negotiating table...to be raffled off against some other deal. Another scenario would be that Trident is indeed scrapped but the rUK takes a land based option...though that is an unlikely scenario, it is possible.
The trouble is, the rUK doesn't have anywhere currently to put them and store them safely and service them...or their submarines. However, what is incredulous and down right arrogant is the fact that (at least it was reported last night) Westminster hasn't even looked into a contingency - because they believe a NO vote is secured - and even if it's not, they seem to think they can keep their WMD on Scottish soil - even though Scotland has said you won't (as arrogant I might add as Salmond insisting he's keeping the pound (which he most certainly can) in a currency union (which may not be granted!)
So Westminster has decided either a no vote is what Scotland will come up with or it'll be bargained. I call that ballsy considering if both those options are kicked out, then the rUK will be nuclear free.
Alot of people in the rUK would be fine with such a thing. There's a rumble of uproar that 100 billion sterling is being sunk into such a weapon (which, lets be honest sits there looking threatening) whilst conventional forces, considerably over stretched, are being cut time and again and soldiers returned in body bags with lack of essential kit.
Westminster wants to keep a hold of nuclear weapons so it can play with the big boys on the world stage...that's it. Can someone - anyone - explain to me the madness of the UK having a nuclear deterrent? Aren't we bound by treaty to NOT use them anyway?
Quote from: eyebiter on August 13, 2014, 07:16:44 AM
How A Scotland "Yes" Vote Could Challenge the U.K. Nuclear Weapons Program
http://www.occupy.com/article/how-scotland-yes-vote-could-challenge-uk-nuclear-weapons-program
"The brilliant thing about Scottish Independence, from a global anti-nuclear weapons stance, is that the U.K. has no other sites suitable to host trident submarines or their nuclear warheads," he says. "So if an Independent Scotland demands it to be moved, it will likely be decommissioned with nowhere else to go."
I'm sure we have an extra berth or two in Norfolk if the Brits want to keep their subs.
i think its a Tory plot to let them have their independence and then we'll just invade and claim it for ourselves. Its not like we didnt pay for the sub pens, or anything else that Scotland says 'its ours now' to :-*
Actually, we intend to annex it and turn it into our 51st state.
From Obama's perspective, probably more like 57th state.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sherv.net%2Fcm%2Femoticons%2Fflags%2Fsmiley-with-us-flag.gif&hash=35fbf1d756629e5fcb93219717cc62ebede977a9) MURICA. (https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sherv.net%2Fcm%2Femoticons%2Fflags%2Fsmiley-with-us-flag.gif&hash=35fbf1d756629e5fcb93219717cc62ebede977a9)
HEY! Enough of this annexing bollox! ;D
Some more on the "nuclear" dilemma (an older blog)
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/11/26/plans-to-replace-the-trident-nuclear-weapons-system/
The sassenachs woudnie understand it Dredd, do ye ken whit am on aboot do ya? ;)
I may not agree with the 'yes' vote (it hits too close home with another referendum movement here), but I get alongs well 'enough with Scots, Welsh, Irish, English and Cornish at work.
Cheers
It'll be interesting deciding where Scotlands territorial waters are. I know Scotland will have its own ideas, but the rest of the UK might think differently. Who decides?
Another thing. Why have the rest of the UK no say in this contended split? It's not as though the issue doesn't affect us, so why shouldn't we have a say also? As things stand, Scots living in the rest of the UK don't get a say, but a new immigrant to Scotland, from say Romania does. Odd isn't it?
Quote from: Boggit on August 19, 2014, 10:59:46 PM
As things stand, Scots living in the rest of the UK don't get a say, but a new immigrant to Scotland, from say Romania does. Odd isn't it?
I'm sure the pub sorts this out.
Quote from: Boggit on August 19, 2014, 10:59:46 PM
It'll be interesting deciding where Scotlands territorial waters are. I know Scotland will have its own ideas, but the rest of the UK might think differently. Who decides?
Another thing. Why have the rest of the UK no say in this contended split? It's not as though the issue doesn't affect us, so why shouldn't we have a say also? As things stand, Scots living in the rest of the UK don't get a say, but a new immigrant to Scotland, from say Romania does. Odd isn't it?
I "heard" (read?) some time ago that international boundary where water is present comes 90 degrees off the border of the land masses. If that's the case, it's pretty straight forward
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on August 19, 2014, 11:02:16 PM
Quote from: Boggit on August 19, 2014, 10:59:46 PM
As things stand, Scots living in the rest of the UK don't get a say, but a new immigrant to Scotland, from say Romania does. Odd isn't it?
I'm sure the pub sorts this out.
I prefer this method though. :D
Quote from: JudgeDredd on August 19, 2014, 11:47:31 PM
Quote from: Boggit on August 19, 2014, 10:59:46 PM
It'll be interesting deciding where Scotlands territorial waters are. I know Scotland will have its own ideas, but the rest of the UK might think differently. Who decides?
Another thing. Why have the rest of the UK no say in this contended split? It's not as though the issue doesn't affect us, so why shouldn't we have a say also? As things stand, Scots living in the rest of the UK don't get a say, but a new immigrant to Scotland, from say Romania does. Odd isn't it?
I "heard" (read?) some time ago that international boundary where water is present comes 90 degrees off the border of the land masses. If that's the case, it's pretty straight forward
besides, whats the Scottish Navy going to do? :2funny:
This was spotted in Maldon - off the East coast of England...the invasion has begun!
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1160.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fq499%2Fwmar1967%2FMisc%2F995091_10152322373681984_8147055975249935253_n_zps28a942c2.jpg&hash=430df0d8eadf7c53aff67757415d047a77adbf7c)
if it doesn't catch fire its doing great by Commonwealth standards.
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on August 19, 2014, 11:51:40 PM
Quote from: JudgeDredd on August 19, 2014, 11:47:31 PM
Quote from: Boggit on August 19, 2014, 10:59:46 PM
It'll be interesting deciding where Scotlands territorial waters are. I know Scotland will have its own ideas, but the rest of the UK might think differently. Who decides?
Another thing. Why have the rest of the UK no say in this contended split? It's not as though the issue doesn't affect us, so why shouldn't we have a say also? As things stand, Scots living in the rest of the UK don't get a say, but a new immigrant to Scotland, from say Romania does. Odd isn't it?
I "heard" (read?) some time ago that international boundary where water is present comes 90 degrees off the border of the land masses. If that's the case, it's pretty straight forward
besides, whats the Scottish Navy going to do? :2funny:
point at our ships
I just read that the polls are showing an almost even split on independence so this might become a very real thing.
What will happen to those who find themselves living on the side of the border opposite the one they were born on? Do they become citizens of the side they are on or do they become 'resident foreign nationals'? Do they get a one time choice of what they wish to be, English or Scottish?
Quote from: Staggerwing on September 07, 2014, 02:22:00 PM
I just read that the polls are showing an almost even split on independence so this might become a very real thing.
What will happen to those who find themselves living on the side of the border opposite the one they were born on? Do they become citizens of the side they are on or do they become 'resident foreign nationals'? Do they get a one time choice of what they wish to be, English or Scottish?
Closer than ever. In fact there was a poll today showing YES with a majority...a small majority, but a majority none-the-less. And that from a poll that has consistently showed NO with a lead. So it most definitely is going to be a real possibility...I still think it'll be very close.
In terms of citizens, they will stay as they are. I, for example, live in England and will be British. However, as I was born in Scotland, I have the right to apply for a Scottish passport. I think my daughters would have to "apply" as would my wife as they were all born in England. Don't forget, even though the Better Together campaign would like everyone to think there would be a new border with border posts, security towers and god knows what else, there are "essentially" no borders in the EU. By that I mean I have as much right to live and work in France, Spain or Germany as I do in the UK. I presume the same will continue.
So anyone born in Scotland can apply and will automatically be granted Scottish citizenship and a passport. Others will have to apply as per normal.
I think :P
English/EU citizens in Scotland can remain as English/EU citizens or, presumably, they can apply for Scottish citizenship.
Thanks, I sort of figured it would be something like that but I was curious.
Quote from: JudgeDredd on September 07, 2014, 02:45:58 PM
Don't forget, even though the Better Together campaign would like everyone to think there would be a new border with border posts, security towers and god knows what else, there are "essentially" no borders in the EU.
I did read about an English politician who said the border would automatically end up being guarded if the Yes vote carried. Guess I know where he stands on the issue.
Quote from: Staggerwing on September 07, 2014, 02:56:36 PM
I did read about an English politician who said the border would automatically end up being guarded if the Yes vote carried. Guess I know where he stands on the issue.
He's just afraid there'll be an exodus of Englishmen headed north to hurry up and claim their Scottish passports so they can be sufficiently manly :)
http://scotreferendum.com/
i have sympathy for the Scottish! its better to brake away before the Caliphate boroughs start spreading, interlock and unite in Great Britain's bigger cities ...and the Sharia Police is patrolling instead of the bobby
guess London's Tower Hamlets will be first. ::)
I prefer the sound of bagpipes over muezzin yelping anyday :)
you havent witnessed weird until youve seen a news interview with a sikh in full beard and turban talking in a glaswegian accent
Quote from: undercovergeek on September 08, 2014, 03:11:03 AM
you havent witnessed weird until youve seen a news interview with a sikh in full beard and turban talking in a glaswegian accent
lol - true that.
You know - when I first came down to England in 1983, I couldn't believe the "foreign" accents on non-nationals. You know, the Jamaican accent or Nigerian accent or Indian accent...because in Glasgow, all the "non-nationals" I met had Scottish accents. I don't know if that's still teh case - but it was back then...so it was weird to hear non nationals with their home country accent.
Quote from: JudgeDredd on September 07, 2014, 02:45:58 PM
Quote from: Staggerwing on September 07, 2014, 02:22:00 PM
I just read that the polls are showing an almost even split on independence so this might become a very real thing.
What will happen to those who find themselves living on the side of the border opposite the one they were born on? Do they become citizens of the side they are on or do they become 'resident foreign nationals'? Do they get a one time choice of what they wish to be, English or Scottish?
Closer than ever. In fact there was a poll today showing YES with a majority...a small majority, but a majority none-the-less. And that from a poll that has consistently showed NO with a lead. So it most definitely is going to be a real possibility...I still think it'll be very close.
In terms of citizens, they will stay as they are. I, for example, live in England and will be British. However, as I was born in Scotland, I have the right to apply for a Scottish passport. I think my daughters would have to "apply" as would my wife as they were all born in England. Don't forget, even though the Better Together campaign would like everyone to think there would be a new border with border posts, security towers and god knows what else, there are "essentially" no borders in the EU. By that I mean I have as much right to live and work in France, Spain or Germany as I do in the UK. I presume the same will continue.
So anyone born in Scotland can apply and will automatically be granted Scottish citizenship and a passport. Others will have to apply as per normal.
I think :P
English/EU citizens in Scotland can remain as English/EU citizens or, presumably, they can apply for Scottish citizenship.
I dont think that Scotland would automaticly be part of EU, remember some EU official stating that Scotland would have to apply. dunno and all the better for Scotland if your not member tbh.
i would imagine if Scotland doestnt join the EU, England will sit and watch to see what happens with a very keen interest
Quote from: jejo68 on September 08, 2014, 07:53:06 AM
Quote from: JudgeDredd on September 07, 2014, 02:45:58 PM
Quote from: Staggerwing on September 07, 2014, 02:22:00 PM
I just read that the polls are showing an almost even split on independence so this might become a very real thing.
What will happen to those who find themselves living on the side of the border opposite the one they were born on? Do they become citizens of the side they are on or do they become 'resident foreign nationals'? Do they get a one time choice of what they wish to be, English or Scottish?
Closer than ever. In fact there was a poll today showing YES with a majority...a small majority, but a majority none-the-less. And that from a poll that has consistently showed NO with a lead. So it most definitely is going to be a real possibility...I still think it'll be very close.
In terms of citizens, they will stay as they are. I, for example, live in England and will be British. However, as I was born in Scotland, I have the right to apply for a Scottish passport. I think my daughters would have to "apply" as would my wife as they were all born in England. Don't forget, even though the Better Together campaign would like everyone to think there would be a new border with border posts, security towers and god knows what else, there are "essentially" no borders in the EU. By that I mean I have as much right to live and work in France, Spain or Germany as I do in the UK. I presume the same will continue.
So anyone born in Scotland can apply and will automatically be granted Scottish citizenship and a passport. Others will have to apply as per normal.
I think :P
English/EU citizens in Scotland can remain as English/EU citizens or, presumably, they can apply for Scottish citizenship.
I dont think that Scotland would automaticly be part of EU, remember some EU official stating that Scotland would have to apply. dunno and all the better for Scotland if your not member tbh.
Yeah - I think that EU official was Jose Manual Barrosso - the President of Spain - who wouldn't want Catalonia to know that an independent Scotland could join the EU. Not that I'm saying he's got an alterior motive for saying what he said (much like alot of other officials that have stuck their beak in)...but just sayin' none-the-less O:-)
I'm not really sure about EU membership - but it wasn't something that would be a high priority in making my mind up if I had a vote. In fact - ALL the BIG questions being used to scare people are not top of my reasons to vote yes or no should I have had a vote.
My yes/no vote would not be based on the currency being used, membership of NATO, membership of the EU, national security or the economy. All these things will work out - one way or another. The country is not going to sink into oblivion...nor, by the way, is it going to be a utopia in the next year.
Rome wasn't built in a day - and neither would a new independent Scotland.
Quote from: undercovergeek on September 08, 2014, 08:00:13 AM
i would imagine if Scotland doestnt join the EU, England will sit and watch to see what happens with a very keen interest
Absolutely...though I'm not sure enough info regarding benefit/detriment would be able to be extrapolated to be of any use before the referendum in 2017
Quote from: JudgeDredd on September 08, 2014, 08:07:32 AM
Quote from: undercovergeek on September 08, 2014, 08:00:13 AM
i would imagine if Scotland doestnt join the EU, England will sit and watch to see what happens with a very keen interest
Absolutely...though I'm not sure enough info regarding benefit/detriment would be able to be extrapolated to be of any use before the referendum in 2017
yeah, i would hope therell be some key pointers though
as an aside - what happens with scottish run companies who are already reliant/working in the EU - do they relocate south or have that part of their business shut off?
I have absolutely no idea.
I guess the businesses of Scotland would have some idea of the impact.
Scotland will be (apparently) applying to the EU with (again, apparently) little to no fuss based on the fact it has already been a member (albeit not as a new nation) for several decades and the fact that the EU would not reject Scotland based on Scotland using the UK/EU democratic system to employ a referendum on independence. It's (apparently again) going to look pretty poor show of the EU and it's Human Rights and all it's laws that it would refuse entry to a nation which was part of the EU simply because it is now an independent nation using political power instead of military power...something the EU is 100% behind and promotes
But I honestly have no idea.
Quote from: JudgeDredd on September 08, 2014, 08:14:46 AM
I have absolutely no idea.
I guess the businesses of Scotland would have some idea of the impact.
Scotland will be (apparently) applying to the EU with (again, apparently) little to no fuss based on the fact it has already been a member (albeit not as a new nation) for several decades and the fact that the EU would not reject Scotland based on Scotland using the UK/EU democratic system to employ a referendum on independence. It's (apparently again) going to look pretty poor show of the EU and it's Human Rights and all it's laws that it would refuse entry to a nation which was part of the EU simply because it is now an independent nation using political power instead of military power...something the EU is 100% behind and promotes
But I honestly have no idea.
i suppose my biggest point of curiousity is your armed forces - all those traditional scottish regiments that make up Englands forces will presumably be refounded north of the border leaving us short of those regiments, dunno about the navy or airforce - from a practical point of view in my head they seem to belong to England!
I imagine its no problem for European countries who share common borders with countries of a different opinion (country X sends forces to Iraq, country Y doesnt), but it will be odd to think theres ever a time England sends forces to wherever and Scotland could say 'not for us'
interesting times
What % of forces does Scotland provide for the UK?
On defence, if you are to believe figures, then Scotland allegedly pays £2.5 billion towards the defence budget but receives £1.5 billion in military coverage (regiments, air force, navy). I'm sure that is likely exaggerated. Anyway, the SNP's argument, should the figures be correct, is that if an independent Scotland was to spend £1.5 billion, then it would be as protected as it is now and if it was to spend what it currently spends, £2.5 billion, then it would be better protected. I'm not sure that is the case in actual practical terms...but whatever.
The real point about defence was hammered out the other week in a debate. Where is the likely nuclear threat going to come from? Who exactly is going to invade Scotland to the point where they need to be armed to the gunnells. I thought those were sensible questions.
First off - nuclear. Who is going to attack Scotland with nuclear weapons. Ok...the argument currently going round is the bear is re-awakening. But really? Russia is going to perform a nuclear strike on Scotland? Highly unlikely - and even if it was the case, what would 240 nuclear warheads achieve? Not that Scotland has control of those anyway.
Next - who is going to invade Scotland that we need a huge army? Well...no-one. The Romans didn't want it and neither does anyone else. :D
The real and true threat facing the UK (and other parts of the world) is terrorism and radicalism. More money for conventional forces and security and less on nuclear. That's my own personal view. Lets be honest, if the balloon goes up, everyone is going to come off bad - and I don't want to be around anyway!
I believe the plan for a SDF (Scottish Defence Force) will be for home defence and humanitarian grounds and NOT for projecting power. Having said that - they are apparently not going to take their requirement to guard the Iceland gap lightly. Currently, the UK has no areal coastal defence operating up there...nothing. From what I gathered that would be corrected if possible under a separate Scotland.
In terms of forces, I believe this would come down to assets and liabilities that would need to be worked out. Again, as an example and if you believe what you read, then the SNP claims that Scotland would be entitled to 6 Euro fighters, 3 fully operational and equipped infantry units with support units, 6 mine sweepers etc, etc... I don't know that's the case at all, and I certainly don't know about quantities...but the consensus is as Scotland has contributed in taxes to the current forces, then they would be entitled a share of those forces.
It all sounds one way - but I'm sure it's not - and indeed hope it's not. At the end of the day though, the argument is Scotland helped with where Britain is today (in assets and liabilities) and therefore a fair share of the liabilities and assets should be split...including the national debt.
But there are very, very complex and long negotiations to go through if a YES vote is the returned result.
The SNP reckon Scotland will be independent come March 2016. That's all well and good - but I reckon there will be bickering for many, many years about what belongs to who and who gets a share of what and how much.
Sorry for the long post. :)
Quote from: Gusington on September 08, 2014, 09:43:47 AM
What % of forces does Scotland provide for the UK?
I don't know - but it's hard to know what's paid for by whom. As I said above...about £2.5 billion is used from Scottish taxation to go into the UK military bill and £1.5 billion is what it receives as a defence budget...
if you believe the figures being chucked around
its not so much that someone (russia) is going to attack Scotland with nukes but any nuclear attack on England is going to include Scotland.
and theres also the question of what happens with Holy Loch. thats a lot of infrastructure to just give up but I do see the option of US/UK leasing deals.
Fair point - but as I said - if the balloon goes up, we're all fcuked anyway ;D
And even if I wasn't, I wouldn't really want to be living in some post nuclear desolate world trying to rebuild shit and fighting for land and power...sod that. If a nuclear strike happens, I'll make my peace and god willing it'll be over quick.
I believe if there were to be a nuclear strike against the UK, it would come from a dirty bomb, or perhaps some Jihadist mentalist somewhere got hold of one - and I'll guarantee you something - if they did get one - they wouldn't give a crap how many the UK had - they'd still launch it.
That's why I say more on standard defence and security and less on nuclear. Put more money into surveillance and find out what's happening where - because a nuclear strike on the UK will likely be a single weapon and detonated locally.
Could Scotland seed Holy Loch to England.
I wouldn't have thought so.
The point (at least for the SNP's and one I firmly agree with) is to remove nuclear weapons from Scottish soil and, as a result, use the money elsewhere in the economy - not to give/sell/bargain (choose your option) land away
But hey - they're politicians - when have they ever stuck to anything they've said (any of them).
I reckon the SNP will blanket get rid of nuclear weapons. However, there is possibly another party coming into power in 2016 - so who knows, it's entirely possible a new government would reverse that decision and "rent" Faslane to the rUK...who knows what the future holds? :idiot2:
What gets me is the assumption of the SNP on the heavy reliance for the Scot economy of North Sea Oil. Whilst the sovereignty of land territory of Scotland is well established, maritime territoriality is not so, other than immediate coastal areas, which leaves ownership of oil platforms open to debate, especially as investment has come from the UK, and not an independent Scotland to date. I think that means there will be a lot of debate/concessions that will arise in any negotiations. If Scotland wants to leave the family of the UK, then why should the UK go out on a limb to help Scotland out? - it's not as though we have had any say elsewhere in the UK as to what we think of Scottish Independence, even though it's likely to effect us one way or another.
I would be very much for you having a vote. From what I gather, YES would be guaranteed then ;)
You may well be mistaken in thinking that Scotland is relying on oil to boost it's independence. But I guess that depends on which side you want to listen to. I have listened, read, re-read and believe that the SNP plan to setup a fund to hold onto oil revenue for less lucrative years. But who knows ^-^
As for North Sea Oil. Borders for coastal "control" or sovereignty or whatever you want to call it apparently, according to international law, comes at 90 degrees from your land border. I don't know if that's true - though if it is, it's pretty cut and shut where the border is.
In terms of investment you are absolutely correct in that it was the UK Government who set up the initial investment and got the ball rolling...remember though that Scotland didn't have a government to go investing in the oil off it's own coast. It's not like Scotland had a government to be able to make the most of that resource. You have to also wonder where the hell the government has squandered those billions over the last 30 years.
However, given that investment was initially made by the UK, then I would expect that, given the split of assets and liabilities, that that initial investment would be taken into account...though it might well have been used to keep bankers warm over the years.
Regardless - as I said, there are very complex negotiations to carry on over the years
as for military, £2.5B is about what Denmark spends and considering where about same size it should be enough.
What about economy, I havent got a clue as to what type of business you have up there. Service industry, banking, manufacturing etc ?
As for EU, well even if your not going to become members Theres always the option of Mutual trade agreements, which to me seems a much better solution anyways. Especially with the way EU is moving these days.
EDIT: wtf does this site keep insisting on using kapital letters all the time, it bugs the hell out of me having to go back and correct all the time, so no more you bitches :)
Quote from: jejo68 on September 09, 2014, 04:00:11 AM
as for military, £2.5B is about what Denmark spends and considering where about same size it should be enough.
What about economy, I havent got a clue as to what type of business you have up there. Service industry, banking, manufacturing etc ?
As for EU, well even if your not going to become members Theres always the option of Mutual trade agreements, which to me seems a much better solution anyways. Especially with the way EU is moving these days.
EDIT: wtf does this site keep insisting on using kapital letters all the time, it bugs the hell out of me having to go back and correct all the time, so no more you bitches :)
lol - I have no idea what the problem is with the caps...no capital letters are forced here.
It was mentioned Scotland would have a similar budget to the Danes in the last debate I saw.
As for economy - well, that's one of the issues, isn't it. Thatcher and her Tory government systematically dismantled most of the manufacturing in the UK (not just Scotland). Most of the UK (and Scotland) is services/financial based now. I'm not going to totally omit any wrong doing by trade unions or the previous Labour government here - but still, they were in power for 18 years and there was a huge and swift change in the makeup of the UK's economy - to the huge detriment of large swathes of working class people.
I don't know what the plan is but the idea of an independent Scotland is to set attractive tax rates to entice businesses to set up in Scotland as opposed to the south east of the UK where there's better transport, better infrastructure, bigger incentives. To provide better "back to work" schemes that might actually work and may get people off benefits and into work with proper living wages and get rid of "zero hour" contracts and stop the slow eroding of people's rights in the workplace.
It's all pie in the sky really and all could change in successive governments in an Indy Scotland - but there's a chance to change the makeup of the nation.
im not sure i understand the mass panic with offering Scotland incentives to stay now it looks like youll go
even Gordon Brown weighing in on the No vote
Do we not want Scotland to go because there are serious implications to England? to Scotland? or does the government simply not want to be the one in charge when the break up happened on their watch?
i dont think the move impacts me or mine in any way, i watch simply out of curiousity and hope you go, simply to see what happens next, i like the idea of a new flag for us, the next Scotland v England rugby/football match, watching the forces develop and seeing a new change to the UK
Just out of curiosity, Does anyone know what the last English speaking nation to gain independence up to now was?
I hope for positives on all sides - I just can't wish bad on anyone - it's not in my makeup >:(
I think UCG the "mass panic" is down to the fact they have been caught with their pants down. They have been complacent in the extreme (like most governments I've been aware of over the past 30 years) and as such will look utterly incompetent.
Will that matter to the public of the rUK? I don't think so - not to many anyway. Most people I speak to have genrally one of two views...
a) Scotland is a welfare burden with high unemployment and a growing elderly population and
b) If they don't want to be part of the UK anymore, then let them go
There is a third opinion, but in my own "wee poll" of people I speak to is much less the answer which is "It's be sad to see them go"...but that really is very low in any of the attitudes I come across (and for the record I'm not against any of those answers coming from anyone outside Scotland)
Attitude a) is definitely true. Scotland does have a high level of welfare and an ageing population - but those are things that an iScotland hope to reverse - again, over decades.
Attitude b) is definitely fair enough...and really, why cow tow to the Scots.
What the population of the rUK will want is a tough line on the negotiations after and who could/would blame them.
But it purely because they will have been seen to take their eye off the ball...they thought it was in the bag, and it's proving otherwise.
I now actually fear a NO vote (where I didn't before) because the animosity (which is already there) about what Scotland gets from the public purse will only grow with Devo Max. And I'll be left down here explaining (as I currently do) why Scotland has free education, why they have free prescriptions, why (in the future) Scotland has a free NHS system whilst England, Wales and NI have seen it whittled away.
Given attitudes to Europe in the UK, an iScotland will definitely be interesting as an experiment at least ;)
Quote from: Staggerwing on September 09, 2014, 05:56:05 AM
Just out of curiosity, Does anyone know what the last English speaking nation to gain independence up to now was?
Australia, 1986?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_that_have_gained_independence_from_the_United_Kingdom
I didn't know that. I'd assumed that the passing of the Statute of Westminster was when Australia became independent.
Hence the question mark. I was only going on what was fed to me by wiki - I didn't read further into it
This list seems more obvious
http://quizlet.com/12399613/list-of-countries-and-when-they-gained-independence-and-who-they-gained-independence-from-flash-cards/
Looking at the previous list, Australia was pretty much her own nation - seems the Australia Act was maybe just tidying things up.
If that's the case (same with Canada and New Zealand actually) then it would seem Ireland was the most recent English speaking country to gain independence in 1921
I say: ach, nae, thanks.
Lived through the threat of separation long enough here, really don't want them to get any more encouragement.
How little they realize that the natives would likely split afterwards as well, and then it would all look like the old Holy Roman Empire :P
A few salient points on the ramifications of the upcoming vote.
http://news.msn.com/world/why-the-world-should-care-about-scottish-independence
Quote from: MetalDog on September 13, 2014, 10:19:18 PM
A few salient points on the ramifications of the upcoming vote.
http://news.msn.com/world/why-the-world-should-care-about-scottish-independence
Uncertainty is the major problem. It always undermines business growth - never good for an economy.
I look at it like Texas wanting to leave.
ya I get your talking points.... but dont be stupid.
I'm not terribly pleased with it, given that my company is headquartered in Glasgow.
you'll all be fine. Despite the doom and gloom of politicians and markets, it'll all settle down and business as normal soon after
until the Scots take a page from the putin playbook and start infiltrating agents demanding even more separation from the UK.
JudgeDredd, the separation threat here has done a few things. I've seen this once and nearly another in my lifetime here and it hasn't been pretty.
Basically this drive the jobs and investment out of the province. Also, it's driven a wedge between people over silly language issues. On top of that, it's led some to believe that separation will let them be 'independent'. If your economy is in the rut, and people discouraged from investing there, how will you really be 'independent' in the 21st century? People have a good deal to be uncertain about. If you're a Scot and a homeowner in England, Wales or Northern Ireland, maybe you're not worried about your home's value. However, if I was a Scot living in Scotland, I'd be worried.
I don't think it would be 'business as usual'.
I had to laugh when I saw a Cornish independence movement while I was working there! I wasn't surprised when the separatists here started encouraging such movements in Spain and Scotland.
Well I disagree - but differences of opinion are expected and welcome.
Westminster is broke and has been for more than 3 decades now. What's more is the people of rUK will know it and find their voice again. That's what the 3 stooges are really worried about.
But I digress. It's for the people of Scotland to decide. I think I said on here, two of my sisters are YES voters, one is NO as is my mother and my wee brother. Opinion is divided within households - but they'll hold up - as will the Scottish people after the 19th
I brought up the question during our last Americas meeting and the head honcho seemed a bit surprised that a Yank knew about this. (Thank you, GrogHeads and GH members.) He was fairly evasive ("Good question! Blah blah blah...") and pretty much only mentioned taxes as an issue, but pretty much pled 'wait and see,' which seems rather good advice right now. Because, really, what else can you do?
Drink.
don't Scots do that anyway?
I stand corrected.
Drink more?
After all, by consuming more scotch, it should stimulate their economy :)
Well we know where at least one other Scotsman stands on the issue:
IT'S A BIRTHMARK!!!
(https://scontent-b-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/10606418_781063601935418_6988585820862018029_n.jpg?oh=174237d394ea0d76263b9e032b3edd16&oe=548E6B63)
Quote from: JudgeDredd on September 14, 2014, 08:56:50 AM
Well I disagree - but differences of opinion are expected and welcome.
Westminster is broke and has been for more than 3 decades now. What's more is the people of rUK will know it and find their voice again. That's what the 3 stooges are really worried about.
But I digress. It's for the people of Scotland to decide. I think I said on here, two of my sisters are YES voters, one is NO as is my mother and my wee brother. Opinion is divided within households - but they'll hold up - as will the Scottish people after the 19th
If it goes to court both parties are usually repesented in a divorce. 90% of the UK population get no say in what happens to the UK, although there a huge implications for the rest of the UK, and especially so if Scotland goes into an economic spiral if the yes vote succeeds. Since 1999, Scotland's onshore economy has generated 8.3% of the UK's tax receipts, while at the same time Scotland has received an average of 9.4% of UK public spending. Offshore revenue is a whole moot point, and while terrestrial territorial sovereignty is a given, the partition of UK territorial waters regarding oil, and fishing is not definite, and a future source of vexation both for the Scots and the rest of the UK.
OK, I understand the point that Westminster is London-centric, and the Tories have no interest in anyone who doesn't fit their club, but this criticism rightly affects all the UK - not just puir wee Scotland. Boo-hoo. That criticism is felt just as strongly here in the South-West of the UK.The SNP also say that Scotland is not represented in Westminster, but the last three UK Prime Minister's were either Scots - Blair, Brown, - or of Scottish parentage - Cameron, which suggest some disingenousness on the part of the SNP. The social spending and benefits in Scotland already are better than than for the rest of us in the UK - free prescriptions, free Higher Education, etc, so the Scots (outside of London) are already the favoured child of the union. Ironically, I am a supporter of some of the SNP's social policies, and I think there is a bigger role, and potentially a lot of support for them elsewhere in the UK providing they can develop from their parochial world view.
Do the Scots honestly think that all will be sweetness and light if they tell the rest of the UK to fuck off, which is essentially what independence amounts to? Why the hell should the rest of the UK then roll over to make it easy for the Scots if a 'yes' vote is successful? Both countries will have their national interest to consider, and in some respects both countries will be chasing for the same resources. Do you think the UK will just roll over without a fight for their own national interest? There are huge costs involved in effecting the result of the "Yes" outcome for both Scotland and the UK - defence, border control, trade dislocation (what will be the situation on cross border duties for example?) and I don't think this has entered the debate that much - both John Swinney, and Alex Salmond both seem to be in denial on the point.
I personally think that the sum of the UK is better than its parts, and I bear the people in Scotland people no ill will (like many people in the UK my family are part Scot [on my mother's side]), and I don't really want to see Scotland end up like Greece, because a bunch of hopeful 'yes' voters think that by voting 'yes' then romantically and magically all their problems will go away. They won't, and if it happens they'll still face the same shit the day after independence, only with 90% less taxpayers to help out if/when things crumble, or to be more diplomatic - don't go according to plan.
Moreover, if the 'yes' vote succeeds Scotland will be regarded by many in the rest of the UK as sticking two fingers up at the rest of the UK, with the same reaction that many Scots would feel if the role was reversed. It seems emotional, and naive to think that splitting up the UK will make things better. It won't. The identity argument is a load of bollocks. The people of the UK living in Scotland are Scottish anyway - with a clear cultural identity that they are rightly proud of (same as the people of Northen Ireland, Wales and England), but also have an alternate identity of "British" that we have jointly have the benefit of. I see myself as English first (British second), but I'm also proud of my Scottish ancestry too. However, the rejection of the rest of the UK is an uncomfortable feeling for us, and doesn't generate a positive attitude towards the yes voters in Scotland.
Less is not always more. In this case I think less is just less.
My $0.02... :(
And then someone arranged an international 'friendly' football match between England and Scotland.... it's going to be carnage
Quote from: undercovergeek on September 17, 2014, 05:43:38 AM
And then someone arranged an international 'friendly' football match between England and Scotland.... it's going to be carnage
:2funny:
Well spoken Boggit. I find many parallels with the subject of Quebec separation in This debate.
The Scottish pro-separation leaders are just as evasive on important questions as the pro-separation leaders here.
Quote from: endfire79 on September 17, 2014, 07:00:51 AM
Well spoken Boggit. I find many parallels with the subject of Quebec separation in This debate.
The Scottish pro-separation leaders are just as evasive on important questions as the pro-separation leaders here in Quebec.
Thanks Endfire. You are right to point out the parallels with Quebec, as there are a lot of similarities, the same passion etc. I'm not saying Scotland hasn't the capacity to go it alone, nor that they shouldn't choose their path.
I do say that the ramifications are huge, uncertain, and that divorce is not a good way to endear yourself to others, who have not been consulted when you are looking for their cooperation in the divvying up of benefits. As Scotland only provide 8.3% of taxable revenue at present, but takes an average of 9.4% in public spending arguably they don't have a great case for a higher proportion of resources, and why in the world would the UK prejudice its national interest for a group of people who don't want to be part of it any more?
Like most divorces this is a sad thing for many in the UK who see the nation as stronger, with more opportunity together. But post divorce why would you concern yourself overly with your ex? The "Yes" Scots just don't seem to recognise the disappointment of most people in the UK at the potential break up of our nation. They also don't seem recognise that whilst it is their choice to say "Yes" they will lose close friends in consequence, and needn't expect the UK to make any more than the lightest concession without hefty argument based on the UK's own national interest. Just as in divorce with real people - it might be one partner's choice to go ahead, it doesn't mean the other likes it, or will meekly submit if they are disadvantaged in any way. Many divorces start friendly and turn out acrimonious especially when it gets down to the money. It just seems naive wishful thinking to think otherwise.
This says more than I ever could about the independence debate...
Quote
...favoured child of the union...
and
Quote
...not just puir wee Scotland. Boo-hoo...
Even with the "puir" to get the accent in their is demeaning. :(
Good day. :-\
I've got buddies across the country that always take a piss on me because I live in this part of Canada, and the news sites have comments a plenty that appear to say they'd be better without us. I take it all in good humor, most of those are Leafs fans, so they probably don't know better ( ;), light hearted joke, no offenese). The point is, they know it and I know, breaking up is harder than it sounds and harder to deal with the consequences.
QuoteShould The U.S. Deploy Troops To Scotland? (http://www.clickhole.com/article/should-us-deploy-troops-scotland-1016)
A tragedy is unfolding in Scotland.
One glance at this week's headlines reveals that the region's fractious political situation is intensifying, with separatist activists gaining more and more support every day. Barring something drastic, Scotland seems bound inexorably for a cataclysm.
Can the United States stand idly by as Scotland descends into civil war?
Scotland has just 5,000 combat troops, hardly enough to defend its government against the more than 1 million rebels claiming allegiance to the radical group YES who already are taking to the streets in droves.
In such circumstances, is inaction justifiable? How many Scots need to die before Obama says "Enough is enough" and steps in?
The United States has a moral imperative to intervene, starting immediately with air raids to break the militant separatists before they gain a stranglehold on power. But that will not be enough. We need boots on the ground as soon and in as great numbers as possible.
Scotland may yet recover from the devastating strife that has rent its populace in two. But it will take nothing less than a full-scale U.S. ground invasion to secure even a faint hope that years down the road, the Scots may govern themselves and, perhaps, hold democratic elections.
Ok - maybe a better retorte
Boggit - I totally understand your position. And I absolutely agree with the sentiment that Scotland can't be expecting the vast majority of the rUK to cow tow to their demands. I certainly hope that Salmond drops the attitude. I wasn't a fan of his "We'll get a currency union" statement after being told it wasn't going to happen. To be honest, I'd rather they just went with their own currency or unsecured pound.
I know that would hit the economy in terms of borrowing, but maybe that would cut the borrowing bonanza governments seem to be getting into. As for no bank being behind the banking system - that's actually been reported by several "experts" that it could be a good thing - without a "lender of last resort" covering your back, you may not take the risks that banks world wide have been doing.
Regardless...to your point about puir wee Scotland. If the people of the UK (and I include Scotland in this) would get the hell out of their beds and vote, maybe those buggers in Westminster might just look and think "wow...we are actually being watched" - the people do care and maybe, just maybe they will wake up and make change.
You have been represented though. You have been represented by Better Together and by the full weight of Parliament - threats of doom and gloom and all. You have been represented. Though I whole heartedly agree you have been represented atrociously. First by a very negative campaign rather than pointing out the benefits of the UK, then by BT commander being pushed to the side for the one everyone loves south of the border (Gordon Brown) and finally by the 3 stooges coming up with whacky plans and vows that the UK people haven't been consulted on - never mind the fact that their parties haven't been consulted!
If, on the other hand, you mean "You didn't get a vote"...there are two things about that...
1. It's not a referendum about should the UK break up - the referendum is whether the people of Scotland believe they can be better represented by home rule. It's a sovereignty question for the people of Scotland.
2. If the rUK got the vote in this referendum, your wanting to keep Scotland would be a moot point. There's plenty of evidence to suggest that rUK would vote to let Scotland go
But as long as I can remember, successive governments have done nothing but sell out to the money. Yes...some of those were Scottish and I'm certainly not proud of it - as I said somewhere else, idiocy in politicians doesn't recognise borders or nationalities.
I hope the Scottish do not go to the negotiating table shouting the odds. I hope - if it's a yes vote - that they are humbled when they approach Westminster. It definitely wouldn't sit well for them to make demands and I do not want them to - and if they do, I would totally understand a hard hitting backlash from Westminster and the people of rUK.
Making demands will only create animosity and, contrary to belief, that is something I personally have never wanted. IT may be an inevitability - but that doesn't mean it's something I wanted and it's certainly something I would distance myself from.
I do not want the rUK to roll over and play ball with the Scots. I live here. I want them to be tough and stand their ground. But I still think Scotland should be independent.
Both Scotland and rUK will settle down. It will be different - but it will settle down. Not on Friday. Not a year on Friday maybe not even 5 years on Friday - but it WILL settle down and there'll be a better balance - imo.
As you pointed out - Scotland contribute to the tune of 8.3% of taxes and receive 9.4% of monies. I think that may depend on the figures you choose to read - but we'll go with those. That means rUK will be better off to the tune of having 1.1% more of taxes to spend. Essentially - from a purely financial perspective, the rUK will be better off. Sure - the world standing might be affected - and I say might. But is that a bad thing? The UK Government has promoted the idea of leaving the EU in 2017 through a referendum. Now isn't that the same as "leaving something bigger"? Becoming "smaller in a bigger pond"? It's almost the same thing. The same arguments for leaving the EU can be turned to arguments for Scotland leaving.
You ended your post with
Quote
Less is not always more. In this case I think less is just less.
And yet the UK is holding a referendum in 2017 to leave the EU - and it's HIGHLY likely that exit will be successful.
I want both sides to thrive from this - and I genuinely think - over time - they will. But each in their own way.
I'll butt out now. The vote is tomorrow and the result on Friday. I will never say another word about it regardless of the result...but I will end by saying please rUK - this might be difficult to do - but I don't want any of you to take this personally. Some of the people of Scotland (if you believe the polls) 48% believe Westminster and it's wreckless politics of boom and bust and round the merry go round we go.
I promise I'll be here to help you sort out the rUK - at least until I retire.
Good luck to us all - whatever the result. :-*
Quote from: JudgeDredd on September 17, 2014, 09:19:43 AM
This says more than I ever could about the independence debate...
Quote
...favoured child of the union...
and
Quote
...not just puir wee Scotland. Boo-hoo...
Even with the "puir" to get the accent in their is demeaning. :(
Good day. :-\
With all respect to you Judge Dredd at a personal level, I'm expressing a view held by many in England. This is not intended to be personally insulting/patronising, nor a slight on the Scottish people as a whole, but to get your attention as to some of the realities. The issue of independence is highly emotive south of the border too. We get no say, but you in the "yes" camp seem to expect us to lap up the break up of our country without criticism? Even in Scotland the debate seems pretty much 50/50, and why shouldn't we support the 50% that say no if we feel our interests run better together?
It's becoming increasingly apparent from the media that the "yes" campaign are either in denial about serious issues, widely intimidating "no" supporters, or dealing with deeply felt "no" concern in the 'well what else do you expect of opponents to independence' attitude that you take yourself. I'd have respected your comment about being demeaning more if you'd said "What do you mean about puir wee Scotland? Explain yourself Boggit." Well, I will because whilst I'm proudly English, and you're proudly a Scot we have common interests, and in many cases blood ties (certainly in my family) that drives us to look out for each other, and sadly sometimes die for each other, because we are a country where the sum of its parts is greater than the whole. What are we without each other? Small regions each pursuing their own petty self interest, or part of something better, something stronger? I have no intention of insulting Scotland. Half my mothers family are Scots descent, and to do so insults my own kin. But I don't want the "yes" campaigners portraying Scotland as some kind of lone victim, which must have independence if it is to have any future because it simply isn't true.
What will you have in Scotland if it votes "yes" - a people that can say what they want so long as it's said the right way - the SNP way? Alex Salmond and John Swinney were talking about a day of reckoning for businesses that are talking about relocation just the other day. What sort of Scotland are you going to wake up to with that kind of rhetoric, from politicians that make threats, but don't engage with the uncomfortable truths? I have friends and family in Scotland, and I'm genuinely am concerned for their future wellbeing, as well as for rest the country as a whole. We ARE ALL going to be affected by a "yes" decision, yet 90% of the country have no say in it - don't expect the disenfranchised not to have a view on what will fundamentally affect their country.
The same people with the aforesaid view do empathise with Scotland regarding the Tory London-centric policies that favour the rich, while stitching up the poor in our country. The fact remains that as a region of the UK Scotland DOES get a better deal than the rest of us, so yes, Scotland is the favoured child of the union (save perhaps for London, which is where Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and the rest of England do have common cause). It can be proven on the tax/public spending statistics, the level of devolution already, that Scotland gets a better deal by and large than the majority of people in the UK. Look at university funding, for example - you guys get it free on application. The rest of the UK either pays for it if they can afford it, gets heavily into debt, or does without. There are plenty of other inequalities in favour of Scotland, so when I say 'puir, wee Scotland' I say it in that context. You have priviliges not available to the rest of us, yet you're so hard done to your "yes" campaign can see no option but to say we need independence as there is no democracy in Scotland, fuck off UK.
Sure you can do an Alex Salmond style denial, and play the Hollywood "victim" in the piece. But this isn't "Braveheart" telling England to shove it (which incidentally IS historically inaccurate, despite what the romantics may think). The 'puir wee Scotland - Boo hoo' comment is deliberately made as provocative because the SNP DO hold up Scotland as the "victim" of UK policies. Stop playing the victim, and engage with the rest of us to make the changes we need for a fairer society in our country. There is much more common cause that we should be dealing with as a united nation. Running away from the social realities in the guise of independence to create this new utopia is a nice thought, but frankly it weakens us all. We need people with passion like you to help us make a better, more egalitarian society for all the people in our country, not just the select few (and I honestly have my doubts as to how that new paradise will turn out if t does)- don't break up the country for short term euphoria at scoring points over the Tories and the English whipping boy.
Just out of curiosity - and Smcuk can certainly weigh in here - but what were the mechanics of the Czech-Slovak split with regards to military, spending/currency, central banking, laws & courts, etc etc.
Are there lessons to be learned there?
It's certainly got to look better than the Yugoslavia-Croatia split!
Quote from: Boggit on September 17, 2014, 03:10:30 PMdon't break up the country for short term euphoria at scoring points over the Tories and the English whipping boy.
Isn't this pretty much the summation of every UK-wide "leave the EU" campaign?
Quote from: Boggit on September 17, 2014, 03:10:30 PM
Quote from: JudgeDredd on September 17, 2014, 09:19:43 AM
This says more than I ever could about the independence debate...
Quote
...favoured child of the union...
and
Quote
...not just puir wee Scotland. Boo-hoo...
Even with the "puir" to get the accent in their is demeaning. :(
Good day. :-\
With all respect to you Judge Dredd at a personal level, I'm expressing a view held by many in England. This is not intended to be personally insulting/patronising, nor a slight on the Scottish people as a whole, but to get your attention as to some of the realities. The issue of independence is highly emotive south of the border too. We get no say, but you in the "yes" camp seem to expect us to lap up the break up of our country without criticism? Even in Scotland the debate seems pretty much 50/50, and why shouldn't we support the 50% that say no if we feel our interests run better together?
It's becoming increasingly apparent from the media that the "yes" campaign are either in denial about serious issues, widely intimidating "no" supporters, or dealing with deeply felt "no" concern in the 'well what else do you expect of opponents to independence' attitude that you take yourself. I'd have respected your comment about being demeaning more if you'd said "What do you mean about puir wee Scotland? Explain yourself Boggit." Well, I will because whilst I'm proudly English, and you're proudly a Scot we have common interests, and in many cases blood ties (certainly in my family) that drives us to look out for each other, and sadly sometimes die for each other, because we are a country where the sum of its parts is greater than the whole. What are we without each other? Small regions each pursuing their own petty self interest, or part of something better, something stronger? I have no intention of insulting Scotland. Half my mothers family are Scots descent, and to do so insults my own kin. But I don't want the "yes" campaigners portraying Scotland as some kind of lone victim, which must have independence if it is to have any future because it simply isn't true.
What will you have in Scotland if it votes "yes" - a people that can say what they want so long as it's said the right way - the SNP way? Alex Salmond and John Swinney were talking about a day of reckoning for businesses that are talking about relocation just the other day. What sort of Scotland are you going to wake up to with that kind of rhetoric, from politicians that make threats, but don't engage with the uncomfortable truths? I have friends and family in Scotland, and I'm genuinely am concerned for their future wellbeing, as well as for rest the country as a whole. We ARE ALL going to be affected by a "yes" decision, yet 90% of the country have no say in it - don't expect the disenfranchised not to have a view on what will fundamentally affect their country.
The same people with the aforesaid view do empathise with Scotland regarding the Tory London-centric policies that favour the rich, while stitching up the poor in our country. The fact remains that as a region of the UK Scotland DOES get a better deal than the rest of us, so yes, Scotland is the favoured child of the union (save perhaps for London, which is where Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and the rest of England do have common cause). It can be proven on the tax/public spending statistics, the level of devolution already, that Scotland gets a better deal by and large than the majority of people in the UK. Look at university funding, for example - you guys get it free on application. The rest of the UK either pays for it if they can afford it, gets heavily into debt, or does without. There are plenty of other inequalities in favour of Scotland, so when I say 'puir, wee Scotland' I say it in that context. You have priviliges not available to the rest of us, yet you're so hard done to your "yes" campaign can see no option but to say we need independence as there is no democracy in Scotland, fuck off UK.
Sure you can do an Alex Salmond style denial, and play the Hollywood "victim" in the piece. But this isn't "Braveheart" telling England to shove it (which incidentally IS historically inaccurate, despite what the romantics may think). The 'puir wee Scotland - Boo hoo' comment is deliberately made as provocative because the SNP DO hold up Scotland as the "victim" of UK policies. Stop playing the victim, and engage with the rest of us to make the changes we need for a fairer society in our country. There is much more common cause that we should be dealing with as a united nation. Running away from the social realities in the guise of independence to create this new utopia is a nice thought, but frankly it weakens us all. We need people with passion like you to help us make a better, more egalitarian society for all the people in our country, not just the select few (and I honestly have my doubts as to how that new paradise will turn out if t does)- don't break up the country for short term euphoria at scoring points over the Tories and the English whipping boy.
I know Boggit - which is why I tried to come back with something a little more understanding.
@Judge Dredd
I've just seen the post you got in just before me. We have a lot more in common than may have first appeared. We disagree over the independence issue for different reasons, for the reasons we both state. I honestly believe that the independence issue is an emotive con on the Scottish people by politicians in Scotland (SNP) who want to be big fish in a small bowl, and make their names in history. I genuinely fear for the future of my countrymen in Scotland, so I hope you'll forgive me if I express some thoughts intended to resonate harshly with the overly optimistic view of the SNP.
As to the bigwigs of Westminster getting involved when they are part of the whole problem - I get it. But we are both agreed they are a bunch of wankers, and that the politician problem is not for just Scotland but for the rest of the UK as a whole. Independence is going to drive a wedge between the people of this country, which is in the nature of the beast. I wish it weren't so, but I'd be deluding myself if I thought otherwise. I hope that the vote will be a "no", and if it is then the independence issue is a good thing as it will have shaken up Westminster and engaged our people in the political debate about what sort of country we want to live in. If that happens then we all need to demand change - together, so that everyone outside London does see more social justice, and a better say in our regional affairs. Better together, I say - but stuff the Westminster politicians who want to keep the status quo in their own self interest.
However it goes, JudgeDredd, I sincerely hope that things work out very well for all concerned - including yours truly, and your family. I am not anti-Scottish, quite the reverse, but this is a huge undertaking with a huge amount of unknowns that people are being asked to vote upon. I still feel the issues raised in argument for independence resonate well with the rest of the UK, but we should be working to resolve these issues together, not separately. Divided we fall, united we stand.
'nuff said. Good luck. :)
Boggit, you have put exactly how I feel much more eloquently than I ever could have done.
Quote from: Boggit on September 17, 2014, 03:38:57 PMDivided we fall, united we stand.
seems I've heard this somewhere before ::)
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmadogre.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F05%2FJoin-or-die.jpg&hash=21baba4849924c0a5fa83eada7e46ad573e0b2ff)
Quote from: bayonetbrant on September 17, 2014, 03:25:51 PM
Just out of curiosity - and Smcuk can certainly weigh in here - but what were the mechanics of the Czech-Slovak split with regards to military, spending/currency, central banking, laws & courts, etc etc.
Are there lessons to be learned there?
It's certainly got to look better than the Yugoslavia-Croatia split!
This is a huge deal here. A UK with Scotland in it has existed for well over 300 years.
You had a war over secession in the States within 80 odd years from the birth of your country (itself created from a civil war for independence). Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia were created in 1919, doing their splits in different circumstances roughly 70 years after creation. The Union of the United Kingdom has existed long BEFORE any of these countries even existed!
As I write the Scots are my countrymen, and I would die in their defence. Tomorrow a small majority may make them foreigners, with their own agenda of national interest. I am desperately sad at the prospect of the split for lots of reasons. Fortunately the USA is not facing such a situation, but try to imagine what a huge deal it is for people in the UK, especially as we've had no say in it. If the vote is as close as it is now (and it's roughly 50/50) then 3m people will determine direction of the future for 63m people. It's a huge deal.
Quote from: bayonetbrant on September 17, 2014, 03:27:02 PM
Quote from: Boggit on September 17, 2014, 03:10:30 PMdon't break up the country for short term euphoria at scoring points over the Tories and the English whipping boy.
Isn't this pretty much the summation of every UK-wide "leave the EU" campaign?
It's a very different issue, although I readily concede at first sight that you'd wonder why. It's very different partly because the EU are NOT our countrymen. The Scots are. While some in the rest of the UK might say good riddance, there are a greater number of us who value the Scottish dimension to our culture. The Scots are a fundamental part of what it is to be a Briton. Scotland is a part of our identity, and especially so if you have Scottish ancestors, as many of us do.
Quote from: Boggit on September 17, 2014, 03:57:36 PM
but try to imagine what a huge deal it is for people in the UK, especially as we've had no say in it. If the vote is as close as it is now (and it's roughly 50/50) then 3m people will determine direction of the future for 63m people. It's a huge deal.
I don't know how it will go tomorrow but no vote before has ever caught my enthusiasm for democracy. The last minute promises from Westminster politicians probably soured feelings all over the UK Boggit. I have no faith in anything promised there so I am voting YES. What a change when all this started, what a confirmed NO I was. Regardless of the result let's hope our snout nosed politicians start to realise that in this social media dominated world telling people, sorry threating people with what they will will lose is a turn off. Try a positive campaign on how you will improve things.
Quote from: bob48 on September 17, 2014, 03:42:35 PM
Boggit, you have put exactly how I feel much more eloquently than I ever could have done.
Thanks Bob. :) While I hope that it turns out to be a "no", good will come from the Independence campaign as it has shaken the whole country, and l'd agree with JudgeDredd it's got the people out of bed and talking. If it turns out a "no" then we need people like JudgeDredd and the "yes" campaigners in the fold working with the rest of us to insist on better representation of all our interests.
I think the problem is Boggit that the British electorate (including the Scottish) have got lazy. They've let successive government after successive government just do what they wish.
I fear it's too late to save. If it isn't - if there's a NO vote on Friday - then the system HAS to change - because this will come back and it will be stronger next time. So the people of the UK (all just now and perhaps rUK after Friday) NEED to get back in the game - make these people accountable for the shambolic mess they've made over the last 30+ years that I've had an interest in politics (I couldn't vote until I was 23) and change the politics of the country. They have to be accountable.
I will say this - as much as I would like my country to be an independent, proud, upstanding beacon, standing on it's own two feet, not being able to blame England for it's problems and being wholly responsible for itself - I am genuinely deeply sorry for anyone who is going to feel the result of a NO vote has robbed them of their identity. I really am.
I think you hit the nail on the head, JD, insofar as calling the electorate 'lazy.' That's not a UK issue, either, of course. People are narcissistic assholes now for the most part and are 'meh' on anything that is outside of their vision and past their nose.
Quote from: The Puss on September 17, 2014, 04:29:02 PM
Quote from: Boggit on September 17, 2014, 03:57:36 PM
but try to imagine what a huge deal it is for people in the UK, especially as we've had no say in it. If the vote is as close as it is now (and it's roughly 50/50) then 3m people will determine direction of the future for 63m people. It's a huge deal.
I don't know how it will go tomorrow but no vote before has ever caught my enthusiasm for democracy. The last minute promises from Westminster politicians probably soured feelings all over the UK Boggit. I have no faith in anything promised there so I am voting YES. What a change when all this started, what a confirmed NO I was. Regardless of the result let's hope our snout nosed politicians start to realise that in this social media dominated world telling people, sorry threating people with what they will will lose is a turn off. Try a positive campaign on how you will improve things.
The Westminster politicians are despised throughout the country, and like you I cringed when they backed the "no" campaign. It was a bit like Hitler, Mao, and Stalin presenting on behalf of liberal democracy. So if "yes" win instead of Westminster politicians shafting you, you'll be shafted instead by Alex Salmond and his crew, only with less political opposition in Scotland. Do you think we in the English regions trust Westminster any more than you in Scotland? Not at all. We have a huge affinity for what you are saying, but we should be pushing for change together, and there is a strength in numbers. The independence issue has changed the political dynamic, and although my hope is that Scotland stays within the United Kingdom, with the current political impetus we must work with Scotland for a better UK, not a separate one.
Quote from: Boggit on September 17, 2014, 04:42:51 PM
The Westminster politicians are despised throughout the country, and like you I cringed when they backed the "no" campaign. It was a bit like Hitler, Mao, and Stalin presenting on behalf of liberal democracy. So if "yes" win instead of Westminster politicians shafting you, you'll be shafted instead by Alex Salmond and his crew, only with less political opposition in Scotland. Do you think we in the English regions trust Westminster any more than you in Scotland? Not at all. We have a huge affinity for what you are saying, but we should be pushing for change together, and there is a strength in numbers. The independence issue has changed the political dynamic, and although my hope is that Scotland stays within the United Kingdom, with the current political impetus we must work with Scotland for a better UK, not a separate one.
Wee Leck is far from perfect and so are his sidekicks. Politicians are seldom are. I would stay if there was a federal UK on the table.
Quote from: JudgeDredd on September 17, 2014, 04:35:45 PM
I think the problem is Boggit that the British electorate (including the Scottish) have got lazy. They've let successive government after successive government just do what they wish.
I fear it's too late to save. If it isn't - if there's a NO vote on Friday - then the system HAS to change - because this will come back and it will be stronger next time. So the people of the UK (all just now and perhaps rUK after Friday) NEED to get back in the game - make these people accountable for the shambolic mess they've made over the last 30+ years that I've had an interest in politics (I couldn't vote until I was 23) and change the politics of the country. They have to be accountable.
I will say this - as much as I would like my country to be an independent, proud, upstanding beacon, standing on it's own two feet, not being able to blame England for it's problems and being wholly responsible for itself - I am genuinely deeply sorry for anyone who is going to feel the result of a NO vote has robbed them of their identity. I really am.
You and I are not so far apart in our opinions - save for the independence bit. The irony is that since we've locked horns over this our opinions turn out virtually identical despite being in different camps on independence. If it turns out a "No" then get in touch with me again on this matter. The times are changing and we owe it to our families, and our to our country to see that the changes happen for our country's needs. It's a critical time in history, and the opportunity to change our country for the better can't be let slip. If it's a "yes", well good luck, but I have severe concerns that it will be a very painful transition after over 300 years of being one country.
Quote from: The Puss on September 17, 2014, 04:51:47 PM
Quote from: Boggit on September 17, 2014, 04:42:51 PM
The Westminster politicians are despised throughout the country, and like you I cringed when they backed the "no" campaign. It was a bit like Hitler, Mao, and Stalin presenting on behalf of liberal democracy. So if "yes" win instead of Westminster politicians shafting you, you'll be shafted instead by Alex Salmond and his crew, only with less political opposition in Scotland. Do you think we in the English regions trust Westminster any more than you in Scotland? Not at all. We have a huge affinity for what you are saying, but we should be pushing for change together, and there is a strength in numbers. The independence issue has changed the political dynamic, and although my hope is that Scotland stays within the United Kingdom, with the current political impetus we must work with Scotland for a better UK, not a separate one.
Wee Leck is far from perfect and so are his sidekicks. Politicians are seldom are. I would stay if there was a federal UK on the table.
That could work. It works in Germany. I'd need to know more about what is entailed, but in principle that could be the compromise that satisfies everyone. At least it doesn't break up the country. Lead on McDuff... ;) :)
This should have been on the table 2 years ago but the NO were so confident of success they probably never considered it. At times England is just as divided as Scotland. I am sure those in the north east/west feel disenfranchised from the south east. Hasn't Cornwall always thought itself separate and Yorkshire is a world apart. Tomorrow rolls on regardless. Whether it is YES or NO questions need to be asked about a centralised government. Just because it suits for 100's of years does not make it the way forward.
Quote from: The Puss on September 17, 2014, 05:33:22 PM
This should have been on the table 2 years ago but the NO were so confident of success they probably never considered it. At times England is just as divided as Scotland. I am sure those in the north east/west feel disenfranchised from the south east. Hasn't Cornwall always thought itself separate and Yorkshire is a world apart. Tomorrow rolls on regardless. Whether it is YES or NO questions need to be asked about a centralised government. Just because it suits for 100's of years does not make it the way forward.
I pretty much agree with you. I have two cousins on my Mum's side who are Cornish first, English/Welsh second (my aunt is English/Scots, my uncle is Welsh and speaks Welsh too), British third (and that's without mentioning the Scottish part of their family!). I have no problems whatever with regional loyalties within our nation, and it makes it more interesting to have such a diverse culture. I don't think within families in the UK those regional origins being particularly odd either - on the flip side 2/3 of my Dad's family are Yanks, Canucks, and a few Kiwi's! :o If I add my wife's family ties to it, it all gets even more complex!
I agree with you that whatever happens tomorrow happens. Your point on centralised government is valid, and I think if there is a "no" then as a country we should be seriously looking at Federalisation as an option. I would prefer that to a break up of the country.
The UK is going to hold a referendum to leave the EU in 2017?? Who knew...
Quote from: Gusington on September 17, 2014, 08:21:46 PM
The UK is going to hold a referendum to leave the EU in 2017?? Who knew...
I didn't think they ever joined. It's why they have their own currency and not the Euro.
Quote from: LongBlade on September 17, 2014, 09:38:29 PM
Quote from: Gusington on September 17, 2014, 08:21:46 PM
The UK is going to hold a referendum to leave the EU in 2017?? Who knew...
I didn't think they ever joined. It's why they have their own currency and not the Euro.
Most of the members of EU have their own currency
Quote from: bob48 on September 17, 2014, 03:42:35 PM
Boggit, you have put exactly how I feel much more eloquently than I ever could have done.
thats because your an old fart! :smitten:
Quote from: jejo68 on September 18, 2014, 12:12:30 AM
Quote from: LongBlade on September 17, 2014, 09:38:29 PM
Quote from: Gusington on September 17, 2014, 08:21:46 PM
The UK is going to hold a referendum to leave the EU in 2017?? Who knew...
I didn't think they ever joined. It's why they have their own currency and not the Euro.
Most of the members of EU have their own currency
Really? I thought most (though I know not all) were using the Euro.
Time for wiki me thinks...
Other way round - most members have the euro.... only the UK opted out of monetary union
Not strictly speaking true - according to Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1160.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fq499%2Fwmar1967%2FMisc%2FSnap1_zpsd08b144c.jpg&hash=75fb4cd46793e72f8bbe8922fb7713f2536bd215)
Quote from: JudgeDredd on September 18, 2014, 03:57:56 AM
Not strictly speaking true - according to Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1160.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fq499%2Fwmar1967%2FMisc%2FSnap1_zpsd08b144c.jpg&hash=75fb4cd46793e72f8bbe8922fb7713f2536bd215)
I should have said..... 'at the beginning'
But that looks like most from here O0
lol. It is indeed most
Quote from: LongBlade on September 17, 2014, 09:38:29 PM
Quote from: Gusington on September 17, 2014, 08:21:46 PM
The UK is going to hold a referendum to leave the EU in 2017?? Who knew...
I didn't think they ever joined. It's why they have their own currency and not the Euro.
You're thinking of the Eurozone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurozone), which uses the Euro. Only about two-thirds of the EU countries are in it. IIRC, a couple of non-EU countries uses Euros as well.
EDIT: N/M, JD beat me to it. :))
Quote from: Staggerwing on September 18, 2014, 05:20:05 AM
Quote from: LongBlade on September 17, 2014, 09:38:29 PM
Quote from: Gusington on September 17, 2014, 08:21:46 PM
The UK is going to hold a referendum to leave the EU in 2017?? Who knew...
I didn't think they ever joined. It's why they have their own currency and not the Euro.
You're thinking of the Eurozone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurozone), which uses the Euro. Only about two-thirds of the EU countries are in it. IIRC, a couple of non-EU countries uses Euros as well.
EDIT: N/M, JD beat me to it. :))
Thanks, all.
There was a time when such details would have been better know to me. Clearly I haven't kept up with events there like I used to.
Look at Switzerland hanging tough as usual. 'No EU for us thanks.'
So how is this referendum going? Will they draw and quarter someone in London at sundown today?
I just chatted with an expat in Dubai. She said we'd know here by early AM tomorrow since she said the results would be available around 0900 their time. I think that's around 0300 CST, if they're six hours ahead of us.
your next King of Scotland... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Bonaventura_Adalbert_Maria,_Duke_of_Bavaria
Quote from: bayonetbrant on September 17, 2014, 12:35:45 PM
QuoteShould The U.S. Deploy Troops To Scotland? (http://www.clickhole.com/article/should-us-deploy-troops-scotland-1016)
OK, so I was being a smart-ass with that one...
Uh... http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/09/17/not-an-onion-headline-u-s-sends-in-the-marines-on-eve-of-scottish-referendum/
For a bit of light heartedness on it - watch this video.
Results should be in by 7am GMT
Quote from: JudgeDredd on September 18, 2014, 08:44:37 AM
Results should be in by 7am GMT
That's 1 am Central US time.
Quote from: LongBlade on September 18, 2014, 09:02:51 AM
Quote from: JudgeDredd on September 18, 2014, 08:44:37 AM
Results should be in by 7am GMT
That's 1 am Central US time.
you'll still be up working on your daughter's phone anyway :)
Quote from: Martok on September 15, 2014, 11:38:37 AM
Well we know where at least one other Scotsman stands on the issue:
IT'S A BIRTHMARK!!!
Awesome! In countries that have oil, men don't wear pants!!! :2funny:
Polls thus far
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11045624/Scottish-independence-referendum-poll-the-latest-tracker.html
QuoteLatest polling
Polls for the Scottish referendum continue to indicate a narrow lead for the No campaign.
The final poll ahead of voting ending is by Ipsos Mori for tonight's Evening Standard:
• Ipsos Mori: Yes 47%, No 53%
The three polls released on the eve of the referendum suggested the following:
• Ipsos Mori: Yes 49%, No 51%
• YouGov: Yes 48%, No 52%
• Survation: Yes 47%, No 53%
:))
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/13/up-to-a-point-a-free-scotland-would-be-a-hilarious-disaster.html (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/13/up-to-a-point-a-free-scotland-would-be-a-hilarious-disaster.html)
^^^
OK, that was pretty damned funny.
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on September 18, 2014, 12:58:58 AM
Quote from: bob48 on September 17, 2014, 03:42:35 PM
Boggit, you have put exactly how I feel much more eloquently than I ever could have done.
thats because your an old fart! :smitten:
Correct!
Quote from: Silent Disapproval Robot on September 18, 2014, 01:03:35 PM
:))
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/13/up-to-a-point-a-free-scotland-would-be-a-hilarious-disaster.html (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/13/up-to-a-point-a-free-scotland-would-be-a-hilarious-disaster.html)
:2funny:
QuoteScotland has poignant disease too. Does Doctors Without Borders treat hangovers?
:2funny:
Damn I do love the writing of Mr. O'Rourke!
Me too. It's been a long while since I've read his stuff - I think the last thing was his book called "Give War a Chance" back in 1990/91 or so. That article was hilarious. Wish I could email it to my company.
Thanks. I got a good chuckle out of that.
Quote from: Banzai_Cat on September 18, 2014, 01:36:36 PM
Me too. It's been a long while since I've read his stuff - I think the last thing was his book called "Give War a Chance" back in 1990/91 or so. That article was hilarious. Wish I could email it to my company.
I first read his work in National Lampoon magazine. Laughed so hard that I couldn't breathe and tears ran down my face!
Quote from: Banzai_Cat on September 18, 2014, 01:36:36 PMWish I could email it to my company without immediately following up by emailing out my resume to the rest of the world.
fixed it for you ;)
^ Yeah, that. :(
I did forward it to a trainer friend of mine who's a Scot and an expat friend in Dubai, so I was able to share it to an extent.
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on September 18, 2014, 12:58:58 AM
Quote from: bob48 on September 17, 2014, 03:42:35 PM
Boggit, you have put exactly how I feel much more eloquently than I ever could have done.
thats because your an old fart! :smitten:
You know me too well! ;D
First exit poll says it was 54% no.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/scottish-independence-blog/live/2014/sep/18/scottish-referendum-results-live-coverage-of-the-independence-vote
It's over :(
and??? everything Im finding is 5 hours old.
Better Together won. Scotland still belongs to Westminster. :(
Just got the notification via some news app.
I'll be interested to see how the demographics play out. The blurb I just saw said 84% of Glasgow went for yes. I wonder was this an urban versus rural referendum? Was the margin of victory large enough to settle the issue or will this happen yet again in the near future?
Quote from: JudgeDredd on September 19, 2014, 12:28:02 AM
Better Together won. Scotland still belongs to Westminster. :(
all things being equal its the best way at the moment. as a Southerner thats lived in Texas theres a big part of me that would love to see it leave the Union. the reality is that the the total is greater then the mere addition of its parts.
I have no dog in the Scotland/UK debate.
However, I will make the observation that we, as a population of the Earth, started the 20th Century with an increased momentum toward nationalism. Or, in other words, one massive state-aggregated union.
Did the UK precede the trend by a couple of centuries? Maybe. That's outside the scope of my observation.
Point being, that we started the 20th Century trending toward conglomeration. But we seem to have closed it by moving toward smaller, independent states. Examples are myriad, but to refute the claim there don't seem to be a lot of causes at the moment which are trending toward larger, integrated states.
Is this right or wrong?
That seems to be a different question. But the trend, at least to me, seems clear.
Quote from: LongBlade on September 19, 2014, 12:32:40 AM
Was the margin of victory large enough to settle the issue or will this happen yet again in the near future?
...in a few decades when the traditional muslim-minded immigrants offspring in England's major cities had outbirthed the rural small town Englishmen and it start to show, (with Sharia ruled quarters of Londow) and all the other problems that came with that, the Scottish may vote again ;)
Quote from: LongBlade on September 19, 2014, 12:32:40 AM
Just got the notification via some news app.
I'll be interested to see how the demographics play out. The blurb I just saw said 84% of Glasgow went for yes. I wonder was this an urban versus rural referendum? Was the margin of victory large enough to settle the issue or will this happen yet again in the near future?
To be honest - I don't fucking care. >:(
Seriously though, I put my friendships on the line with this. Not selflessly...but I live in England - I had no reason to come out on either side. But I did - and the reason I did is because I felt Scotland had hung on to the shirt tails of England for too long. I really believed that Scotland could stand in the world without the backing of the United Kingdom. It appears the Scottish electorate believe that my thoughts were total bollocks.
Having said that...
I am happy for the people that have kept the UK, including my mum, but I am personally, absolutely gutted that Scotland has decided to live in the shadow of the UK.
I totally understand that that is not the view of everyone here...I get peoples "big fish little pond" or vice versa...all this bollox about "ohhh...the bigger the better for you and - well, who the fuck knows" - I get other people see the world like that. But that is not my world, and more crucially, in view of this referendum, it is not my view.
Having said that, I think the fact that this was allowed to go ahead in a union of 300+ years without resorting to violence is an absolute testament to democracy and, more so, understanding of a people's right to determine their identity. I genuinely thank the UK government for allowing Scotland this opportunity. Clearly I hope "this is not the end"....but the fact we were allowed to have this referendum was a testament to the UK and that Union.
To anyone that I was insufferable to - I sincerely apologise....I was passionate but I hope not inconsiderate.
The people of Scotland have done that and they have chosen to stay British.
Sorry LOngblade. I've been awake since 7amGMT on the 18th and I've been drinking since 20:00...until now.
It's been a long LONG campaign and long day. I'm not really up for scrutiny
The union won (again) and I don't know that I will see Scotland free in my lifetime (forgive me and allow me please these words...I know people argue about Scotland no being Subjugated etc etc....but this is the second referendum my fellow Scots have chucked away). On top of that, I have "risked" some friendships on this vote...Thankfully, my wife has been very understanding.
I'll leave it for other happier, more victorious people to give you full SP.
From my point of view and everyone I know.... no one feels happy or victorious this morning JD except maybe Scottish no voters, the news is simply reporting the facts, the streets are not full of people waving union jacks with tears on their face that the union has survived
Oddly there was a group on the radio this morning saying Cameron should now treat Scotland like a naughty child who tried to run away, no conciliatory rhetoric, more 'who the fk do you think you are?' And these were Scots
Quote from: JudgeDredd on September 19, 2014, 02:24:36 AM
Quote from: LongBlade on September 19, 2014, 12:32:40 AM
Just got the notification via some news app.
I'll be interested to see how the demographics play out. The blurb I just saw said 84% of Glasgow went for yes. I wonder was this an urban versus rural referendum? Was the margin of victory large enough to settle the issue or will this happen yet again in the near future?
To be honest - I don't fucking care. >:(
Seriously though, I put my friendships on the line with this. Not selflessly...but I live in England - I had no reason to come out on either side. But I did - and the reason I did is because I felt Scotland had hung on to the shirt tails of England for too long. I really believed that Scotland could stand in the world without the backing of the United Kingdom. It appears the Scottish electorate believe that my thoughts were total bollocks.
Having said that...
I am happy for the people that have kept the UK, including my mum, but I am personally, absolutely gutted that Scotland has decided to live in the shadow of the UK.
I totally understand that that is not the view of everyone here...I get peoples "big fish little pond" or vice versa...all this bollox about "ohhh...the bigger the better for you and - well, who the fuck knows" - I get other people see the world like that. But that is not my world, and more crucially, in view of this referendum, it is not my view.
Having said that, I think the fact that this was allowed to go ahead in a union of 300+ years without resorting to violence is an absolute testament to democracy and, more so, understanding of a people's right to determine their identity. I genuinely thank the UK government for allowing Scotland this opportunity. Clearly I hope "this is not the end"....but the fact we were allowed to have this referendum was a testament to the UK and that Union.
To anyone that I was insufferable to - I sincerely apologise....I was passionate but I hope not inconsiderate.
The people of Scotland have done that and they have chosen to stay British.
I am truly glad that Scotland has remained in the UK, but I REFUSE to gloat over the "Yes" campaigners.
When you look at the issues raised by JudgeDredd, and the Puss I find myself agreeing with them in large part, but not on the need to have independence as to the only way of achieving it. Those same issues affect the majority of the UK, and it has taken the independence movement in Scotland to galvanise opinion, scare the sh1t out of the Westminster politicians, and set a direction for political change that will be hard for Westminster to ignore. For that I say to the "Yes" campaigners, JudgeDredd, and the Puss a BIG thank you.
I think the independence for Scotland campaign was parochial, but the issues raised in argument for independence apply equally in many cases to the rest of the UK. I open my arms to the "Yes" campaigners, and say let's go for the bigger fish together, bring the passion you feel for our country southwards and share with the English, the Welsh and the people of Northern Ireland. While we may sometimes be fractious brothers, we are still brothers. It's time for reflection and a family reconciliation. I don't believe this is a matter of loss for the "yes" campaigners but the beginning of a new fight for civil rights in our country. We cannot now accept the status quo, and that is the legacy of the "yes" campaign.
The one difference is that the "Yes" campaigners will find is that many of the people who have opposed them on independence - myself included - share much the same outlook on the broader issues. You will now find that there are many people in the rest of the UK who find the grievances felt in Scotland are well justified, and will want to see a new UK with many of the values espoused in the independence campaign. You may have been more widely opposed on independence itself, but not on most of the motivations leading to the demand for it.
@JudgeDredd/the puss - you are not defeated. The "no" campaign may indirectly have done us all a favour in keeping our country together, but you are not defeated. You are no less/more Scottish for the result, and I no less/more English, and we are still of one family. We need to unite to bring Westminster to account, and break their paralysing, self-interested hold on our country. We need to unite for a fairer society - wasn't that really what the underlying demand for independence all about?
It's time to expand the SNP to the UKNP, and move the arguments south. Whatever you might think. I don't think the worse of you. You want a better country to live in, and what rational person would not want that? I just think the mechanism to achieve what you wanted was wrong, not the motivation to change things. It's time to expand the cause for change in our country, not just for Scotland but all of it. Participate and join with the rest of us, perhaps lead us - after all it is you who have faced up to Westminster and come pretty damn' close to winning @45% of the vote. So don't feel bad. You've lost a skirmish, but the bigger fight awaits for the whole UK. Don't think small. It's now time for us all to win! ...And we need you. :)
Quote from: undercovergeek on September 19, 2014, 03:49:28 AM
From my point of view and everyone I know.... no one feels happy or victorious this morning JD except maybe Scottish no voters, the news is simply reporting the facts, the streets are not full of people waving union jacks with tears on their face that the union has survived
Oddly there was a group on the radio this morning saying Cameron should now treat Scotland like a naughty child who tried to run away, no conciliatory rhetoric, more 'who the fk do you think you are?' And these were Scots
I couldn't agree more. As to the radio group, what can you say? :( I think it insulting to take that view. >:( That things were perceived so bad that to many independence was the only serious option - that attitude spits in the face of the genuinely held concerns of Scottish "yes" voters, and justified frustration at Westminster politics. While I am in favour of a UK with Scotland in it, I will not disrespect the underlying wish for Scots to stand on their own feet, and make a better society for Scotland, even if I oppose the independence part. It is the "yes" campaign that has galvanised opinion far beyond independence, but as to how we run our country. For that I am truly grateful to the "yes" campaign. So now there should be NO backlash, but a reflection of how we got into the mess that drove many of our countrymen to say we are better off with secession, and fix those problems for us all. If we don't do that we are putting more powder in and around the keg, then having a firework party. Nuts! :idiot2:
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on September 19, 2014, 12:17:43 AM
and??? everything Im finding is 5 hours old.
It's called a timezone... :2funny: Just kidding ya Star. :smitten:
I'll try and be clearer
I definitely didn't mean to suggest that anyone was gloating (did I actually come across like that? If so...I apologise)
I was just relaying my disappointment (jubilation...remember I was confused.com)
Quote from: JudgeDredd on September 19, 2014, 05:32:13 AM
I'll try and be clearer
I definitely didn't mean to suggest that anyone was gloating (did I actually come across like that? If so...I apologise)
I was just relaying my disappointment (jubilation...remember I was confused.com)
Don't apologise. I think you were very clear. :)
Sadly, as 'Geek remarked some of the "No" camp are already gloating, which is exactly what is NOT needed. We need to learn from and respond to what has been one of the most serious issues for our country. We are still united, but the divisive issues still remain. We can't blindly ignore the motivation for independence/secession. We in the "no" camp need to respect your view, and learn from it to make our country better so people don't feel marginalised, or painted into a corner with nowhere else to go.
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on September 19, 2014, 12:45:27 AM
as a Southerner thats lived in Texas theres a big part of me that would love to see it leave the Union.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi494.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Frr301%2F300Acera%2FTexasSmiley.gif&hash=ddf475680996c76cf6347209a6877e873cfd81cf) (https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi494.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Frr301%2F300Acera%2FTexasSmiley.gif&hash=ddf475680996c76cf6347209a6877e873cfd81cf) (https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi494.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Frr301%2F300Acera%2FTexasSmiley.gif&hash=ddf475680996c76cf6347209a6877e873cfd81cf)
I noted that re: the referendum, there was no indication that it would be brought up again anytime soon. I think the referendum had to take place before the end of 2014 but other than that, this was a "once in a generation" thing.
https://www.scotreferendum.com/questions/if-scotland-votes-no-will-there-be-another-referendum-on-independence-at-a-later-date/
where does the Scottish National Party stand now? surely its existence was to promote the independence and strength of Scotland and create a sense of nationality - and 55% of scottish people said we disagree
Quote from: undercovergeek on September 19, 2014, 06:55:51 AM
where does the Scottish National Party stand now? surely its existence was to promote the independence and strength of Scotland and create a sense of nationality - and 55% of scottish people said we disagree
Partly, but there was much more aside from independence that they stand for. As you know, I oppose independence in favour of resolving the issues that promoted it, but a lot of what they say about political accountability, a more egalitarian society, actually addressing social issues etc. makes good sense to me. If they were less parochial, and formed a wider UK based party, they could be a positive force in UK politics, actually making the country more stable than it is now.
judging by the reaction Farage got in Scotland, i can only see the tables been turned on any party that came south to unite us all in an anti-westminster movement - id like to see a such a thing but im sure the UK Independence party might have something to say about that
^^ The irony is that WOULD steal the thunder of UKIP in many ways, save for the EU debate. Personally, I don't see a huge problem, as the disengagement between Westminster and the rest of the country outside London is abundantly clear, and was a driving force for Scottish independence. Westminster ignores it at its peril. I can see that the trappings of independence might jar south of the border, but as that is now settled, if the SNP moves on as an inclusive UK party, much of their policy provides a refreshing alternative to the three main clone parties in Westminster. That UKIP offers a different approach to the clone parties is also part of their appeal, so you're right, they won't like competition.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xap1/v/t1.0-9/10653646_950776904938947_1484031361203443226_n.jpg?oh=3bd8d9453f6e463dd433a132aa05e67c&oe=54C44733&__gda__=1417962735_5703ba54795b5c376843eb279b5b2ae6)
Quote from: undercovergeek on September 19, 2014, 03:49:28 AM
From my point of view and everyone I know.... no one feels happy or victorious this morning JD except maybe Scottish no voters, the news is simply reporting the facts, the streets are not full of people waving union jacks with tears on their face that the union has survived
Oddly there was a group on the radio this morning saying Cameron should now treat Scotland like a naughty child who tried to run away, no conciliatory rhetoric, more 'who the fk do you think you are?' And these were Scots
Interesting. I know that here in Canada, some of the most tough/punitive and vocal anti-separatists are French Quebecois.
Quote from: Centurion40 on September 19, 2014, 10:26:56 AM
Interesting. I know that here in Canada, some of the most tough/punitive and vocal anti-separatists are French Quebecois.
...and those are just a bunch of tossers. No love lost here, they certainly do not represent me, although they continuously claim they represent us all. Fix the corruption before demanding more handouts from Ottawa, and then start paying up the debt rather than just the interest every year.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/19/russia-calls-foul-scottish-referendum (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/19/russia-calls-foul-scottish-referendum)
:2funny: :2funny: :2funny:
Quote from: mirth on September 19, 2014, 11:16:53 AM
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/19/russia-calls-foul-scottish-referendum (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/19/russia-calls-foul-scottish-referendum)
:2funny: :2funny: :2funny:
Holy crap, I thought that would just be an Onion-esque article, but they were dead serious.
Funny how a totalitarian fascist-reeking country frothing over with fraud could dare call out free elections in another country. :crazy2:
Quote from: JudgeDredd on September 19, 2014, 02:33:36 AM
Sorry LOngblade. I've been awake since 7amGMT on the 18th and I've been drinking since 20:00...until now.
It's been a long LONG campaign and long day. I'm not really up for scrutiny
The union won (again) and I don't know that I will see Scotland free in my lifetime (forgive me and allow me please these words...I know people argue about Scotland no being Subjugated etc etc....but this is the second referendum my fellow Scots have chucked away). On top of that, I have "risked" some friendships on this vote...Thankfully, my wife has been very understanding.
I'll leave it for other happier, more victorious people to give you full SP.
I never would have suspected you'd been drinking. I thought it a fair, honest, and decent response considering the emotion surrounding the issue.
I am in 100% agreement that such a conversation/referendum was handled democratically and without violence. It is a badge of honor for all sides on the issue.
Quote from: Banzai_Cat on September 19, 2014, 11:23:02 AM
Quote from: mirth on September 19, 2014, 11:16:53 AM
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/19/russia-calls-foul-scottish-referendum (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/19/russia-calls-foul-scottish-referendum)
:2funny: :2funny: :2funny:
Holy crap, I thought that would just be an Onion-esque article, but they were dead serious.
Funny how a totalitarian fascist-reeking country frothing over with fraud could dare call out free elections in another country. :crazy2:
Putin has no shame. The remark is for domestic consumption and - unfortunately - will likely be believed, at least by some.
Quote from: mirth on September 19, 2014, 11:16:53 AM
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/19/russia-calls-foul-scottish-referendum (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/19/russia-calls-foul-scottish-referendum)
:2funny: :2funny: :2funny:
:2funny:
The Russian propaganda department is starting to reach Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf levels of unbelievable BS.
Da Noive!
Quote from: LongBlade on September 19, 2014, 11:24:15 AM
Quote from: Banzai_Cat on September 19, 2014, 11:23:02 AM
Quote from: mirth on September 19, 2014, 11:16:53 AM
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/19/russia-calls-foul-scottish-referendum (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/19/russia-calls-foul-scottish-referendum)
:2funny: :2funny: :2funny:
Holy crap, I thought that would just be an Onion-esque article, but they were dead serious.
Funny how a totalitarian fascist-reeking country frothing over with fraud could dare call out free elections in another country. :crazy2:
Putin has no shame. The remark is for domestic consumption and - unfortunately - will likely be believed, at least by some.
Certainly a cell-like size for voters, say something like a cell from the Lubyanka would have pleased him more
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on September 14, 2014, 12:32:11 AM
I look at it like Texas wanting to leave.
ya I get your talking points.... but dont be stupid.
Crazy as that sounds...
QuoteThe failed Scottish vote to pull out from the United Kingdom stirred secessionist hopes for some in the United States, where almost a quarter of people are open to their states leaving the union, a new Reuters/Ipsos poll found.
Some 23.9 percent of Americans polled from Aug. 23 through Sept. 16 said they strongly supported or tended to support the idea of their state breaking away, while 53.3 percent of the 8,952 respondents strongly opposed or tended to oppose the notion.
source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/19/us-usa-secession-exclusive-idUSKBN0HE19U20140919
Usually secessionists are seen as kooks and insane people, but it's something people are slowly taking more seriously (though they're still in the vast minority).
Texas itself has several secessionist movements and they've been around for years. The Republic of Texas movement, the Texas Nationalist movement, etc. The Texas Nationalist Movement seems to have the most traction though they're certainly in the minority (though they did garner over 120,000 signatures to a petition to WhiteHouse.gov to seek permission to secede - the response was, of course, "no.")
There's a Supreme Court case, Texas v. White, from 1869 that serves as a legal precedent that basically says states do not have the right to secede from the Union - though it barely passed with a 5-3 vote.
Thank God it didn't come to this (http://www.theonion.com/articles/ugly-custody-battle-over-ian-mckellen-narrowly-avo,36968/)
I know, riiiiiight? I mean, like, OMG, Taylor Swift and Katy Perry were TOOOOOTALLY like, fighting and stuff! :))
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/09/19/scottish-independence-glasgow-riots_n_5851212.html?icid=maing-grid7|uk|dl1|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D294400
now it starts
and i did think Salmond would go, it was his main party line and now he doesnt have it
As a Glaswegian I am not surprised by this but still saddened. They won...wth are they rioting about.
Glasgow has a very strong sectarian hatred running through it...as a Catholic school boy, I saw that nasty side a lot and it's very, very unpleasant. I've said often enough that Glasgow is like Belfast in many ways.
Any YES campaigners would be wise to avoid the area and any other filth and let them sing their sectarian shite to themselves and make the Nazi salute to themselves.
As a whole, there's currently an undercurrent of right wing fascism running through the UK which I do not like one bit.
I am sorry to hear this. Hopefully it won't get any more heated.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpbs.twimg.com%2Fmedia%2FBx4_zAjIYAAFnEH.jpg&hash=cd785b51f10ec94d0daad608191f74274a781845)
apparently the yes vote in Glasgow was 82% :o
Wow. I wonder why it was so high there?
I heard the voting age was lowered to 16 before this vote. Seems fishy. 16-year-olds don't have the sense to know what to make to eat for a meal, let alone decide the fate of a country.
Alcohol + politics: never turns out right.
I can remember growing up here when waving a Canadian flag in some areas would get a nasty look from some people. I find it less so now, though there are always some knuckleheads out there. I decided since then to have it up several times a year along with the provincial flag and a Greek flag), and never backed down to hooligans since then. Hatred is taught at an early age, and children on both sides learn from their parents and their peers. Hooligans like that need to get a life, grow up and learn about mutual respect.
On a lighter note:
Quote from: undercovergeek on September 19, 2014, 07:30:19 PM
apparently the yes vote in Glasgow was 82% :o
Again - that doesn't surprise me. Glasgow is one of the cities in Scotland which has always been hit most of all economically. The slums in Glasgow when I was a kid were on an almost Victorian scale...and I'm not exaggerating.
I'm not saying they were worse than areas in Manchester, London, Newcastle...I couldn't possibly say - but that is why the voting population of Glasgow was always going to be for independence. If any people in Scotland were to feel let down by the establishment, Glasgow would be high on the list.
I saw an interview with a guy from Edinburgh where he said "People round here have a lot to lose"...ergo 67% (?) of people in Edinburgh voted NO...same as Aberdeen...lot of money round there.
People in Glasgow...lots of people...don't have a lot to lose...in a phrase "Things can only get better". I believe Dundee is similar in that large parts of it are (or at least were) very low level living standards.
Quote from: Banzai_Cat on September 19, 2014, 08:05:34 PM
Wow. I wonder why it was so high there?
I heard the voting age was lowered to 16 before this vote. Seems fishy. 16-year-olds don't have the sense to know what to make to eat for a meal, let alone decide the fate of a country.
I think that is EXTREMELY unfair. Not from a "Scottish" perspective either.
What you are suggesting is that 16 year olds can't make an informed decision but people over that age can. Well, I can tell you that my mum votes occasionally (and I'll put a penny to every pound she's not the only one) based on "who she likes". "Oh...I don't like him...look at his wee fat smug face" I heard her say about Salmond.
16 year olds should most definitely have a vote and why? Because those are the ones who will be affected by the next incoming government when they are most likely to be affected by the policies being put forward.
For example - a 16 year old who is finishing off in school before a general election. One of the parties is threatening to increase university fees from £3000 to £9000 a year. A 16 year old with no vote is going to be hit by such a policy...but can't do a thing about it. The same party, for example, may be offering a tax cut to the very well off. The 16 year old might want to have a say in something like that.
The polls showed that the older people were, the more likely they were to vote NO. I don't know if that was known or suspected before...but 16 and 17 years old kids were always going to be most profoundly affected by an independent Scotland...especially in the longer term.
I am all for 16 year olds being given the vote. Just because you turn 18 doesn't mean you suddenly grow into a mature, thought provoking adult. People 18 and over don't have a monopoly on what happens in the future.
JD,
It's not unfair, at least insofar as 'Murican 16-year-olds are concerned. Some, certainly, could make informed decisions. Some definitely cannot. But to be fair I suppose the same argument could be made for any age group up to the elderly.
My first instinct is to admittedly think kids just don't have the common sense to handle it. I'm not intending to be unfair, I'm just making a general observation. And yet again, I can't make that argument as there are plenty of 30-, 40-, 50-, 60-year-olds, etc., that don't have the sense God gave a thimble, either.
From your point of view...do you think 16-year-olds there KNOW that they have a lot in stake for an independent Scotland? Can they perceive the job opportunities and career paths available to them?
Me, I didn't know what I wanted to be when I grew up until I turned 31. I didn't get my Bachelor's degree until I turned 35. And what I do today (at 45) is only somewhat similar to what I got my degree in. My point being, I was a dumbass kid at 16 with no clue what I wanted to do; I let peer pressure guide me very very much insofar as what my friends wanted to do. Like I said - dumbass kid. I let that color my personal judgement of the age, though I do recognize what you are saying, and very much admit I have no idea what 16-year-olds are like in Scotland or the UK.
I don't know BC. I don't know if a 16 year old has any idea what's going on.
What I do know is you don't suddenly just grow wiser because you've turned 18. On top of that, the ones that can be arsed will vote - and if they can be arsed to vote, the likelyhood is they've done some investigation.
We are all told what we want to hear when it comes to election. Both sides, as happened in this debate, will embellish their promises. Both sides will skew things to fit their agenda. You could argue (as I did in this debate) that you just have to follow your head/heart. You really aren't going to get the truth from any one party.
Sorry - but I think, given 16 year olds are coming to the end of their education/beginning of their final education that they have a stake in what government is getting in power...the 16 year old is heading out to work. They want jobs to be there. The other 16 year olds are heading off to university - they have a need for tuition fees not to be raised/applied. And the ones going into further education want to make sure the ones coming in are going to screw things up for hen they've finished their education.
There's very high youth unemployment in the UK...and that's because, in my opinion, the UK governments turned their backs on a skill based work force and focussed on a service based work force. A lot of kids aren't as academic as others...the "forcing" of kids into university education was one of the worst policies governments in this country came up with...because they focussed on that, got rid of practical job opportunities and focussed on further education. Kids who aren't as academic aren't really going to do well out of such a policy and just want to head off into the working world.
Perhaps if 16 and 17 year olds had the vote, the politicians may well have been taking them into account.
Also - with an average turnout of 35% at polling day for General Elections here in the UK, that means, with the smallest majority, that 18% of the population choose what government we get in the country. I think that's piss poor. If 16 and 17 year olds want to vote, I have no reason to think they would make any worse a choice than any other age group.
As a whole, I don't know that I could argue 16 and 17 year olds are any brighter or otherwise than the US or any other nation for that matter. I'm just saying - they are living with the consequences of each and every government. I say let them vote. They can't do any worse than the people making the voting decisions now. :-)
just about any 16 year old is an idiot.
There are those that have the maturity at 16 to know their own minds, and those at 16 that know the minds of their peers, or what appears cool. I suspect that the decision to allow 16-17 year old to vote is because the majority are more easily influenced by emotive argument, rather than have the cynicism that older heads often have. I suspect the decision to lower the voting age was a calculated gamble in manipulation by emotive rhetoric. I am certain some 16/17 year olds did make a considered, mature consideration of the issues, but I'll bet the farm that the majority went along with their mates, and were heavily influenced by their peers to do the 'cool' thing.
While I have my doubts over the voting age, it was what it was. I do think that if you give people that age the vote then you should give them the responsibilities of adults too. At present (certainly in England and Wales) someone under 18 is treated as a minor, and the law is very lenient in consequence for their own protection, as the law deems that under 18 they do not have the same capacity as an 18 year old (an adult at law), and consequently need the protection of law for their vulnerability. Clearly the position of the law on the maturity of a 16-17 year to take adult responsibility is out of step with the recent voting rights. I have my suspicions as to why this happened, but if you're going to give new rights, commensurate responsibility should follow. My $0.02.
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on September 20, 2014, 08:39:49 AM
just about any 16 year old is an idiot.
I think most of us don't start to get out head out of our ass...ets until we break 30. Raising the voting age probably isn't an option though ::)
I dont know about 30. lets say mid 20's.
was? ;)
^Good days and bad, ha!
to be fair Id say I had my shit together enough to vote.
the rest is highly debatable and still is.
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on September 21, 2014, 01:58:45 PM
to be fair Id say I had my shit together enough to vote.
the rest is highly debatable and still is.
My first vote was for Reagan. So dumb 18 year old or not, I got that one right 8)
My first vote was for Ross Perot when I was 18 in 1992.
My first vote was Ross Perot, as well. Same year, too. But I was not 18.
:(
Mr. All Ears? What made him win your votes?
Voting under 18 is a joke. Even when you try to be a responsible teen your opinion of what issues matter, read get funding, are not based on living in the adult world. I worked while living at home, which gave me lots of money for GFs, cool stuff, trips, etc. When I was a student the student life was also completely different from the real world of bills, work, scraping for a down payment.
Perot was my protest vote. I didn't like Clinton or Bush. And I liked the flat tax idea. Everybody has to pay that way.
My first vote was in 1988 at the tender age of 18. I voted Dukakis, mainly because the thought of Bush riding Reagan's coattails into the Oval Office was something that made me ill.
Perot was my protest vote as well.
Funny, I was just talking with a co-worker this morning - we need another Perot-like personality and party because quite frankly, I've had my fill of both the Democrat and Republican parties.
(will reply to this in new thread in RPFW so as not to further hijack this one)
Quote from: Gusington on September 22, 2014, 08:14:49 AM
Perot was my protest vote as well.
Ditto, in college. Though had I thought that out a bit farther, realizing he was only going to split the Republican vote, I would have voted Bush as I did prefer him somewhat to Clinton. (My family lives in West Tennessee, and the political observers among us already knew about the Clintons from their adventures over in Ozarkland just across the river.)