This is a gross mistake, these 'extra powers' should have been finalised weeks if not months ago or not at all. To give the government some credit Cameron has promised some, but didn't specify and the work now it to make the promises of additional powers unvague.
IBut tt looks desperate and the Yes campaign are jumping all over it.
More importantly it looks like they were empty promises they now have to quantify because its suddenly important to do so.
The real problem is that Osborne isnt in charge rather than he is. That is not to credit Osbourne but a reality that the City have their hands in as have New Labour, which the city will want in because they will soon have hands on.
Also it would be the beginning of the end if Scotland does vote yes on the 18th, as its an indication that we don't really know who is behind the powerbrokering in London, only that they don't want to give away much. These people never do.
When you combine that with Salmond who wants to grasp for everything and things will get very ugly very fast during the transfer period.
In fairness its neither Cameron's nor Osbourne's fault. This poisoned chalice was prepared in the Blair years, but the public dont remember the cause only who was in office at the time.
Medium of Death wrote: So with George Osborne promising new powers to Scotland to be revealed in the next few days, does he think our heads button up the back?
George Osborne wrote:“You will see in the next few days a plan of action to give more powers to Scotland. More tax powers, more spending powers, more plans for powers over the welfare state.
That will be put into effect – the timetable for delivering that will be put into effect – the moment there is a no vote in the referendum. The clock will be ticking for delivering those powers – and then Scotland will have the best of both worlds.”
It's too late to vaguely "promise" Devo-Max, George.
What happens to the flag is the question that intrigues me.
I say scrap the Union Jack altogether, let the Scots keep their silly blue Saltire thing, while England and Wales have a cool new flag with a Lion and a Dragon or something.
My wife and mother-in-law (Japanese) were asking about this.
One option is to keep the current design. Probably the best option in order not to force Australia, New Zealand, Hawaii and so on to change their flags too.
Another one would be to replace the blue areas with Welsh green. You would have to keep the white saltire b/g to the red diagonals or it would violate the laws of heraldry. Or you could put the green on the bottom half only and take the blue off the top.
The Cornish would probably like the black of St Piran's flag to be included. That could look pretty badass.
angelofvengeance wrote: I think Alex Salmond is making a huge mistake pushing this. This will cause no end of calamity.
Not for him, President Salmond will have his time with the toys and glory days. He knows it will end in madness and doesn't care.
These sorts of politicans, and the category accounts for the vast majority of all parties, are out only for themselves. That is the nature of our sick society. The last honest government we had was under John Major, and that was only honest because he was, the rest of his government wasn't. You will have to got back to Callaghan and Heath for a PM and party that tried to have the nations interest at heart.
This rot is on both sides of the border, Yes or No will not make a difference to the calibre of people leading the peoples of these islands.
Article by Charlie Brooker about the subject is well worth a read..
David Cameron can’t help the No campaign – he’s less popular in Scotland than Windows 8
The first rule of panic mode is you don’t talk about panic mode. And this is purely for personal reasons, but I don’t want Scotland to reject us
It used to be unthinkable. Now it’s thinkable. In fact, in some minds, it’s already been thought. Scotland might be voting yes to independence and splitting from the rest of the union. I’m not Scottish, and I’m therefore powerless to intervene, although I would personally prefer Scotland to stay – but only for entirely selfish and superficial reasons. Reason one: I’d rather not be lumbered with a Tory government from now until the day the moon crashes into the Thames. Two: I quite like Scotland and the Scottish, so it’s hard not to feel somehow personally affronted by their rejection. Why did you just unfriend and unfollow me, Scotland? What did I ever do to you? What’s that? Sorry, you’ll have to slow down a bit. Can’t understand a word you’re saying. Don’t you come with subtitles?! Ha ha ha! No, seriously, come back. Scotland? Scotland?
Apparently the consequences of a split in the union could be calamitous. The skies will fall and the seas will boil and the dead shall rise and the milk will spoil. There will be a great disturbance in the force. Duncan’s horses will turn and eat each other. Starving ravens will peck out your eyes halfway through the Great British Bake Off. Your dad will give birth to a jackal full of hornets. And in London’s last remaining DVD shop, Gregory’s Girl will quietly be re-categorised as “world cinema”.
If Scotland divorces Britain, the union jack will have to be redesigned, which is upsetting news for every prick with a union jack cushion on their stupid sofa in their stupid house. Minus the soothing, steadying blue of the saltire, the flag’s going to resemble a violent, blood-burst staining a shroud. Better to scrap it and start again with a new design that more accurately reflects the spirit of the age. I vote for a crying brown oblong.
The Queen is on the front pages, looking worried. DON’T LET ME BE THE LAST QUEEN OF SCOTLAND shrieked the Mirror, although MONARCH OF THE GLUM would’ve been a better headline. Or maybe BAH-MORAL.
The Sunday Times’s shock poll plunged Westminster into panic mode. The first rule of panic mode is that you don’t talk about panic mode: thus Alistair Darling could quickly be found on the airwaves denying there was any panic at all, adding that his voice only cracks like that when he’s feeling especially confident and what’s more, he always defecates in his own trousers during interviews.
Darling’s partly to blame for the swing in the polls anyway. I didn’t watch the first debate because I hadn’t actually heard of Scotland at the time, but the second one was a depressing car crash throughout in which Darling spluttered unconvincing, stuttery sentences like a beatboxer with hiccups.
Despite Darling’s panic-denial, Westminster’s response has more than a whiff of clammy desperation about it. George Osborne abruptly announced he would shortly unveil a range of new powers and benefits Scotland could look forward to in the event of a no vote. Increased powers of taxation. The ability to control the sea. Banknotes made of liquorice. Free stickers. If it votes no, Scotland will also receive the Angel of the North, the Eden Project, Stonehenge, the Cutty Sark, Alton Towers, a souvenir pen, a backrub and access to the new royal baby at weekends. It’s all a little undignified, like a man on his knees clutching his girlfriend’s ankles and sobbing that he can change. “It’s no’ you, it’s me,” replies Scotland, in its newly exotic foreign accent, before slinking off to have exciting sex with Greenland.
In case bribery doesn’t work, some of the stars of Westminster are apparently going to tour Scotland giving speeches in favour of staying with the union, even though dispatching politicians to whip up support is the worst thing that could possibly happen, like turning a hose on a drowning man.
Nonetheless, Ed Miliband will visit Scotland to inspire people. To do what? Join Isis? Incredibly, he’ll be teaming up with Gordon Brown. Sitting through back-to-back speeches by Brown and Miliband is a challenge comparable to eating 15 sheets of cardboard with a heavy cold. Expecting that duo to dazzle wavering voters is like entering Stephen Hawking into a clog-dancing contest.
Cameron can’t help here, of course. In Scotland, David Cameron is less popular than Windows 8. He’s the physical embodiment of everything a fair percentage of Scottish people hate: a ruddy-faced old Etonian walking around like he just inherited the place, sporting a permanently shiny chin as though he’s just enjoyed a buttery crumpet in front of the cricket. Worse still, he’s a lizard. An actual lizard. Send him to Scotland to make a speech and the moment a crowd member shouts “boo!” or hurls an egg, Cameron will “display” by raising the hyoid bone of his throat and enlarging his dewlap in a bid to intimidate potential predators. And that won’t play well on Scotland Tonight.
No, the only way Cameron’s going to win a single no vote is if he leaves his clothes on a beach and pretends to have swum off into oblivion, or vows to slam his balls in a car door if Scotland decides to stay. I don’t have a vote, but I vote for the latter.
I really think the media is fostering a lot of this hate when it really doesn't exist. A few of the questions on Newsnight last night focused on how social relations between Scotland and England would deteriorate. I don't think they will, unless that idea starts to get planted by the media.
I really think the media is fostering a lot of this hate when it really doesn't exist. A few of the questions on Newsnight last night focused on how social relations between Scotland and England would deteriorate. I don't think they will, unless that idea starts to get planted by the media.
tinfoilhat.jpg
Sadly it is already happening.
Like the Labour MP who was egged for canvassing for No.
In Scotland it is racist minority among Yes activists who are to blame, generally nobody else.
South of the border the 'feth off Scotland' movement is restricted to chavs and other disenfranchised. This will die out with the referendum as its mainly there because many of the poor are sick about fresh this for Scotland, fresh that for Scotland, what is best for Scotland and are rightly thinking 'what about us?' They are then blaming Scotland rather than Westminster for the mishandling.
This is not what was happening at the stadium though. It was a different feth off Scotland, notably: "feth off Scotland, we are all voting Yes".
In other words just pure short sighted crowd racism against Scots. Not happy with that and and apologise on behalf of the rest of my countrymen for the affront.
Nevertheless if a Yes vote occurs it may embolden the sort of racism we have been seeing the stirrings of. It is already difficult being English in parts of Scotland, a sense of nationalistic victory can boil over into some serious discrimination and recrimination.
South of the border as things unravel there will be a lot of bitterness. The breakup of the UK will set the ball rolling and likely lead to a steep decline. The run on the pound now is just the beginning, UK may lose its place on the G8, may lose its seat on the Security Council, and if that goes we lose the Falklands, possibly Gibraltar also and much of our trade muscle. Then comes a decline of the city as a banking leader etc.
It can turn very ugly from here on in, worst thing is that our politicians are too short sighted to do anything much.
Scotland will find a rude shock in Europe, and an increasing hostile southern border as people remember that that referendum was about what is best for Scotland and Scotland alone, and the result will be marked decline in income and lifestyle both sides of the border over the course of the next five to ten years.
This will get ugly unless Scotland votes no, and there is nothing those south of the border can do about it.
If the football fans had any idea what was at stake they dare not will the Scots to vote yes, but they are just football fans so...
I've been to Scotland a few times (no mean feat when you live on the South Coast) and as you might expect, I've always found the majority of Scots more than welcoming.
I found Inverness was one location where one or two individuals gave you funny looks when they heard your accent. It happens if you travel too far into Wales as well.
On another matter, there's talk that if Scotland stays and gets more powers, then this should apply to England and Wales as well i.e. there would be a UK parliament, an English parliament, a Scottish parliament and a Welsh parliament - effectively the United States of Britain.
Thoughts? And where would you put the English parliament? Many people in England are just as ambivalent about being ruled from London as the Scots and Welsh. The phrase, "Metropolitan elite" - in reference to the inhabitants of the capital - has been bandied about a lot over the last few years and it rankles with the rest of the population. Many MPs base themselves in London regardless of where their constituency is and this gives out an image of elitists out of touch with their voters trying to rule the UK from a London bubble. This is something I'd like to see change.
Flashman wrote: What happens to the flag is the question that intrigues me.
I say scrap the Union Jack altogether, let the Scots keep their silly blue Saltire thing, while England and Wales have a cool new flag with a Lion and a Dragon or something.
We can just keep it the same. That's exactly what the Czechs did.
Flashman wrote: I've been to Scotland a few times (no mean feat when you live on the South Coast) and as you might expect, I've always found the majority of Scots more than welcoming.
I found Inverness was one location where one or two individuals gave you funny looks when they heard your accent. It happens if you travel too far into Wales as well.
On another matter, there's talk that if Scotland stays and gets more powers, then this should apply to England and Wales as well i.e. there would be a UK parliament, an English parliament, a Scottish parliament and a Welsh parliament - effectively the United States of Britain.
Thoughts? And where would you put the English parliament? Many people in England are just as ambivalent about being ruled from London as the Scots and Welsh. The phrase, "Metropolitan elite" - in reference to the inhabitants of the capital - has been bandied about a lot over the last few years and it rankles with the rest of the population. Many MPs base themselves in London regardless of where their constituency is and this gives out an image of elitists out of touch with their voters trying to rule the UK from a London bubble. This is something I'd like to see change.
Well thought through,
The traditional arternative parliament location is York.
Its not a bad choice, and its fairly small. A parliament capital doesnt need to be the largest connurbation. West Germany chose Bonn for that reason.
In September of 2014, the people of Scotland will vote on whether to declare independence from the United Kingdom. There is no word yet on whether the powers that be in London will allow this to happen without a fight, but it certainly makes global politics that much more treacherous. The investigation that follows proves that an independent Scotland sets a very bad precedent for turbulent provinces the world over.
From Juarez to Quebec, Kabul to California, radical elements seek to disrupt national power with such breakaway movements. If the reality of Russia’s Chechnya is any indication, this is a disastrous notion that may end in complete societal collapse. A closer look at the specific parties agitating for this upheaval shows that socialism is crucial element of this agenda.
A Spirited Culture, With British Protection
The Scottish are an admirable people with a rich history. They speak with a thick, guttural brogue that sounds more like German than contemporary English. Their love of soccer is only eclipsed by their love of whiskey. When the two are combined, we have a dangerous trend known as “hooliganism” in which white people riot in the streets and burn automobiles. Many of the most dangerous hooligans tend to be unemployed and dependent on “the dole.”
The dole is the British version of welfare and it is far more entrenched than any American system. Huge sections of Scottish villages and cities are composed of public housing projects known as, “council estates” and here, heroin addiction is common. Psychological health and street crime are two additional crucial issues facing Scots today.
Because of these problems, the Scottish people are not known to be particularly warm or friendly. They lack the maternal obsessiveness of the Spaniards or Romans. Their boys are not meek, but because they lack a normal family structure, they’re often morally undeveloped. The love of God and Faith found in America is unheard of in Scotland.
Without morality, many Scots tend to lack vision. Few are truly ambitious, and this can also be traced back to widespread use of government handouts. This dilemma is manifested in a physicality that is often flabby and slow. They do not prize a healthy and muscled physique as boys do in the United States. A weakness of body and spirit may explain their low birth rates. Scottish women take little care with their personal appearance, and the men are not endowed with any propensity for lovemaking, as the old saying goes.
Could Scotland Become the Next Cuba or Afghanistan?
It is interesting to note that the Scottish ploy for independence includes many socialist goals, such as minimum wage schemes and nationalized childcare. The radical groups pushing for this are also demanding control of any nuclear weapons on Scottish soil. Furthermore, they want to immediately join the European Union and form a military. Most offensive of all, they are attempting to seize North Sea oil reserves by bypassing American approval. These are not the methods of a nation which intends to be friendly the to the interests of the United States.
Scotland clearly falls within the American sphere of protection and has benefited greatly as a province of our favorite European ally. We, as Americans, have a responsibility to stop the rise of socialism all over the world, and that includes in anarchy-prone provinces like Scotland.
This proposition may appear difficult with liberal control of the White House, but our Congress still has much power in the realm of foreign policy. Republicans need to formulate a strategy and act quickly on this dangerous trend.
While we appreciate the Scottish people as individuals, they lack the maturity, depth and strength to operate as a nation in the sophisticated world of global geopolitics. There is too much at stake, particularly in a day when terrorists seize minor countries and use them as bases for their international schemes. The lessons of Cuba, Chechnya and Afghanistan teach us one simple thing: America must say no to Scottish independence now!
Strong stuff, sure to make our northern cousins think twice.
How dare they have oil without considering America !
Bonus points for use of an English thug in Germany to illustrate Scottish hooligans too
... oh well, guess that's a done deal then.
The above site is quite an eye opener.
There's a follow up article that reveals the , inevitable, chain of events that will occur if Scotland does leave
2016: In an Attempt to Gain Momentum for the Scottish Nationalist Party, Alex Salmond Announces Ill-Fated Trillion-Dollar Space Program to Inspire Scottish Pride
2021: New Military Junta Signs Treaties With Russia, China, North Korea
2029: France, Russia, North Korea Declare War on U.S.
2029: United Nations Dissolved, World War III Begins
That's quite a timetable, and certainly says something about the Scottish work ethic.
Certainly always useful to see how things are viewed overseas.
I'm quite tempted by the ( no doubt well researched) articles elsewhere on the site such as " Many Atheists Believe That Eating Puppy Fetuses Will Cure Their Sexual Impotency. Here’s Why They’re Wrong".
In September of 2014, the people of Scotland will vote on whether to declare independence from the United Kingdom. There is no word yet on whether the powers that be in London will allow this to happen without a fight, but it certainly makes global politics that much more treacherous. The investigation that follows proves that an independent Scotland sets a very bad precedent for turbulent provinces the world over.
From Juarez to Quebec, Kabul to California, radical elements seek to disrupt national power with such breakaway movements. If the reality of Russia’s Chechnya is any indication, this is a disastrous notion that may end in complete societal collapse. A closer look at the specific parties agitating for this upheaval shows that socialism is crucial element of this agenda.
A Spirited Culture, With British Protection
The Scottish are an admirable people with a rich history. They speak with a thick, guttural brogue that sounds more like German than contemporary English. Their love of soccer is only eclipsed by their love of whiskey. When the two are combined, we have a dangerous trend known as “hooliganism” in which white people riot in the streets and burn automobiles. Many of the most dangerous hooligans tend to be unemployed and dependent on “the dole.”
The dole is the British version of welfare and it is far more entrenched than any American system. Huge sections of Scottish villages and cities are composed of public housing projects known as, “council estates” and here, heroin addiction is common. Psychological health and street crime are two additional crucial issues facing Scots today.
Because of these problems, the Scottish people are not known to be particularly warm or friendly. They lack the maternal obsessiveness of the Spaniards or Romans. Their boys are not meek, but because they lack a normal family structure, they’re often morally undeveloped. The love of God and Faith found in America is unheard of in Scotland.
Without morality, many Scots tend to lack vision. Few are truly ambitious, and this can also be traced back to widespread use of government handouts. This dilemma is manifested in a physicality that is often flabby and slow. They do not prize a healthy and muscled physique as boys do in the United States. A weakness of body and spirit may explain their low birth rates. Scottish women take little care with their personal appearance, and the men are not endowed with any propensity for lovemaking, as the old saying goes.
Could Scotland Become the Next Cuba or Afghanistan?
It is interesting to note that the Scottish ploy for independence includes many socialist goals, such as minimum wage schemes and nationalized childcare. The radical groups pushing for this are also demanding control of any nuclear weapons on Scottish soil. Furthermore, they want to immediately join the European Union and form a military. Most offensive of all, they are attempting to seize North Sea oil reserves by bypassing American approval. These are not the methods of a nation which intends to be friendly the to the interests of the United States.
Scotland clearly falls within the American sphere of protection and has benefited greatly as a province of our favorite European ally. We, as Americans, have a responsibility to stop the rise of socialism all over the world, and that includes in anarchy-prone provinces like Scotland.
This proposition may appear difficult with liberal control of the White House, but our Congress still has much power in the realm of foreign policy. Republicans need to formulate a strategy and act quickly on this dangerous trend.
While we appreciate the Scottish people as individuals, they lack the maturity, depth and strength to operate as a nation in the sophisticated world of global geopolitics. There is too much at stake, particularly in a day when terrorists seize minor countries and use them as bases for their international schemes. The lessons of Cuba, Chechnya and Afghanistan teach us one simple thing: America must say no to Scottish independence now!
Strong stuff, sure to make our northern cousins think twice.
How dare they have oil without considering America !
Bonus points for use of an English thug in Germany to illustrate Scottish hooligans too
What the hell did I just read? I think I lost more brain cells reading that than I would downing a bottle of 6 month old, turps barrel finished Whiskey.
In September of 2014, the people of Scotland will vote on whether to declare independence from the United Kingdom. There is no word yet on whether the powers that be in London will allow this to happen without a fight, but it certainly makes global politics that much more treacherous. The investigation that follows proves that an independent Scotland sets a very bad precedent for turbulent provinces the world over.
From Juarez to Quebec, Kabul to California, radical elements seek to disrupt national power with such breakaway movements. If the reality of Russia’s Chechnya is any indication, this is a disastrous notion that may end in complete societal collapse. A closer look at the specific parties agitating for this upheaval shows that socialism is crucial element of this agenda.
A Spirited Culture, With British Protection
The Scottish are an admirable people with a rich history. They speak with a thick, guttural brogue that sounds more like German than contemporary English. Their love of soccer is only eclipsed by their love of whiskey. When the two are combined, we have a dangerous trend known as “hooliganism” in which white people riot in the streets and burn automobiles. Many of the most dangerous hooligans tend to be unemployed and dependent on “the dole.”
The dole is the British version of welfare and it is far more entrenched than any American system. Huge sections of Scottish villages and cities are composed of public housing projects known as, “council estates” and here, heroin addiction is common. Psychological health and street crime are two additional crucial issues facing Scots today.
Because of these problems, the Scottish people are not known to be particularly warm or friendly. They lack the maternal obsessiveness of the Spaniards or Romans. Their boys are not meek, but because they lack a normal family structure, they’re often morally undeveloped. The love of God and Faith found in America is unheard of in Scotland.
Without morality, many Scots tend to lack vision. Few are truly ambitious, and this can also be traced back to widespread use of government handouts. This dilemma is manifested in a physicality that is often flabby and slow. They do not prize a healthy and muscled physique as boys do in the United States. A weakness of body and spirit may explain their low birth rates. Scottish women take little care with their personal appearance, and the men are not endowed with any propensity for lovemaking, as the old saying goes.
Could Scotland Become the Next Cuba or Afghanistan?
It is interesting to note that the Scottish ploy for independence includes many socialist goals, such as minimum wage schemes and nationalized childcare. The radical groups pushing for this are also demanding control of any nuclear weapons on Scottish soil. Furthermore, they want to immediately join the European Union and form a military. Most offensive of all, they are attempting to seize North Sea oil reserves by bypassing American approval. These are not the methods of a nation which intends to be friendly the to the interests of the United States.
Scotland clearly falls within the American sphere of protection and has benefited greatly as a province of our favorite European ally. We, as Americans, have a responsibility to stop the rise of socialism all over the world, and that includes in anarchy-prone provinces like Scotland.
This proposition may appear difficult with liberal control of the White House, but our Congress still has much power in the realm of foreign policy. Republicans need to formulate a strategy and act quickly on this dangerous trend.
While we appreciate the Scottish people as individuals, they lack the maturity, depth and strength to operate as a nation in the sophisticated world of global geopolitics. There is too much at stake, particularly in a day when terrorists seize minor countries and use them as bases for their international schemes. The lessons of Cuba, Chechnya and Afghanistan teach us one simple thing: America must say no to Scottish independence now!
Strong stuff, sure to make our northern cousins think twice.
How dare they have oil without considering America !
Bonus points for use of an English thug in Germany to illustrate Scottish hooligans too
What a load of xenophobic, anti Scottish crap. That's a parody right, in the same tradition as The Onion? Please tell me the authors not actually serious.
Nah... Scotland wouldn't abandon a partnership with one country just to join up as an extremely junior partner in a larger political unio... wait a second...
Britain has Scottish people in positions of power yes, but didn't David Cameron use a phrase along the lines of "we've had Scots in charge for the past two governments and look where's gotten us. Time to put an Englishman in charge". Its a bit of a moot point to say that there's Scots in Westminster, as well there's plenty of Scots that're voting No as well, that doesn't invalidate those who don't respect it. Given previous and the current government attitude toward's independence, they do come across as the codifier for imperialism (at least the Scots aren't being shot by British troops for one).
Meh, apparently the rest of the Commonwealth can shirk off the old empire, but with the last few parts Westminster's holding onto them with its teeth (and well that'd be the United Kingdom finally pushed off the big boy table).
Yes, but its fun to turn everything into about one's nationality. It seems easy for the media to glaze over the xenophobia that goes on in politics, especially given the Tory party turning further to the right in order to stand against the fringe party UKIP. The current attitude of Westminster to the referendum is a bit insulting. I mean beyond all the apathy of considering the vote already won, nah, I'm reminded of that one point in Prime Minster's question time were the referendum was brought up and the politicians just started laughing (eugh, in that horrid guttural way in which do so comically). At the moment the BBC's spinning the whole affair quite well for the No campaign, something which Alex Salmond has made light of in his speeches and when talking to them, that and the politicians somewhat sours me towards the whole affair. It would seem that people seem fine to belittle one another freely with no regards as to what will happen after the referendum. Though talk of there being a xenophobic divide between the English and Scots (heaven forbid the Northern Irish and Welsh are part of the union as well) is a bit silly. Evidently British people are belligerent towards all those former empire countries as they became independent right? Irish and Canadians must be getting attacked in the streets for all the crap you hear being spouted by BBC interviewees. =P
God I'm going to love hearing what Nigel Farage comes out with during his speech when he turns up here (well if he chooses to hold it in a major city and if the locals don't scare him away like before).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Compel wrote: I'm going to assume that most people in the UK have seen this, but it's probably not reached overseas...
I present you
The Scottish Independence Referendum as interpreted by Sky News.
I think that video's actually being used by one of the main national channels to advertise their referendum coverage...
Ah, so he's intentionally going somewhere he knows he's going to be heckled to drum up support from his anti-Scot members? Its not like his party have much support here, but coming to Glasgow seems like just the place to go if you want to cause a gak storm.
Wyrmalla wrote: Though talk of there being a xenophobic divide between the English and Scots (heaven forbid the Northern Irish and Welsh are part of the union as well) is a bit silly. Evidently British people are belligerent towards all those former empire countries as they became independent right? Irish and Canadians must be getting attacked in the streets for all the crap you hear being spouted by BBC interviewees. =P
Well, when you have some anglophobic (is that the right word to use? ) idiots making a case for independence, you're going to end up with some animosity in Scotland regardless of the outcome.
Heh, and saying that I had a pare of skinheads with swastika tattoos driving a car covered in union flags stop to heckle me last week. So yeah like you said idiots on both sides (though I wonder how many neo-nazis are supporting independence? Perhaps their goal would be to make a white only state here ...Yeah, not the smartest folks).
Imperial Masters? have they forgotten that we had a Scottish Prime Minister and Chanceller not that long ago?
Funny though.
Two Scottish Prime Ministers, Blair was born in Scotland also.
Funny if grossly unfair for the reasons given above. Also the joke will wear thin after the first few minutes. Twen minutes ok, you made your point, but if the protestor tried to play that loudly through the entire speech the police might have to intervene, following someone around playing very loud music is a breach of the Public Order act.
Frankly, the level of mild racism/classism that's come out along with Scottish nationalism has made me a little uncomfortable. When I see Darling or Cameron commenting on the referendum, it tends to be along the lines of, 'We think No is the right answer because we believe in a united kingdom and because it would be economically unwise'.
Meanwhile, whenever Salmond opens his gob, it's all, 'Oh, look at the Westministerians! English domination of Scotland', etc etc. I can't say I've read much about 'No' campaigners heckling Yes campaigners in the streets, but it seems to happen a fair chunk the other way around.
There's putting your point of view across, and then there's just doing things in a personal and disrespectful way. I feel the 'No' campaign is poorly served by Salmond. He's such a gobby hostile sort, he really diminishes from the argument for an independent Scotland.
Evidently someone thought they could deny that that occurred long enough for a spin to be put on the event to prevent damage to the BBC. At the moment I don't think they're continuing with the lie, just showing a cut down version of Salmond's answer (whilst downplaying the illegal activities) and continuing with the same line about the banks as before. The BBC's there to prop up the establishment so all you'll be hearing from them is pro No campaign propaganda, Unbiased they are not, but its the BBC, so that's hardly unexpected. Its just a pity that the media has so much control over everything, so inevitably this crap's going to put plenty of voters in the No camp.
As ever I'm just dying for the paperwork about all this crap coming out eventually. I'd prefer for this referendum to be clean, but evidently those who apparently have a lot to lose if Scotland does vote yes don't care for that. The same could be said of any type of mass voting, it just makes the whole matter rather sour though, and shows that the British establishment haven't changed their attitude since the last one (but hey at least we don't have Thatcherism to deal with now ...just a guy who said that she was his number one role model ).
* edit
Starting at around 09:20 is how the BBC later spun Salmond's answer. First they deny any wrong doing then smugly attack Salmond's position whilst totally ignoring the issues of illegal actions and their impartial stance. They've also cut the original question and the reporter then heckling Salmond as he moved on to answer other questions (because the BBC reporter wasn't getting the exact response he wanted). Trust the BBC though to have reinterpreted what happened to their advantage (their being the British government) and then spending the rest of the day running through the same lines about the Alex Salmond being useless and how great the British government is (youknow in a totally impartial manner). Eugh, again, this crap definitely puts me off the BBC and those that pull their strings.
Wyrmalla wrote: As ever I'm just dying for the paperwork about all this crap coming out eventually. I'd prefer for this referendum to be clean, but evidently those who apparently have a lot to lose if Scotland does vote yes don't care for that. The same could be said of any type of mass voting, it just makes the whole matter rather sour though, and shows that the British establishment haven't changed their attitude since the last one (but hey at least we don't have Thatcherism to deal with now ...just a guy who said that she was his number one role model ).
Who also described himself as the "Heir to Blair"...
Blair being "one of the men who ran this country into the ground", or something to that effect-quote Cameron. Blair also being a war criminal... Yes, pandering to who ever will throw him a vote and a few quid for his retirement fund. I don't see how people could respect that git for all the crap he's pulled in his tenure (as I've mentioned before the failed "let's sell off all of England and Wale's forests for logging to sort out the economy" plan is always a good one). I mean the Tories are a horrible political party (in their current incarnation and their previous "let's support slavery, anti-women's suffrage and let's go invade Scotland for the 20th time" style), but my loathing for them hit an extra special level when they have someone in charge (oh and this isn't just a Cameron/Thatcher bias, I head John Major making a speech a while ago in person and damn does that guy hate the working class).
Mr Salmond makes a fair point about the release of the current financial information that backs the No vote, but two things to remember Mr Salmond. This is politics, don't be naive, you would do the same thing if you had the chance. If you have the facts to prove these claims wrong bring them out in the open. Hold a press meeting and use these facts to dismiss these claims coming from Westminster. Use it as a chance to put a nail in the coffin of the Westminster elite and prove once and for all that they can't be trusted... or could they be right?
Ketara wrote: Frankly, the level of mild racism/classism that's come out along with Scottish nationalism has made me a little uncomfortable. When I see Darling or Cameron commenting on the referendum, it tends to be along the lines of, 'We think No is the right answer because we believe in a united kingdom and because it would be economically unwise'.
Meanwhile, whenever Salmond opens his gob, it's all, 'Oh, look at the Westministerians! English domination of Scotland', etc etc. I can't say I've read much about 'No' campaigners heckling Yes campaigners in the streets, but it seems to happen a fair chunk the other way around.
Thats exactly the feeling I am getting. There is a debate to be had, but any attempt to put across any argument by the no side is meet with allot of xenophobia of "English trying to tell us what to do" and "England hates the Scots!" which is just untrue. There is so many accusations of xenophobia coming the other way, but I am just not seeing it. The No side puts across a statement of fact and it is meet with "Stop telling us what to do!" and "Stop Bullying us!". Several banks come out and say "If there is a Yes vote we will move our business to London" days after a drop in the London markets, clearly trying to reassure their shareholders, the markets and their customers of the plans they have in place for the continuity and security of business, but no! This can't be a pertinent fact to the independence debate, showing that companies will want to remain in the UK, and pay tax in the UK, it must be bullying and the civil service being corrupt! Same with John Lewis. They say if their is a yes vote it may cost more to deliver to Scotland, as they will no longer be spreading delivery costs across the UK, where is costs the same to order if your 5 miles from there depo as it does to Fort William. No, this cant be a statement of fact and a pertinent bit of information about the costs of delivering to a less densely populated country, it must be bullying!
This constant reaction of "stop bullying us" and "The English hate us" rather than rebutting facts with facts, every time there is something from the No campaign is wearing very thin. It just proves time and again that Alex Salmond has no real substance to his campaign and it is just about ideology and xenophobia. I'm not saying that there are not arguments for independence, just as there are arguments against it, but we are being poorly served by the Yes campaign, and I do hope that if there is a yes vote it is not won over by the SNP's politics of hate.
Wyrmalla wrote: . I'd prefer for this referendum to be clean, but evidently those who apparently have a lot to lose if Scotland does vote yes don't care for that.
The only people I have seen not being clean is the Yes camp, with emotional nationalism, lies and personal attacks.
Steve steveson wrote: Several banks come out and say "If there is a Yes vote we will move our business to London" days after a drop in the London markets, clearly trying to reassure their shareholders, the markets and their customers of the plans they have in place for the continuity and security of business, but no! This can't be a pertinent fact to the independence debate, showing that companies will want to remain in the UK, and pay tax in the UK, it must be bullying and the civil service being corrupt! Same with John Lewis. They say if their is a yes vote it may cost more to deliver to Scotland, as they will no longer be spreading delivery costs across the UK, where is costs the same to order if your 5 miles from there depo as it does to Fort William. No, this cant be a statement of fact and a pertinent bit of information about the costs of delivering to a less densely populated country, it must be bullying!
RBS clarified their position by stating jobs were not at risk but this was just in line with financial regulations. Also the drop in the market has been recovered as markets do tend to vary a fair bit day to day, if independence was such a threat they would be consistently trending downwards.
The John Lewis interview also stated prices may diverge if taxing structures etc also diverge, a divergence doesn't automatically mean the price will increase.
This constant reaction of "stop bullying us" and "The English hate us" rather than rebutting facts with facts, every time there is something from the No campaign is wearing very thin. It just proves time and again that Alex Salmond has no real substance to his campaign and it is just about ideology and xenophobia. I'm not saying that there are not arguments for independence, just as there are arguments against it, but we are being poorly served by the Yes campaign, and I do hope that if there is a yes vote it is not won over by the SNP's politics of hate.
I'm sorry can you actually cite an incident of this english Xenophobia? I've not seen any of it living here... Also to equate the Yes movement to Alex Salmond is deliberately facetious, he's just a politician on one side, nobody equates the whole of better together as Alastair Darling or David Cameron but you're free to do it about Alex Salmond even when he isn't running the Yes campaign. And it would help to do some looking into issues at hand (I've never seen a more open policy towards immigrants being regarded as xenophobic before) and calling the SNP's policies "Policies of Hate", yes it's really hateful to help give people prescriptions without them g=having to pay or making it easier for poorer families to be able to send children to higher education without being saddled by crippling debt but I might be missing something there.
Wyrmalla wrote: . I'd prefer for this referendum to be clean, but evidently those who apparently have a lot to lose if Scotland does vote yes don't care for that.
The only people I have seen not being clean is the Yes camp, with emotional nationalism, lies and personal attacks.
Pretty much every BT post on Facebook is aimed at Alex Salmond, if Yes slip in a poll it's a "Blow for Alex Salmond" but if No slip it's a "Blow for Better Together Campaign" so calling The Yes camp nothing but personal attacks is deceiving at best. As for the "emotional Nationalism" what are you referring to exactly? Are all yes supporters dieheart braveheart fans with large posters of Mel Gibson on our walls? It's Better together that keep stressing nationality with things like "I'm proud to be Scottish but I love begin British" but the Yes camp as far as I've seen haven't gone near nationality at all; there's a reason why voter eligibility is for this referendum based off of where you are residing not your nationality, Sean Connery doesn't have a vote and a first generation immigrant does because they're the ones affected by the issues. And for Lies I recently got a BT leaflet through my door Entitled "The Facts You Need for your big decision" which contained 5 "ordinary" and 2 celebrity opinions on why I should vote no (And some of those opinions were demonstrably false) and another Whic makes several claims Leaving means Losing the Pound: Darling has already conceded this point and even if a currency union were not to be reached Westminster cannot stop anyone using GBP as it is an internationally traded currency. Voting No means Safer pensions: The DWP have cave out saying there will not be changes to state pensions currently as you're already entitle to them and we currently don't revoke them for ex-pats in Spain etc. Source There's No going back: This is just stating the outcome Leaving the UK means a more expensive shopping trip: It also shows a made up receipt comparing Tesco Ireland and Tesco UK prices but Tesco have rejected this claim already Source As part of the UK we get £1200 higher public spending per Head: Scotland currently puts in 9.4% and receives 8.4% in funding, the difference in public spending is down to differing policies between Holyrood and Westminster. Source Losing the UK Pound means higher Interest rates: Well since Darling already confirmed iScotland could use it this point is mout
As regards using the pound, Scotland could either tie its new native currency to the international value of the GBP, or simply get hold of British banknotes and use them in shops. Either course of action has inherent difficulties and is a different situation to a genuine currency union.
The point about the banks is that there are several large financial institutions currently based in Scotland that handle large deposits such as pension fund investments that by the demographic nature of the UK belong mostly to the 90% of the UK population who don't live in Scotland. There are pretty obvious reasons why that situation would have to change in the absence of a currency union.
Banks fleeing over the border is important as it effects their location for tax purposes. Technically it doesn't matter to a Scottish person on the street as they can still bank at RBS. However what Salmond failed to accept is that a move of banking headquarters means that it will be taxable in England not Scotland denying Scotland a whole chunk of revernue, and also being primarily under the auegis of the Bank of England, not whatever national bank Scotland sets up.
As for Lloyds moving south, it refers to a separate division in Edinburgh. Yes Lloyds has its HQ in London, it has had since the 18th century, but its Edinburgh offices were seperate, nowe they are herading south for tax purposes. Salmond selectively ignores this.
Salmond did answer the question, just not very well.
As for BBC bias, the institution is New Labour to the core, and has been since the early 90's. If has had heavily biased reporting since that time, it even goes beyond news media. Comedy programs are tilted to favour lampooning one side and not the other. This was compounded under Blair when it because difficult to lampoon Labour in any British media, some shows like 2DTV managed for a while but were quickly starved out.
I am not surprised that the BBC is not impartial in its coverage, it hasn't been for over twenty years. Its not Camerons toy though.
Almost no one serious doubts that Scotland will be a relatively prosperous country in the long term, whichever road it chooses.
Equally independence is not a free lunch.
What Scots people have to decide is whether the prize of self-determination, self-government and self-expression is more valuable to them than a bit of economic growth and future financial prosperity that would be lost (and sorry that neither I nor anyone can quantify precisely this income sacrifice).
RBS clarified their position by stating jobs were not at risk but this was just in line with financial regulations.
Which is exactly what I said.
I'm sorry can you actually cite an incident of this english Xenophobia? I've not seen any of it living here...
Every single time people talk about "The English", "English toffs" and talk about being "ruled from London" as if the place of rule matters more than the policies of government. Every time people talk about the British empire and equate the better together campaign as part of some wish to control Scotland. They are phrases used time and again. And every time someone acts as if the rest of the UK has no right to say anything (and talks about the whole of the UK being "English"). We are all effected and we will all be worse of by the split.
Also to equate the Yes movement to Alex Salmond is deliberately facetious, he's just a politician on one side, nobody equates the whole of better together as Alastair Darling or David Cameron but you're free to do it about Alex Salmond even when he isn't running the Yes campaign.
They do all the time. People try and equate No to the Tory party. People do it right in this thread. Alex Salmond has placed himself at the "face" of the campaign. He has made it about him when the better together campaign has had many people talking and many people taking the lead. It is almost always Salmond who makes statements, speeches and puts his name on everything. He made it about him.
And it would help to do some looking into issues at hand (I've never seen a more open policy towards immigrants being regarded as xenophobic before) and calling the SNP's policies "Policies of Hate", yes it's really hateful to help give people prescriptions without them g=having to pay or making it easier for poorer families to be able to send children to higher education without being saddled by crippling debt but I might be missing something there.
It's specifically anti English xenophobia. Want to talk about policies for education? Whats the SNPs stance on university tuition fees post independance? Oh, yes, free for all EU residents except the English...
Pretty much every BT post on Facebook is aimed at Alex Salmond, if Yes slip in a poll it's a "Blow for Alex Salmond" but if No slip it's a "Blow for Better Together Campaign" so calling The Yes camp nothing but personal attacks is deceiving at best.
Alex Salmond made himself the face. Better together have tried very hard to make it about the facts, not the personality, knowing full well that they would lose if the current government got to close to it, not because of facts but because of a deep hatred in some areas for anything Tory.
As for the "emotional Nationalism" what are you referring to exactly?
Are all yes supporters dieheart braveheart fans with large posters of Mel Gibson on our walls?
No, but some are. Just look at the front of the Sunday Herald last week. Plastered in Sottish symbols.
Leaving means Losing the Pound: Darling has already conceded this point and even if a currency union were not to be reached Westminster cannot stop anyone using GBP as it is an internationally traded currency.
...
Losing the UK Pound means higher Interest rates: Well since Darling already confirmed iScotland could use it this point is mout
Voting No means Safer pensions: The DWP have cave out saying there will not be changes to state pensions currently as you're already entitle to them and we currently don't revoke them for ex-pats in Spain etc.
The argument was always that there would not be a sharing of the pound. No-one has said that Scotland couldn't unilaterally use the pound, but it would lose control over all monetary policy, no lender of last resort, no ability to issue sovereign debt, no ability to set your own interest rate. This WOULD drive up interest rates for government borrowing. It would also damage all public companies based in Scotland as there would continue to be a felling that it is just a temporary measure, and markets hate uncertainty.
It's not just the DWP that pays pensions. Pensions are reliant on the banks, the markets and buying government debt (as secure long term investment), all of which would be a problem for any pension company that says in an independent Scotland.
Just to be clear, I think both countries are better off together, but it is not clear cut. In the long term the world will keep turning whatever happens. What ever happens some people on both sides will be better off, some will be worse off. What worries me is that the Yes camp are happier to use these attacks, accusations of bullying and dismissing everything as lies rather than present their own facts. And because of this bitterness is building no matter what happens.
Its obvious whos behind the referendum, bungie so that we will get sick to death with hearing about the vote yes I know its 6 days away the presenter told me 30 minutes ago on the news and theyll tell me again in another 30 mins oh god when will it end, that it turn off the tv and play destiny for the next week.
On a side note.. I love the exchange of letters on the Scottish Parliaments own site, that basically clarifies they will not be automatically in the EU if they say Yes.
Nigel Farage has come and gone in Glasgow without any incident apart from a small number of protesters. Less than the amount of Police and Press by the accounts i'm seeing.
The best thing about Scotland going it alone- there'd never be another Labour Party government again :-). A huge majority of their seats in Parliament are Scottish. That and I'd probably never see Alastair Darling's ridiculous black eyebrow/white hair combo again lol.
Gary Hayes in the New Statesman wrote:The poor old Westminster cronies, David Cameron in particular, are doomed if they do and condemned if they don't.
Such is the tension between Holyrood and Westminster that any kind of interaction is jumped on or avoided. On the one hand the Scots are saying "come up here and discuss the issue, you scaredy-cats" and on the other are just as quick to snap back "who do you think you are coming up here and telling us what to do?"
If they hadn't taken so long as to actually bother their arses in coming up I could understand that point, Ketara. The way it has actually played out hasn't really come across that way.
angelofvengeance wrote: The best thing about Scotland going it alone- there'd never be another Labour Party government again :-). A huge majority of their seats in Parliament are Scottish. That and I'd probably never see Alastair Darling's ridiculous black eyebrow/white hair combo again lol.
I am not so sure, New Labour is a party of the middle classes, and the majority of the working class in northern counties wont vote Tory on principle.
Medium of Death wrote: If they hadn't taken so long as to actually bother their arses in coming up I could understand that point, Ketara. The way it has actually played out hasn't really come across that way.
Last time I checked Scotland has MPs that live in Scotland...
Medium of Death wrote: If they hadn't taken so long as to actually bother their arses in coming up I could understand that point, Ketara. The way it has actually played out hasn't really come across that way.
Last time I checked Scotland has MPs that live in Scotland...
Yes but the point is the 3 leaders didn't bother until a poll had them behind the yes campaign and suddenly they rush up to "Love bomb" us
I hope Scotland doesn't leave, mostly because I feel that their entire economy will collapse.
As for the being ruled by Westminster, everyone forgets that the only home country without some kind of devolved parliament is England.
I also don't get why they are so keen to join the EU. They hate Westminster for ruling the Scottish. Yet they want to willingly accept EU law. Which will take Scotland with even less regard due to the tiny population in comparison.
angelofvengeance wrote: The best thing about Scotland going it alone- there'd never be another Labour Party government again :-). A huge majority of their seats in Parliament are Scottish. That and I'd probably never see Alastair Darling's ridiculous black eyebrow/white hair combo again lol.
I am not so sure, New Labour is a party of the middle classes, and the majority of the working class in northern counties wont vote Tory on principle.
I guess- UKIP seems to be rising quite quickly. In my area, a lot of folks who voted Labour have changed over to UKIP.
Lefties who aren't xenophobic UKIPers should move to Scotland should it become independent. Leave the righties to the austerity-ridden, "White Britain"-wannabe mess that they voted for themselves aha.
Blackhoof wrote: Lefties who aren't xenophobic UKIPers should move to Scotland should it become independent. Leave the righties to the austerity-ridden, "White Britain"-wannabe mess that they voted for themselves aha.
Thats rather juvenile...
angelofvengeance wrote: I guess- UKIP seems to be rising quite quickly. In my area, a lot of folks who voted Labour have changed over to UKIP.
Yeah, those would be the lefties who ARE xenophobes believing whatever crap UKIP feeds them about immigration and immigrants. The ones who aren't presumably stuck with Labour.
Blackhoof wrote: Lefties who aren't xenophobic UKIPers should move to Scotland should it become independent. Leave the righties to the austerity-ridden, "White Britain"-wannabe mess that they voted for themselves aha.
White Britain? Would you care to explain that remark a bit more? I'm sure that everyone on here would be fascinated to hear the reasoning behind 'non-left wing' being the same as 'White Britain' and what 'White Britain' would entail exactly.
UKIP is still a protest vote for a lot of people against the big 2... And lib dem as well I guess, not that I think they will get into power again in the next 20 years
And they did well in the European votes because a lot of people see it as a vote in which they can stick it to the ruling parties without any comeback on them... Plus there are a lot of people who want to change the relationship with Europe and don't realise that UKIP are the least likely party to actually do anything on that score.
Blackhoof wrote: Yeah, those would be the lefties who ARE xenophobes believing whatever crap UKIP feeds them about immigration and immigrants. The ones who aren't presumably stuck with Labour.
Yes... Xenophobic indeed.
Spoiler:
UKIP's raison d'être is to leave the European Union. The majority of immigration to the UK is from other European Union countries. Europe is mostly White. Not brown, not black. White.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SilverMK2 wrote: UKIP is still a protest vote for a lot of people against the big 2... And lib dem as well I guess, not that I think they will get into power again in the next 20 years
And they did well in the European votes because a lot of people see it as a vote in which they can stick it to the ruling parties without any comeback on them... Plus there are a lot of people who want to change the relationship with Europe and don't realise that UKIP are the least likely party to actually do anything on that score.
On the contrary. The rise in support for UKIP has forced the issue of an EU referendum onto the political agenda.
None of the 3 main parties cared about this. They're all pro-EU, all were happy with the status quo in the relationship with the EU. David Cameron himself has made clear that in the event of a referendum on a British exit from the EU, he'll be campaigning to stay in. Its only now that UKIP is threatening to undermine support for the other parties in key constituencies that they've been forced to address the issues and appeal to voters who really don't like the EU.
The way I see it, I treat UKIP as a pressure group. I know they'll never have a significant number of MP's, hell they'll be extremely lucky if they even get Douglas Carswell re-elected as a UKIP MP. But voting for UKIP forces anti-EU sentiment onto the political agenda, and puts pressure on the Conservatives and Labour (the Tories most of all) to take action. I will vote UKIP until the Tories or whoever, finally pull a finger out and claw back powers from the EU or pull us out of the EU altogether.
Voting for the three pro-EU mainstream parties is a vote for the status quo.
I more meant the direct activities of UKIP MEP's in Europe. Rather than working for change, they either do nothing, or vote against everything just because it was proposed by the EU.
My head wants us to stay. My heart wants us to go. My throat is inbetween and I have a cold, so the only logical choice is to cough phlegm all over the ballot paper and let everyone else sort it out.
I'm tired of hearing about bullying every single time someone argues for the Union. I'm tired of hearing about racism and xenophobia when someone argues for separation. I'm tired of no one in Westminster caring until a poll showed that the Yes/No vote was neck and neck, and then politicians came crawling out the woodwork to save their own skins when it wasn't their problem two weeks ago. I'm tired of threats of nationalising businesses, promises of devo-max and then threats that it won't happen.
I think I'll go live on the moon and become a wizard.
I think we have seen the tipping point. I'm sure he doesn't represent the views of all, or probably even most, of the Yes camp, but this seems like it will be catastrophically damaging.
On Friday, following interventions by some banks, retailers and other businesses ahead of the 18 September referendum, Mr Sillars accused them of "subverting Scotland's democratic process" and called for oil firm BP to be nationalised after independence.
He added: "This referendum is about power, and when we get a 'Yes' majority we will use that power for a day of reckoning with BP and the banks."
I suspect Jim Sillars may have said something so damaging with these threats, however much he is now back peddling or people distance themselves from it, the it will turn the tide. It just feels like one of those statements that ruins a political life. On top of that the Yes camp can no longer make accusations of bullying.
As a perhaps not so neutral outside observer, I end up falling on the Yes side after intense skepticism.
The reasons?
1. It's pretty obvious that the party leaders were totally scornful of the issue until the polls went the "wrong" way and they started promising the moon and stars. I do not respect that.
2. The tone of the debate, and the tone from English people that I've been speaking to, is that the Scots are being emotional and stupid. I find that incredibly patronizing. There is also a heavy focus on economic matters. I think it is perfectly possible for a pretty large chunk of the Yes voters to go into the referendum with little emotion and a calm acceptance that they may trade some economic prosperity for increased self determination and freedom from the political control of their much larger neighbour.
3. The No campaign has failed to articulate any reason for remaining together apart from fear. There is some talk of "Britishness", but this is almost meaningless.
4. As it stands, the UK is essentially London+Suburbs and Everywhere Else. This is pretty unhealthy for a country of it's size and population, and I can really understand the desire to break away from it.
However, despite my leanings, I think the referendum will fail. What will be really interesting is if the party leaders then hold to their promises for further devolution. I suspect not, and that the independence issue will flare up again.
From a more self interested perspective, I am really curious about what will happen in the North of Ireland if there is a Yes vote. We've seen that the Orange Order, which is not on my list of favorite organisations, is pro No (big shock, Ulster says No). I wonder how unionism would react to Scotland breaking away, especially given the North's close historical ties with Scotland?
Da Boss wrote: As a perhaps not so neutral outside observer, I end up falling on the Yes side after intense skepticism.
The reasons?
1. It's pretty obvious that the party leaders were totally scornful of the issue until the polls went the "wrong" way and they started promising the moon and stars. I do not respect that.
2. The tone of the debate, and the tone from English people that I've been speaking to, is that the Scots are being emotional and stupid. I find that incredibly patronizing. There is also a heavy focus on economic matters. I think it is perfectly possible for a pretty large chunk of the Yes voters to go into the referendum with little emotion and a calm acceptance that they may trade some economic prosperity for increased self determination and freedom from the political control of their much larger neighbour.
3. The No campaign has failed to articulate any reason for remaining together apart from fear. There is some talk of "Britishness", but this is almost meaningless.
4. As it stands, the UK is essentially London+Suburbs and Everywhere Else. This is pretty unhealthy for a country of it's size and population, and I can really understand the desire to break away from it.
However, despite my leanings, I think the referendum will fail. What will be really interesting is if the party leaders then hold to their promises for further devolution. I suspect not, and that the independence issue will flare up again.
From a more self interested perspective, I am really curious about what will happen in the North of Ireland if there is a Yes vote. We've seen that the Orange Order, which is not on my list of favorite organisations, is pro No (big shock, Ulster says No). I wonder how unionism would react to Scotland breaking away, especially given the North's close historical ties with Scotland?
1. It's pretty obvious that the party leaders were totally scornful of the issue until the polls went the "wrong" way and they started promising the moon and stars. I do not respect that.
To be fair Cameron has stayed out of it because Tories are about as popular as Ebola in Scotland, it was shrewd. Devo max promises materialised late because the cross parties couldnt decide what to offer. It was a standard farce but I dont think it was 'scornful' Westminster has been ta,ing this seriously from day one.
2. The tone of the debate, and the tone from English people that I've been speaking to, is that the Scots are being emotional and stupid. I find that incredibly patronizing.
There is also a heavy focus on economic matters.
Economic matters are key as British society is rather shallow and has been socially engineered that way.
Due to the large dis-emphasis on Britishness under the New Labour years in favour of New Britain the no camapign is fighting entrenched blairite dogma at the same time. Blair trod on Brtiishness and Englishness as part of his new society. He didnt tread on Scottishness or the Welsh or Northerrn Ireland because of divide and rule. Much of the problems stem from this type of cultural inteferference designed to create a permanent Labour government. It would have worked except for the illega Gulf War which Blair could not spin our of.
I think it is perfectly possible for a pretty large chunk of the Yes voters to go into the referendum with little emotion and a calm acceptance that they may trade some economic prosperity for increased self determination and freedom from the political control of their much larger neighbour.
Scots have more self determination than the English actually, with the Barnett formula, the West Lothian question, a separate parliament and a disproportionate percentage of MP's per capita. Also the Union is not a colonial situation, Scots can end up in charge, and as we have seen they sometimes do as with Gordon Brown.
3. The No campaign has failed to articulate any reason for remaining together apart from fear. There is some talk of "Britishness", but this is almost meaningless.
What does being German mean to you? Britishness is of great value, the Uk has done quite a lot actually, and that is and understatement. Scotland achieved nothing of global consequence prior to the Union.
I hear you though, Britishness was undervalued by design in recent decades in favour of New Britain, multi-cultuiralism and disestablishmentarianism. This was engineered in an attempt top per-petualise progressive politics and disenfranchise the centre right.
4. As it stands, the UK is essentially London+Suburbs and Everywhere Else. This is pretty unhealthy for a country of it's size and population, and I can really understand the desire to break away from it.
This point I do not argue against. And the Home Counties attitude is definately 'im alright jack'. Still without being plugged into London Scotland loses a lot of what it has got.
However, despite my leanings, I think the referendum will fail.
On balance I think so to. Mainly because we hear from the on the streets vocal people, the majority of the quiet vote is for 'No'.
However I would not put it past Salmond to try and rig the election.
What will be really interesting is if the party leaders then hold to their promises for further devolution. I suspect not, and that the independence issue will flare up again.
There will be a ticking clock apparently and I do think the devolution will occur. However a no vote will not stop the SNP even though its supposed to be vote once and once only.
Funny that they wont gove Scotland a vote to apply to rejoin the Union, when (not if) Scots find that 'Project Fear' was in fact 'Project Tell the Truth'.
Salmond has lied through his teeth on the pound, europe and the monarchy. He is also intensely anti-English and the post referendum negotiations will get ugly quickly, especially as things unravel both sides of the border.
From a more self interested perspective, I am really curious about what will happen in the North of Ireland if there is a Yes vote. We've seen that the Orange Order, which is not on my list of favorite organisations, is pro No (big shock, Ulster says No). I wonder how unionism would react to Scotland breaking away, especially given the North's close historical ties with Scotland?
A return to terrorism is likely. The hardcore Unionists will not give up, ever. They are very entrenched but Scottish independence will kick off the Nationalists calling for Union with Eire.
Wales will also see unrest.
If you honestly think Scotland didn't do anything of note internationally prior to the Union you really need to get off Dakka and read up on what nationality trained the Swedish army of. Gustavus Adolphus during the 30-years war. You know, the war that more or less gave birth to the modern nation-state following the peace of Westphalia.
I've always been suspicious of possible attempts to rig the vote by Westminster, although on balance, Salmond could try it too, I hope nothing of this sort happens.
I think it could really go either way. I'll be voting yes because we need more control over our own affairs, yes it is true there is a lot of devolved power in Scotland at the present and I think England needs more control over its own destiny. My problem is regardless of the devolved power, Westminster still controls the purse strings so any real change is difficult.
I also don't think spending large amounts of money on Trident is necessary for Scotland.
The EU is a sticky issue for me, because I sometimes question ditching the union, but staying in another one.
Mr. Burning wrote: If the Scots vote NO. what will the yes campaigns plan be?
I haven't really heard anything.
The Yes campaign still has the Scottish Parliament which is already getting enhanced powers and will get more.
Salmond wanted so-called "demo max" on the referendum ballot at the beginning. It was refused, but he will get some version of it whichever way the voting goes. There was a theory that Salmond never really wanted independence, because true independence genuinely does mean losing a lot of the security blanket of being in a larger, richer nation -- the use of the GBP, for example. That is an important reason I am so suspicious about Salmon's insistence that monetary union will happen.
As for BBC-Nick-Robinson-Gate, the whole thing is obviously complete bollocks. Both the UK government and public companies like the banks have a duty to argue against independence if they believe it will threaten their interests. For Salomnd to say it is intimidation is an obvious attempt to deflect the damage with an appeal to emotion.
In fairness, the issue will be decided mainly on emotion because relatively little hard facts can be made out about it all.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: If you honestly think Scotland didn't do anything of note internationally prior to the Union you really need to get off Dakka and read up on what nationality trained the Swedish army of. Gustavus Adolphus during the 30-years war. You know, the war that more or less gave birth to the modern nation-state following the peace of Westphalia.
They didn't train them, 90% of his forces were mercenaries, of which a large proportion were Scots. Swedish troops were already highly trained and made up the core of Gustav's army.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: If you honestly think Scotland didn't do anything of note internationally prior to the Union you really need to get off Dakka and read up on what nationality trained the Swedish army of. Gustavus Adolphus during the 30-years war. You know, the war that more or less gave birth to the modern nation-state following the peace of Westphalia.
Swedish pike worked well, and the Scots fought as elite troops of the French kings also. But that was Sweden and France, not Scotland. Scottish pike came south of the border many times and met English billmen, the result was a slaughter of Scots.
AScottish soldiers also did great work when in the Union, fighting for the British army, as again the French found out.
I don't want to get into this pissing context, fact remains Scotland was nothing much prior to the Union, the French considered them useful for nuisance value in their wars against England, however only rarely did the Scots make much headway in invading or raiding England, and not for lack of trying.
Scotland can be something now, but the fact remains that the Union made Scotland what it is and that Scottish identity is not isolated from Britishness, Britishness completes Scottish identity and much of that identity came from time within the Union. No greater example can be found in the industrial revolution which married developments in Scottish engineering with English advances in merchandising and management that invented the modern corporation.
Here is an excellent article on the finances of the newly independent Scotland by Professor Wren-Lewis. Please bear in mind that it does not merely present Wren-Lewis' own views, but also summarises the opinion of the Institute of Fiscal Studies, and impartial international organisation.
Tl;dr: Experts think that independence would be economically damaging to Scotland.
I'm often confused by the whole Scottish and British identity thing. When I'm abroad if anyone asks I tell them I'm Scottish, but I don't get misty eyed over Bannockburn or the shipbuilding prowess of the Clyde of yore. I don't think I've ever identified as British, and again whilst I'm aware of the achievements of a united England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and I can have respect for them, again I don't pause and reflect on our combined history as aside from obvious events it doesn't affect my day to day life or identity.
Regardless of how much Scotland was a gnat on the world stage until the union, and how much the United Kingdom has achieved as a whole both sides of this campaign, and plenty of people in general trot out this sentiment and it's bizarre. It's such an ephemeral thing that only appears when we have to wave flags. Hopefully the last four days of this campaign contain factual content to back up the crazy promises both sides are throwing around.
Crimson wrote: Here is an excellent article on the finances of the newly independent Scotland by Professor Wren-Lewis. Please bear in mind that it does not merely present Wren-Lewis' own views, but also summarises the opinion of the Institute of Fiscal Studies, and impartial international organisation.
Tl;dr: Experts think that independence would be economically damaging to Scotland.
There are opposing views from academics, however some views have been paid for and are suspect. Academia doesnt bring in wealth normally, so events like this are causes to hire an academic to back what you want by fiding reasons to do so.
I mention this out of fairness as I think this logic should be applied to both Yes and No camps.
It is a common enough ploy that in evironmentali issues (where its more commonly used) its known as greenwashing. Most comments are along the lines of, we can have more factories spewing gasses because greenhouse gasses wont have a negative effect.
The most telling indicator of questionable thinking from known academics I could se was mentiioned on this thread, a Noble prize winning economist who said that currency union was a good idea, because it worked for panama (paraphrase) yet panama doesn't have currency union, it piggybacks on the dollar.
All this being said Scotland may well do ok, but under Salmond it wont. Especially if this talk to nationalise all the industties that helped the Tories is realised. Nationalise BP, you serious? The SNP just rang the panic bell for every major industry in Scotland: get out before the loons take your assets away.
We keep the chip pan oil reserves for sure. I think damp needs more marketing, Winsor and Newton may want a Drab Scottish Highland colour in their artists range.
Depends on how far North you go? The maritime boundary is pretty mental but Scotland still seems to get most of the Oil fields while the UK gets most of the gas. Might be wrong on that.
Something to think of it if Scotland does become independent do we keep our porn? Remember the Tories were trying to pass that law to block "adult content" on the internet (seriously did that thing pass or not? I have a 1Tb external drive on standby)? Yeah, well, in that case would Scotland be like New Amsterdam to our southern friends?
Well the Australians, Canadians and Hongkongers use dollars (though not American), but I suspect that all that'd do would serve to piss off all the Americanophobes (totally a word). In which case I predict the Americans sending over a peace force within the decade to establish a wee bit of order, whilst shaving off a wee bit of the oil reserves on the side. Damn, you guys have been playing us all!
That damn revolution of yours was really setup to plant the seeds for the events happening right now. How didn't we see all of this!?
...Totally awaiting Alex Salmond to either turn out to be an American robot puppet, or to tear off his suit and be wearing a stereotypical Uncle Sam outfit. Either or.
In a heart beat. That what countries do when other countries steal their precious resources.
But do it in style. Drag out the corpse of Long Shanks and march that sucker all the way to Edinburgh Castle on top of a a Chieftain Tank (because Chieftain's are epic cool). Escorted offshore by the HMS Victory and whatever battleships you haven't junked, firing 14in deck guns at every Scottish castle in range as they go. Flying columns of Redcoats in Bren carriers will occupy all corners of Scotland and proclaim it now and forever as part of Her Magesty's Kingdom.
Its our way. The Chicago Way.
It's from March and there has been some mixed reporting since then, but there is a still a core group up there who seem to be considering this an option.
I asked that question earlier in the thread. My guess is that Emperor Salmond will not relinquish power (not to mention all the oil) to a group who want to democratically split away from a central government who does not represent the local people, and throughout history has sidelined them and stolen all their wealth.
SilverMK2 wrote: I asked that question earlier in the thread. My guess is that Emperor Salmond will not relinquish power (not to mention all the oil) to a group who want to democratically split away from a central government who does not represent the local people, and throughout history has sidelined them and stolen all their wealth.
Wait a second...
Hey stop that! You know it's only us Southerners stirring it up, the Shetlands are happy as they are and would love to be part of the Greater Scottish Empire
Wyrmalla wrote: Nah we'll use the Franc. Not like the French are using it anymore, plus there's purdy ladies on the coins.
That wouldn't be such a bad idea.
You know how french people enjoy this "let's piss the english" game. France helped the US, collaborated with Germany, provided technical support to the argentinian navy during the Falkland war...
Remember the Auld Alliance. We do strongly respect and support all attempts, and the current one is trully epic. The scottish creativity never disappoints.
Wyrmalla wrote: Nah we'll use the Franc. Not like the French are using it anymore, plus there's purdy ladies on the coins.
That wouldn't be such a bad idea.
You know how french people enjoy this "let's piss the english" game. France helped the US, collaborated with Germany, provided technical support to the argentinian navy during the Falkland war...
Remember the Auld Alliance. We do strongly respect and support all attempts, and the current one is trully epic. The scottish creativity never disappoints.
Extra work for Legoburner?
Whilst they did have arms deals with Argentina prior to the Falklands War, I thought France suspended those deals during the war and supplied the UK with technical specifications for the French weapons?
SNP has been crying how the have to get the independence to protect (the already devolved!) NHS from evil Westminster. Meanwhile, behind the scenes, they have planned how to cut NHS services. How the hell anyone, let alone half of the country, will trust these liars?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Whilst they did have arms deals with Argentina prior to the Falklands War, I thought France suspended those deals during the war and supplied the UK with technical specifications for the French weapons?
Yeah I got to say there's a lot of morons online on all sides, from the Anglophobes to the "Scots are whiny freeloading terrorist" crowd. BBC comments are certainly rife with the latter, which is obviously endearing. I think at this rate I'm just going to spoil my ballot.
Perhaps it would be better to look at the grievances the Yes side has that make them want to split from the UK and address them.
I greatly sympathise with the many yes-supporters' wish for fairer, more leftish Scotland with less austerity. I just don't believe that Independence will deliver that, the results will be opposite; the separation will cause serious economic issues, which will lead to more austerity (this is also the view of many respected economists who have no horse in this race.) The best bet for more leftish Scotland is the increased devolution and voting people who are actually interested in such policies (instead of independence at any cost) in the Scottish Parliament.
What I reckon happened, perhaps I'm wrong, is that the SNP was pushing for more devolution of power from the Westminister government. They wanted a "devo max" as in, a much more devolved parliament from the UK.
Cameron said no to this option, leaving them with a straight Yes/No referendum. I guess he assumed everyone would vote No, and he could go back to ignoring Scotland and pandering to the City of London.
Salmond and his cronies seized on this as a chance at independence and probable increased power for themselves. Over the course of the campaign, many neutral scots became sceptical of the tactics and rhetoric of the No side, and suddenly it became a much closer race than Cameron anticipated. Cue panic.
What I reckon happened, perhaps I'm wrong, is that the SNP was pushing for more devolution of power from the Westminister government. They wanted a "devo max" as in, a much more devolved parliament from the UK.
Cameron said no to this option, leaving them with a straight Yes/No referendum. I guess he assumed everyone would vote No, and he could go back to ignoring Scotland and pandering to the City of London.
Salmond and his cronies seized on this as a chance at independence and probable increased power for themselves. Over the course of the campaign, many neutral scots became sceptical of the tactics and rhetoric of the No side, and suddenly it became a much closer race than Cameron anticipated. Cue panic.
How is destroying your republic democracy? Where is your Lincoln preaching that a house divided cannot stand?
What I reckon happened, perhaps I'm wrong, is that the SNP was pushing for more devolution of power from the Westminister government. They wanted a "devo max" as in, a much more devolved parliament from the UK.
Cameron said no to this option, leaving them with a straight Yes/No referendum. I guess he assumed everyone would vote No, and he could go back to ignoring Scotland and pandering to the City of London.
Salmond and his cronies seized on this as a chance at independence and probable increased power for themselves. Over the course of the campaign, many neutral scots became sceptical of the tactics and rhetoric of the No side, and suddenly it became a much closer race than Cameron anticipated. Cue panic.
An unfair outlook frankly.
Devomax was off the ballot because people would vote for it, there would be no test of the independence referendum and as a result you get Devo max and then five years (or less) down the line the SNP say ' hey Scotland, we like devo max, how about independence'. Thus there has to be a independence yes/no referndum with devo max following as a separate issue.
Devo max would happen, it was just a matter of how much and what and nobody could agree because of the three party split.
The 'panic' ias a claim made by Salmond irrespective of whether London is panicking or not, based on a single poll giving Yes the lead.
Cameron does pander to the City, you got that might right, though I really wished you were wrong here. The cronyism has been very damaging, not so much this referendum but it has soiled austerity, heaped further debt, and shredded the Tories re-election chances.
How is destroying your republic democracy? Where is your Lincoln preaching that a house divided cannot stand?
1. We don't have a republic. We are a constitutional monarchy.
2. The house is already divided. Until recent years Scotland has been completely ignored by the rest of the country. Everything the Scots have that is good (oil, timber, poor people who'll work cheaply) is British. Everything that is bad (awesome poverty problems, expensive to manage infastructure, social isolation) is Scottish. It only goes one way. Devolution has put the Scots in charge of the stuff that the English don't need, and that's it. All the decent housing in rural Scotland have been bought by wealthy English people - often to use as holiday homes, making it difficult for Scottish people to afford to live cheaply. Our National Anthem even still has a line about bashing Scottish people. For years Scotland had been treated with disdain. We have no-one who can successfully unite the two countries whilst one is the exploited party.
If I was Scottish I'd vote Yes. I'd rather be ruled by local spankers than distant ones. Self-government is important. Would Americans want to be part of a United States Of North America if Mexico had all the power? Or Canada? In fact, as I understand it, America has states rights written into its constitution. Scotland has none of that yet.
What I reckon happened, perhaps I'm wrong, is that the SNP was pushing for more devolution of power from the Westminister government. They wanted a "devo max" as in, a much more devolved parliament from the UK.
Cameron said no to this option, leaving them with a straight Yes/No referendum. I guess he assumed everyone would vote No, and he could go back to ignoring Scotland and pandering to the City of London.
Salmond and his cronies seized on this as a chance at independence and probable increased power for themselves. Over the course of the campaign, many neutral scots became sceptical of the tactics and rhetoric of the No side, and suddenly it became a much closer race than Cameron anticipated. Cue panic.
Very astute observation, and as close to the truth, as we're likely to get.
What I reckon happened, perhaps I'm wrong, is that the SNP was pushing for more devolution of power from the Westminister government. They wanted a "devo max" as in, a much more devolved parliament from the UK.
Cameron said no to this option, leaving them with a straight Yes/No referendum. I guess he assumed everyone would vote No, and he could go back to ignoring Scotland and pandering to the City of London.
In all fairness, there aren't exactly many people in Scotland who do anything but ignore Cameron. The Conservative voterbase in Scotland is tiny, hence the repeated scream that Cameron/the Tories are unrepresentative of the Scottish people's will.
Salmond and his cronies seized on this as a chance at independence and probable increased power for themselves. Over the course of the campaign, many neutral scots became sceptical of the tactics and rhetoric of the No side, and suddenly it became a much closer race than Cameron anticipated. Cue panic.
I agree that the race is perceived to be close by the politicians, and that that fact has dictated their responses. I don not however, believe that the result itself is actually close. Why?
Because I believe that polling itself regularly shows itself to be highly inaccurate. Yougov, the ones who did the poll that showed 'Yes' in the lead that one time have shown themselves to be highly accurate occasionally in some cases (like in the last presidential election, check out their self-written wiki page for a list of times they've called it right). But they've also shown themselves to be really inaccurate in several others, for example, their polls were 15% off with regards to the result of the AV referendum, and 12% off with the results of the last General Election.
Not only that, Yougov's sample size for the Scottish referendum was actually only half of their usual size, at just over a thousand people instead of their usual two thousand. They also don't allow their results to stand on pure data, they actually modify the result of the answers they receive in line with a computer algorithm to give greater prominence to certain factors, and less to others, eg. if only twenty old people voted in that online survey, it will regard the opinions of those twenty old people as scoring ten times over in line with the population figures.
The obvious result of all this jiggery pokery is that many of these polls predicting independence or not, are actually a dreadful way of predicting results generally. You read 'Yes Camp on 48% and No Camp on 52%!' being screamed from the headlines, and take it on faith that they know what they're talking about. But the actual methodology of online polling is extremely susceptible to being skewed by either the small sample size, an algorithm mistake, or people trying to manipulate it for financial gain (you get paid for taking part).
daddyorchips wrote:
2. The house is already divided. Until recent years Scotland has been completely ignored by the rest of the country. Everything the Scots have that is good (oil, timber, poor people who'll work cheaply) is British. Everything that is bad (awesome poverty problems, expensive to manage infastructure, social isolation) is Scottish. It only goes one way. Devolution has put the Scots in charge of the stuff that the English don't need, and that's it.
Something of an extreme exaggeration.
All the decent housing in rural Scotland have been bought by wealthy English people - often to use as holiday homes, making it difficult for Scottish people to afford to live cheaply.
You're claiming that the Scottish house price market is driven by wealthy English people buying holiday homes? Seriously? Please cite appropriate studies or sources as to where this information came from, because that sounds illogical on just about every point of common sense.
Our National Anthem even still has a line about bashing Scottish people. For years Scotland had been treated with disdain. We have no-one who can successfully unite the two countries whilst one is the exploited party.
Exploited? Many Scottish people like to talk about how they put in more than they take out, but those same people also like to conveniently ignore the amount invested in infrastructure in things like oil extraction by the UK Government. Among numerous other fallacies with that argument.
I know that there's a popular trend to portray 'puir wee Scotland' as a domestic abuse partner, but the figures rarely bear it out without direct manipulation. Scottish people get out of the Union economically roughly what they put in, Scottish people are well represented in British politics (our last PM was Scottish), and Scottish people have an appropriate democratic impact on general elections for their population size and inclination.
If the Scots want to go their own way, then fair enough, but this desire to paint the picture of an exploited oppressed nation is really quite inaccurate, and tiresome to boot.
If I was Scottish I'd vote Yes. I'd rather be ruled by local spankers than distant ones. Self-government is important. Would Americans want to be part of a United States Of North America if Mexico had all the power? Or Canada? In fact, as I understand it, America has states rights written into its constitution. Scotland has none of that yet.
That's because we have no written constitution, and we're not a republic or a federal system.....
I have often thought a system in which each country has an equal number of seats in the House of Lords might be a good way of combining democratic accountability while preventing the tyranny of the majority.
That does sound reasonable. Wouldn't it be better if England was allowed more representation by grouping various counties into mini-states or something along that line? Allows various neglected parts of England to have their say.
There is something rotten in the state of Europe when an unelected, unaccountable EU body can glibly inform millions of us that we no longer have the right to question its most dangerous and unpopular policies.
This is exactly what has just happened, as the European Commission has announced that it will not allow a European Citizens' Initiative (ECI) to challenge the secret trade talks it is holding with the US government, supposedly on our behalf.
The ruling is a slap in the face for the 230 civil society organisations from across Europe that have lined up behind the initiative, and the millions of European citizens they represent. The ECI is the only vehicle available to us to challenge the shadowy bureaucrats of the European Commission. Now even this seems to be too much scrutiny for them.
Opinion Former News
OECD proposals ‘a significant step’ towards new international tax rules
Google sets up 'right to be forgotten' form after EU ruling
NOAH welcomes release of Commission’s proposals package for revised legislation for veterinary medicines and medicated feed
Opinion Former Video
BFAWU video: Why join our trade union?
BFAWU logo
The negotiations on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) have become one of the hottest political topics across Europe. TTIP is effectively a new bill of rights for multinational corporations, granting them unprecedented powers and undermining vital labour, environmental and food safety standards in the name of 'free' trade.
TTIP is also a direct threat to our democracy, as the European Commission seeks to allow companies to challenge future policies introduced anywhere in Europe that could jeopardise their bottom line. The ECI, by contrast, was a fully democratic response. And the Commission has blocked it.
There are already huge movements of opposition to TTIP in most European countries. Trade unions and global justice groups have joined forces with environmental, consumer and digital privacy campaigners to confront the common threat that the negotiations pose.
The European Commission is well aware of the strength of this resistance, as it has been forced to suspend negotiations on one of the most controversial aspects of the agreement: the new ‘investor-state dispute settlement’ powers that companies will win through TTIP to sue host states when their profits come under threat.
That mechanism has been questioned by the German and French governments, as it effectively raises transnational capital to the status of the nation state itself. The new powers are already being used elsewhere under other treaties, as in the billion-dollar challenge being brought by Philip Morris against the Australian government for loss of profits as a result of the country's public health requirement that all cigarettes be sold in plain packaging.
Under similar provisions in the Energy Charter Treaty, the Swedish energy company Vattenfall is suing Germany for €3.7 billion (£2.94 billion) over its decision to phase out nuclear power in the wake of the Fukushima disaster. French company Veolia is even suing the Egyptian government for threatening its profits by raising the minimum wage. And there are countless other equally shocking examples stretching back over the past 20 years.
As always, the UK government is a major part of the problem. Leaked documents from internal EU discussions over the parallel EU-Canada trade talks (CETA) reveal that the UK is the only member state providing unconditional support for the European Commission in its desire to introduce these new powers for business, at the expense of democracy and the rule of law.
Yet just this week, the British trade union movement came out in full opposition to the introduction of all investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms in EU trade deals, with a unanimous vote to stop the EU-US talks in their tracks.
Not only is TTIP predicted to cost at least one million jobs between the EU and USA, but it will also make it impossible for any future government to repeal the Health & Social Care Act and bring the NHS back into public hands.
I am one of the seven people who make up the European citizens' committee for the ECI against TTIP and CETA that the Commission has rejected. With fellow representatives from France, Germany, Finland, Romania, Luxembourg and Portugal, we were responsible for raising one million signatures in favour of the initiative within a year.
Given the massive opposition that exists to TTIP across Europe, we were confident of meeting the target well within the required time. The European Commission obviously thought the same, hence its decision to strangle the initiative at birth.
This is by no means the end of the story. We have legal advice to suggest that the European Commission is on thin ice in its attempt to prevent the ECI from going ahead, and we can take our appeal direct to the European Court of Justice in order to get the block lifted.
The fight against TTIP will continue regardless of whether we overcome the Commission's opposition to the ECI. But the Brussels bureaucrats need to be careful as to the long-term consequences of their contempt for democracy.
The European parliament elections this May saw an unprecedented surge in the number of voters rejecting the European project in its entirety. Ukip won more seats than any other UK party, the Front National topped the poll in France and some of our continent's nastiest far-right extremists now enjoy the legitimacy of EU parliamentary representation.
Jean-Claude Juncker, newly appointed as president of the European Commission, has been talking of his desire to see 'fairness and democracy' at the heart of Europe. He would do well to clean out his own stables first.
Kilkrazy wrote: I have often thought a system in which each country has an equal number of seats in the House of Lords might be a good way of combining democratic accountability while preventing the tyranny of the majority.
Which would be a system where 5.3 million people of Scotland have the same representation as 53 million people in England. That seems the antithesis of democracy. The current system where some constituencies are much larger than others is bad enough.
In a letter in the Sun, 14 former armed forces chiefs said a No referendum vote was "critical for all our security".
Breaking up Britain would "weaken us all", they added.
First Minister Alex Salmond cited military and naval figures who backed a "Yes" vote and said the letter's writers should "not try to use people's service for political reasons".
The letter was signed by seven former Chiefs of Defence Staff - Lords Boyce, Guthrie, Inge, Vincent, Stirrup, Craig and Richards.
Also putting their names to the letter were three former First Sea Lords - Lord West, Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope and Admiral Sir Jonathan Band; three ex-Army chiefs - Lord Dannatt, General Sir Mike Jackson and General Sir Roger Wheeler; and former head of the RAF, Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Johns.
'Successful alliance'
In an "open letter to the people of Scotland", they expressed concern about the possibility of a separate Scottish military.
"As former chiefs of the Royal Navy, British army and Royal Air Force, we know it is fiction to talk about regional armed forces," they wrote.
"We train as one, fight as one and are under one command. We are not, and have never been, structured for division."
They said a vote for separation would "undermine both Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom's defence".
"At risk is the most successful alliance in history and one which has seen men and women from all parts of the country play their part in securing the liberties we now enjoy," they continued.
"This unity has guarded our borders and given us the space to prosper in a troubled world."
The letter concluded: "The division of the UK may or may not be politically or economically sensible, but in military terms we are clear: it will weaken us all."
'Loyal soldiers'
Interviewed on Radio 4's Today programme, Mr Salmond cited support for independence by Jimmy Sinclair, a 102-year-old former Desert Rat, and Lt-Cdr Colin May, who recently retired as a senior Royal Navy intelligence officer at the Faslane submarine base.
There was "a whole range of other people who've served this country coming out in favour of a 'Yes' vote," said Mr Salmond.
"With due respect to General Dannatt, people like Jimmy Sinclair didn't serve for him; they served for the Queen and for democracy.
People "should listen to the words of serving soldiers and make it clear that... you can believe in democracy and independence for Scotland and be a loyal solider.
"General Dannatt should go and have a talk with Jimmy Sinclair and not try to use people's service for political reasons."
So when high ranking officers point out the practical problems and the risk to all our security it is "use people's service for political reasons." but when Alex Salmond and the Yes campaign by extension uses mid ranking officers to make emotional pleas that is all fine and dandy. Alex Salmond continues his campaign of rank hypocrisy and bullying.
The letter in full:
SIR – We believe the grave implications of separation from the UK for security and defence-related employment in Scotland have not been spelt out to voters.
The SNP defence plans are unachievable within their planned funding and timescale. Comparisons with Norway and Denmark ignore the fact that both built their defence and security arrangements over decades, under the Nato umbrella and during a time of bigger Cold War spending. It would take decades for an independent Scotland to build up a substitute for the training, administrative and procurement infrastructure presently situated in England.
Nor do we believe that anything like the 20,000 personnel envisaged will be attracted by the career opportunities offered by the Scottish Armed Forces. Rather, the best may leave altogether, seeing the split as an act of destruction and leadership failure. This could lead to the loss of premier-league capability for ever.
Faslane as a Scottish Armed Forces HQ cannot offer the 8,200 jobs the UK Ministry of Defence presently plans, to say nothing of the many other businesses dependent on their custom. Scotstoun and Govan expect to build 13 new frigates for the Royal Navy. Such orders are placed in the UK only by use of the European Union-allowed derogation from single-market rules for national security. The UK might not be able to place this order in an independent Scotland. Scottish Navy orders would be no substitute, nor are exports likely to close the gap.
In summary, we advise that Scottish separation will entail many lost jobs and leave Scotland very poorly defended in an increasingly dangerous world, especially as the SNP’s policy on nuclear weapons could render it ineligible for Nato membership.
Related Articles
Finally, we have all served worldwide with Scots shipmates. UK Armed Forces are known globally and a force for good. Splitting the Union would do them immense damage. Defence and maritime security are vital to the elemental decision facing the Scots, affecting 65 million people and their descendants for ever.
With regards to the earlier point about housing one can say most definitely that there are indeed areas where affluent "outsiders" ( often English but not exclusively) have bought holiday homes and do indeed price locals out of the market.
There's a similar issue in Whitstable with the " DFLs".
Indeed one would suggest this issue is quite common the world over.
And I'm not sure it can be or is claimed to be THE driving force behind the housing market.
Thing is unless they're going to start seizing property or changing the market rules one doesn't quite see how Scotland being independent is actually going to solve this issue ?
Medium of Death wrote: That does sound reasonable. Wouldn't it be better if England was allowed more representation by grouping various counties into mini-states or something along that line? Allows various neglected parts of England to have their say.
There is something rotten in the state of Europe when an unelected, unaccountable EU body can glibly inform millions of us that we no longer have the right to question its most dangerous and unpopular policies.
This is exactly what has just happened, as the European Commission has announced that it will not allow a European Citizens' Initiative (ECI) to challenge the secret trade talks it is holding with the US government, supposedly on our behalf.
The ruling is a slap in the face for the 230 civil society organisations from across Europe that have lined up behind the initiative, and the millions of European citizens they represent. The ECI is the only vehicle available to us to challenge the shadowy bureaucrats of the European Commission. Now even this seems to be too much scrutiny for them.
Opinion Former News
OECD proposals ‘a significant step’ towards new international tax rules
Google sets up 'right to be forgotten' form after EU ruling
NOAH welcomes release of Commission’s proposals package for revised legislation for veterinary medicines and medicated feed
Opinion Former Video
BFAWU video: Why join our trade union?
BFAWU logo
The negotiations on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) have become one of the hottest political topics across Europe. TTIP is effectively a new bill of rights for multinational corporations, granting them unprecedented powers and undermining vital labour, environmental and food safety standards in the name of 'free' trade.
TTIP is also a direct threat to our democracy, as the European Commission seeks to allow companies to challenge future policies introduced anywhere in Europe that could jeopardise their bottom line. The ECI, by contrast, was a fully democratic response. And the Commission has blocked it.
There are already huge movements of opposition to TTIP in most European countries. Trade unions and global justice groups have joined forces with environmental, consumer and digital privacy campaigners to confront the common threat that the negotiations pose.
The European Commission is well aware of the strength of this resistance, as it has been forced to suspend negotiations on one of the most controversial aspects of the agreement: the new ‘investor-state dispute settlement’ powers that companies will win through TTIP to sue host states when their profits come under threat.
That mechanism has been questioned by the German and French governments, as it effectively raises transnational capital to the status of the nation state itself. The new powers are already being used elsewhere under other treaties, as in the billion-dollar challenge being brought by Philip Morris against the Australian government for loss of profits as a result of the country's public health requirement that all cigarettes be sold in plain packaging.
Under similar provisions in the Energy Charter Treaty, the Swedish energy company Vattenfall is suing Germany for €3.7 billion (£2.94 billion) over its decision to phase out nuclear power in the wake of the Fukushima disaster. French company Veolia is even suing the Egyptian government for threatening its profits by raising the minimum wage. And there are countless other equally shocking examples stretching back over the past 20 years.
As always, the UK government is a major part of the problem. Leaked documents from internal EU discussions over the parallel EU-Canada trade talks (CETA) reveal that the UK is the only member state providing unconditional support for the European Commission in its desire to introduce these new powers for business, at the expense of democracy and the rule of law.
Yet just this week, the British trade union movement came out in full opposition to the introduction of all investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms in EU trade deals, with a unanimous vote to stop the EU-US talks in their tracks.
Not only is TTIP predicted to cost at least one million jobs between the EU and USA, but it will also make it impossible for any future government to repeal the Health & Social Care Act and bring the NHS back into public hands.
I am one of the seven people who make up the European citizens' committee for the ECI against TTIP and CETA that the Commission has rejected. With fellow representatives from France, Germany, Finland, Romania, Luxembourg and Portugal, we were responsible for raising one million signatures in favour of the initiative within a year.
Given the massive opposition that exists to TTIP across Europe, we were confident of meeting the target well within the required time. The European Commission obviously thought the same, hence its decision to strangle the initiative at birth.
This is by no means the end of the story. We have legal advice to suggest that the European Commission is on thin ice in its attempt to prevent the ECI from going ahead, and we can take our appeal direct to the European Court of Justice in order to get the block lifted.
The fight against TTIP will continue regardless of whether we overcome the Commission's opposition to the ECI. But the Brussels bureaucrats need to be careful as to the long-term consequences of their contempt for democracy.
The European parliament elections this May saw an unprecedented surge in the number of voters rejecting the European project in its entirety. Ukip won more seats than any other UK party, the Front National topped the poll in France and some of our continent's nastiest far-right extremists now enjoy the legitimacy of EU parliamentary representation.
Jean-Claude Juncker, newly appointed as president of the European Commission, has been talking of his desire to see 'fairness and democracy' at the heart of Europe. He would do well to clean out his own stables first.
TTIP can seriously get to feth...
Is anybody else across Europe worried about this?
I am. I thought I was a voice in the wilderness, seems I,m not the only one.
reds8n wrote: With regards to the earlier point about housing one can say most definitely that there are indeed areas where affluent "outsiders" ( often English but not exclusively) have bought holiday homes and do indeed price locals out of the market.
There's a similar issue in Whitstable with the " DFLs".
Indeed one would suggest this issue is quite common the world over.
And I'm not sure it can be or is claimed to be THE driving force behind the housing market.
Thing is unless they're going to start seizing property or changing the market rules one doesn't quite see how Scotland being independent is actually going to solve this issue ?
It is a big issue where I live. It IS the driving force in some areas (Parts of Cornwall, the Cotswolds), but I doubt it is in most of Scotland. Seems more like a convenient scapegoat than a fact, and like you say, unless the Scottish government were to start seizing houses or do something like put massive taxes on second homes, I can't see how independence would change anything. Massive taxes would not happen anyway as it would damage the tourist industry, which is too valuable to Scotland.
I really disliked the press when they say it's bullying to harass political leaders. These people have let the entire UK down. Scotland is pretty politicised at the moment, it's only natural that people vent their anger towards them.
Are our leaders such insipid tossers that they can't stand to see reality?
Out of interest is this a totally open result poll or does it have to be by a certain margin? I can see some unhappy people if the vote goes against you by 1% and I can't see this being the end of the matter if that's the case.
Whatever happens let it not interfere with the TV series "Outlander" If in some way shape or form the show gets delayed, cancel, banned, boycotted, or something.....the wife will go ballistic...
kronk wrote: In the spirit of tomorrow's election, I'll remind our friends across the pond of a Louisiana proverb:
"Vote Early, Vote Often"
Best of luck, gents!
A lot of your countrymen (and women!) seem to be coming out against Scottish independence. Is there still a house un-American activities committee still up and running? These people should be reported for pro British sentiment! No true American would support Britain. Remember the Alamo!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Whatever happens let it not interfere with the TV series "Outlander" If in some way shape or form the show gets delayed, cancel, banned, boycotted, or something.....the wife will go ballistic...
That was filmed ages ago
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wolfstan wrote: Out of interest is this a totally open result poll or does it have to be by a certain margin? I can see some unhappy people if the vote goes against you by 1% and I can't see this being the end of the matter if that's the case.
No margin. All you need is 50% + 1 vote to claim victory. It might be that close.
Most of the poll results discount the "not sure" results. I think that there is a significant amount of people who are either undecided or who are disinclined to take part in pre-voting polls who are generally uninterested in independence who will pad the "no" vote quite a lot more than might be predicted given the results of the online polls.
SilverMK2 wrote: Most of the poll results discount the "not sure" results. I think that there is a significant amount of people who are either undecided or who are disinclined to take part in pre-voting polls who are generally uninterested in independence who will pad the "no" vote quite a lot more than might be predicted given the results of the online polls.
You think a person would get out of bed and take the pains of heading over to the voting booth just to vote No?
I'll give the benefit of doubt to the Yes voters, since they seem to be the far more passionate bunch!
Pretty much every person wanting Scottish independence is going to vote tomorrow.
I dont think every person not caring about Scottish independence is going to vote tomorrow. And that might just make all the difference.
Depends on if it's only a vote for Scottish Independence or if there are other things on the Ballot. But it's England so I have no idea how it works. Here in the US you would probably give the undetermines to the No's because they are people who don't care enough and would be showing up to vote for other items. If it's the only thing on the ballot then yeah, I'd say it would lean more toward the yes's.
Hulksmash wrote: Depends on if it's only a vote for Scottish Independence or if there are other things on the Ballot. But it's England so I have no idea how it works. Here in the US you would probably give the undetermines to the No's because they are people who don't care enough and would be showing up to vote for other items. If it's the only thing on the ballot then yeah, I'd say it would lean more toward the yes's.
Edit: Well, Australasia does, nothing on Germany (yet).
And from what I've seen online, Australia has a pretty big issue with people showing up to the polls blitzed drunk attempting to vote.... They were even trying to pass a law in regards to "drunk voting"
SilverMK2 wrote: Most of the poll results discount the "not sure" results. I think that there is a significant amount of people who are either undecided or who are disinclined to take part in pre-voting polls who are generally uninterested in independence who will pad the "no" vote quite a lot more than might be predicted given the results of the online polls.
You think a person would get out of bed and take the pains of heading over to the voting booth just to vote No?
I'll give the benefit of doubt to the Yes voters, since they seem to be the far more passionate bunch!
Pretty much every person wanting Scottish independence is going to vote tomorrow.
I dont think every person not caring about Scottish independence is going to vote tomorrow. And that might just make all the difference.
I think that the kinds of people who vote in online polls from polling agencies are the vocal fringes of each side of the debate with a core of normals in the middle. I think that the silent majority of people who will be voting who are on the edge one way or another will vote no.
I'm of course prepared to look at turnout and the totals for yes and no and be proven wrong
At least some of the reporters are not afraid to ask the real questions:
Should The U.S. Deploy Troops To Scotland?
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
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
God no. 50% - 60% turnout in general elections is typically considered a good turnout.
Last I saw there was 97% registration (people who are eligible who have registered to vote) so at the very least this referendum has galvanized people to an extent about politics were as before there was a huge degree of apathy
God no. 50% - 60% turnout in general elections is typically considered a good turnout.
Last I saw there was 97% registration (people who are eligible who have registered to vote) so at the very least this referendum has galvanized people to an extent about politics were as before there was a huge degree of apathy
I should certainly hope so. Breaking up a country is a fething momentous decision with drastically more far reaching consequences than deciding which variety of left-liberal socialist party gets to take its turn in Downing Street.
God no. 50% - 60% turnout in general elections is typically considered a good turnout.
Last I saw there was 97% registration (people who are eligible who have registered to vote) so at the very least this referendum has galvanized people to an extent about politics were as before there was a huge degree of apathy
I should certainly hope so. Breaking up a country is a fething momentous decision with drastically more far reaching consequences than deciding which variety of left-liberal socialist party gets to take its turn in Downing Street.
Breaking up a union, you mean. It's more comparable to a country seceding from the EU via referendum.
God no. 50% - 60% turnout in general elections is typically considered a good turnout.
Last I saw there was 97% registration (people who are eligible who have registered to vote) so at the very least this referendum has galvanized people to an extent about politics were as before there was a huge degree of apathy
I should certainly hope so. Breaking up a country is a fething momentous decision with drastically more far reaching consequences than deciding which variety of left-liberal socialist party gets to take its turn in Downing Street.
Breaking up a union, you mean. It's more comparable to a country seceding from the EU via referendum.
It's more comparable to one of the united states seceding from the union via referendum.
Fantastic time, friendly crowds and great atmosphere. Enjoyed waving my DIY flag although after around 6 hours my arms are pretty tired.
Some Unionists tried to disrupt the music at the front by jumping into the performance area with their Union Jacks and interrupting the musicians. They played on and the police took them away. They came back later and stood outside the Glasgow City Chambers and were met with a larger crowd of Yes supporters waving the flags across the road. These weren't just No Voters but SDL/BNP types. Complete morons out looking for a fight. Nobody was biting from Yes.
Made a new English pal at the rally, he's just recently up in Glasgow and we had a good chinwag. And they say Yes is full of anti-English bullies.
Vote yes to abolish greed and poverty!
To abolish corruption and involvemenrt in war!
If the Yes vote gets its way this fellow will be colossally disappointed, assuming he actually believes a word he says and isn't just trying to hoodwink people.
What wars would an Independent Scotland be fighting Orlanth? A defence force isn't going to be used for invasion.
We'll be getting rid of Nuclear weapons too.
It's all very well to scoff at those ideas but at least it's a hope in the heart of the Yes campaign. If it goes that way politicians will be damned if they don't follow through. They'll have caged themselves with a people they've politicised.
Vote yes to abolish greed and poverty!
To abolish corruption and involvemenrt in war!
If the Yes vote gets its way this fellow will be colossally disappointed, assuming he actually believes a word he says and isn't just trying to hoodwink people.
I agree with what he says, I just don't think this is the way to achieve it. I don't think it'll work.
Medium of Death wrote: What wars would an Independent Scotland be fighting Orlanth? A defence force isn't going to be used for invasion.
We'll be getting rid of Nuclear weapons too.
I dont contest the nuclear free Scotland bit, I dont agree with the policy but it is logical.
As for the wars, Scotland like other europeasn countries may sent peace keepers to places. I can see Salmond wanting to grandstand and send troops to some warzone, if he doesnt someone else will. This isn't a critique, the UK does so, and so do nations smaller than Scotland. Ireland for example sends peacekeeprrs to Africa, and are good at it. Some of those men don't come home.
The ideology that Scotland will never get involved in wars again is. Besides we had a Scottish born prime Minister, backed by a party strongly represented by Scottish MP's who led the Uk into the illegal Iraq War. Scotland voted Blair in and cant pass that off as an English adventure.
It's all very well to scoff at those ideas but at least it's a hope in the heart of the Yes campaign. If it goes that way politicians will be damned if they don't follow through. They'll have caged themselves with a people they've politicised.
'Hope' and 'change' are magic words used to make promises to peop,le that are largely vapour. Obama used hope and change to promise to bring troops home and close Gitmo, it hasn't happened.
Salmond offers hope and change with far less integrity than Obama. Scotland is heading to become the most centralised state in the western world, with nearly 100% of state funding centralised, a re-centralised police force and very few safeguards on power as the new Scottish constitution aims to do away with them.
Salmond has already got a track record for centralisation, control freakery and corruption. President Salmond will be an order of magnitude worse. We have already seen threats of punitive nationalisation of industries that are 'pro-Tory', if these comments, from very high up in the SNP, are to be taken seriously at all.
As for leaders 'caging themselves' don't count on it. Its standard Machiavellian politics to promise a lot, you need not deliver if you have centralised control. Its just ironic that the way things are heading iScotland will likely be far less free than it currently is.
There are honest policies that could lead people to vote Yes, and honest reasons to vote Yes, just as there are the opposite. However the given reasons for voting Yes, greater freedom and a better economy are based on vacuous information at best, and out and out lies for the main part.
I agree with what he says, I just don't think this is the way to achieve it. I don't think it'll work.
An end to poverty and inequality etc are nice sentiments, but tackling poverty is for philanthropists not politicians. Politicians must be concerned with steady government and a good economy which cannot be achieved unless you deal with those who make money, or worse form a draconian centralised state.
As fro equality. All animals are equal but some are more equal than others.
Vote yes to abolish greed and poverty!
To abolish corruption and involvemenrt in war!
If the Yes vote gets its way this fellow will be colossally disappointed, assuming he actually believes a word he says and isn't just trying to hoodwink people.
I agree with what he says, I just don't think this is the way to achieve it. I don't think it'll work.
Does he know Scotland history? So much in game of thrones is based off stuff from Scotland. It's all smiles and please and thank you now but if they become independent it will be kilts and blue face paint and swords and murdering people at Christmas dinner before you know it is even happening.
Politicians must be concerned with steady government and a good economy which cannot be achieved unless you deal with those who make money, or worse form a draconian centralised state.
A politician should be concerned with the health and welfare of the whole country.
Laemos wrote: Does he know Scotland history? So much in game of thrones is based off stuff from Scotland. It's all smiles and please and thank you now but if they become independent it will be kilts and blue face paint and swords and murdering people at Christmas dinner before you know it is even happening.
I now have a mental image of Alex Salmond in his hour of victory...getting murdered whilst on the loo.
Laemos wrote: Does he know Scotland history? So much in game of thrones is based off stuff from Scotland. It's all smiles and please and thank you now but if they become independent it will be kilts and blue face paint and swords and murdering people at Christmas dinner before you know it is even happening.
I now have a mental image of Alex Salmond in his hour of victory...getting murdered whilst on the loo.
Cheers.
Strange I always have a mental image of him on a big plate with an apple in his mouth.
An end to poverty and inequality etc are nice sentiments, but tackling poverty is for philanthropists not politicians.
Absolute rubbish, tackling poverty is every bodies job, but especially politicians.
Those who lead but cannot play realpolitic buy only poverty. ALL attempts at true equality only bring subjugation because you cant take human greed out of a large scale system.
Philanthropy is for individuals, government is for stability, and the maintenance of law and order.
A welfare state is not philanphropy, its stability and order.
Politicians must be concerned with steady government and a good economy which cannot be achieved unless you deal with those who make money, or worse form a draconian centralised state.
A politician should be concerned with the health and welfare of the whole country.
Such a politician will drive his country to ruin, the welfare needs budget is infinite, the economy is not. There will always be more that people need, welfare cannot be maximised, and welfare cannot really be achieved at all without firm budgeting and a strong economy to pay for it.
As fro equality. All animals are equal but some are more equal than others.
incorrect. Some see themselves as more equal, than others. But death or injury doesn't ask if your rich.
Getting rid of death is not in a politicians perview either.
You cant have true equality, the human animal doesn't allow it. So get over it. If you dont believe that read up about Marxism and Maoism.
instead formulate a society where there is stability justice and the chasnce to better oneself. Those vurtues cannot of themselves dispel povery, but can minimise it beyond the efforts of hardcorfe socialists who claim to abolish poverty.
Politicians must be concerned with steady government and a good economy which cannot be achieved unless you deal with those who make money, or worse form a draconian centralised state.
A politician should be concerned with the health and welfare of the whole country.
Politicians must be concerned with steady government and a good economy which cannot be achieved unless you deal with those who make money, or worse form a draconian centralised state.
A politician should be concerned with the health and welfare of the whole country.
Fantastic time, friendly crowds and great atmosphere. Enjoyed waving my DIY flag although after around 6 hours my arms are pretty tired.
Some Unionists tried to disrupt the music at the front by jumping into the performance area with their Union Jacks and interrupting the musicians. They played on and the police took them away. They came back later and stood outside the Glasgow City Chambers and were met with a larger crowd of Yes supporters waving the flags across the road. These weren't just No Voters but SDL/BNP types. Complete morons out looking for a fight. Nobody was biting from Yes.
Made a new English pal at the rally, he's just recently up in Glasgow and we had a good chinwag. And they say Yes is full of anti-English bullies.
Good times. Roll on result friday!
Enjoy it while you can. If its yes the recession will come shortly for you. Hope you like unemployment.
You know Texas is taking notes and drafting their own referendum. That's why you already got a US flag with one star on it, and two stripes for "us vs them"!
Thing is Texas would make a sizable and very rich nation state, no questions. no worries.
Texas also has its own treaty with the Union that allows it a get out clause.
That being said refereenda are a means to permanent dissent, if we get a No vote we will have regular campaigning for more and mor without solid leadership now, and Cameromn isnt into solid leadership, it rocks the boat fro his business pals.
Scotland is opening the doors to division across western society, I dont think Texas will secede, but parts of Spain and Italy might and the French also have worries.
This is going to get real ugly, fast.
Orlanth wrote: Thing is Texas would make a sizable and very rich nation state, no questions. no worries.
Texas also has its own treaty with the Union that allows it a get out clause.
That being said refereenda are a means to permanent dissent, if we get a No vote we will have regular campaigning for more and mor without solid leadership now, and Cameromn isnt into solid leadership, it rocks the boat fro his business pals.
Scotland is opening the doors to division across western society, I dont think Texas will secede, but parts of Spain and Italy might and the French also have worries.
This is going to get real ugly, fast.
You can best believe Quebec is watching this vote.
Blackhoof wrote: Yeah, those would be the lefties who ARE xenophobes believing whatever crap UKIP feeds them about immigration and immigrants. The ones who aren't presumably stuck with Labour.
Yes... Xenophobic indeed.
Spoiler:
UKIP's raison d'être is to leave the European Union. The majority of immigration to the UK is from other European Union countries. Europe is mostly White. Not brown, not black. White.
xenophobia comes from the Latin phobos, meaning fear, and xenos, meaning alien. It is a fear of foreigners or other countries, not of race (not inherently, at least). The fact that anti-immigration policies are pushed by them when immigration is a net bonus to an economy tells me that xenophobia plays a part, most certainly.
Fantastic time, friendly crowds and great atmosphere. Enjoyed waving my DIY flag although after around 6 hours my arms are pretty tired.
Some Unionists tried to disrupt the music at the front by jumping into the performance area with their Union Jacks and interrupting the musicians. They played on and the police took them away. They came back later and stood outside the Glasgow City Chambers and were met with a larger crowd of Yes supporters waving the flags across the road. These weren't just No Voters but SDL/BNP types. Complete morons out looking for a fight. Nobody was biting from Yes.
Made a new English pal at the rally, he's just recently up in Glasgow and we had a good chinwag. And they say Yes is full of anti-English bullies.
Good times. Roll on result friday!
Enjoy it while you can. If its yes the recession will come shortly for you. Hope you like unemployment.
Frazz, when your countrymen broke away 250 years ago, the American economy hit rock bottom after the war. This is something I have no doubt you probably know. But despite the hardship, I can 100% guarantee, that nobody ever thought about rolling up the white flag and asking London to take them back. Sometimes it's not about the economy.
Just back from the polling station. Very, very, very, very busy. Lots of people walking there and back, more than I have ever seen at that particular polling station.
A solitary police officer standing outside the station. Hopefully he won't be needed.
Will this be Scotland's worse hangover or will we be still buzzing for a party the next day? Only time will tell!
Fantastic time, friendly crowds and great atmosphere. Enjoyed waving my DIY flag although after around 6 hours my arms are pretty tired.
Some Unionists tried to disrupt the music at the front by jumping into the performance area with their Union Jacks and interrupting the musicians. They played on and the police took them away. They came back later and stood outside the Glasgow City Chambers and were met with a larger crowd of Yes supporters waving the flags across the road. These weren't just No Voters but SDL/BNP types. Complete morons out looking for a fight. Nobody was biting from Yes.
Made a new English pal at the rally, he's just recently up in Glasgow and we had a good chinwag. And they say Yes is full of anti-English bullies.
Good times. Roll on result friday!
Enjoy it while you can. If its yes the recession will come shortly for you. Hope you like unemployment.
Here's the hard facts:
Scotland has 4mm people
What industry do you have exactly because sheep ranching? Seriously. How much of that is tied to the North Sea? How much do you think Britain will allow you to keep if you do split?
Seriously if I were PM. The moment the balance said yes I'd declare oops sorry didn't count with a "my bad, just kidding." If I were Queen I'd tell Scotland to toss off, you aint leaving da party you hairy haggis eater. Now rub my feet!
Frazz, when your countrymen broke away 250 years ago, the American economy hit rock bottom after the war. This is something I have no doubt you probably know. But despite the hardship, I can 100% guarantee, that nobody ever thought about rolling up the white flag and asking London to take them back. Sometimes it's not about the economy.
I think the independence of the Republic of Ireland, and the subsequent war that didn't make a difference in that independence, are probably a good lesson that it is best to let countries do as they wish in that regard.
d-usa wrote: I think the independence of the Republic of Ireland, and the subsequent war that didn't make a difference in that independence, are probably a good lesson that it is best to let countries do as they wish in that regard.
d-usa wrote: I think the independence of the Republic of Ireland, and the subsequent war that didn't make a difference in that independence, are probably a good lesson that it is best to let countries do as they wish in that regard.
The ACW says otherwise.
What happens in another country, operating under different rules, in a different century, doesn't really matter.
Fantastic time, friendly crowds and great atmosphere. Enjoyed waving my DIY flag although after around 6 hours my arms are pretty tired.
Some Unionists tried to disrupt the music at the front by jumping into the performance area with their Union Jacks and interrupting the musicians. They played on and the police took them away. They came back later and stood outside the Glasgow City Chambers and were met with a larger crowd of Yes supporters waving the flags across the road. These weren't just No Voters but SDL/BNP types. Complete morons out looking for a fight. Nobody was biting from Yes.
Made a new English pal at the rally, he's just recently up in Glasgow and we had a good chinwag. And they say Yes is full of anti-English bullies.
Good times. Roll on result friday!
Enjoy it while you can. If its yes the recession will come shortly for you. Hope you like unemployment.
Here's the hard facts:
Scotland has 4mm people
What industry do you have exactly because sheep ranching? Seriously. How much of that is tied to the North Sea? How much do you think Britain will allow you to keep if you do split?
Seriously if I were PM. The moment the balance said yes I'd declare oops sorry didn't count with a "my bad, just kidding." If I were Queen I'd tell Scotland to toss off, you aint leaving da party you hairy haggis eater. Now rub my feet!
Frazz, when your countrymen broke away 250 years ago, the American economy hit rock bottom after the war. This is something I have no doubt you probably know. But despite the hardship, I can 100% guarantee, that nobody ever thought about rolling up the white flag and asking London to take them back. Sometimes it's not about the economy.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Texas has no loophole to leave. That's completely made up. It can, however, split into five states at any time.
Thats not correct actually.
However, the court case of Lee vs. Grant (writ denied) held that once you join this thing of ours, you don't leave.
I don't see why Britain is allowing this. I don't see other countries doing so. Thats why they have troops.
It's called "Democracy". As an American, perhaps you have heard of it?
Again, you didn't employ democracy in Ireland now did you boyo.
Yes we did. Ever heard of the Good Friday Agreement? Instead of continuing the conflict, we bowed to the demands of terrorists and permitted them to participate in a democratic process for the sake of peace. There are now former terrorists in government in Belfast.all it t takes for a United Ireland is a referendum like what Scotland is doing today.
Just what the hell do you suggest we do with Scotland? March in the Army, close the polling stations and impose a curfew? We're "allowing" this, because as a democracy we HAVE to.
To the Scots credit, the Scottish Nationalism movement has never been violent like Ireland.
Not allowing it would have just caused violence to fester and then bubble to the surface.
EDIT
We only need to use a wee wax pencil. There's no need for violence and it's almost completely incomparable to any struggle for independence that history has seen.
.. and if it does go independent then we'll just wait for the USA to do their usual thing
when confronted by a hard left governed country with oil supplies
reds8n wrote: .. and if it does go independent then we'll just wait for the USA to do their usual thing
when confronted by a hard left governed country with oil supplies
I look forward to the Scottish Recvolutionary war against their American oppressors. We Brits/English would then get to play the part of the French, supporting a revolution against our age old rivals. The irony is delicious.
reds8n wrote: .. and if it does go independent then we'll just wait for the USA to do their usual thing when confronted by a hard left governed country with oil supplies
Recent capex to the Battleship Texas and fast attack carrier Lexington memorials. Coincidence? Soo...just asking....do you Scots have any functioning aircraft carriers....NO? excellent...why am I asking? no reason...
I think if anybody has perfected the art of loosing countries and colonies it is the UK, so I think all us American posters should just defer to their expertise and welcome another member to the "Club of Ex-wifes".
Sir Arun wrote: Well...what would have happened if the north hadn't fought against the South in the ACW?
From what I remember it wasnt the South that declared war first.
Yes they did. They fired first; they started that show. And they got their butt kicked up around their ears as a consequence.
As for Scotland... well, I understand where the "Yes" side of this argument is coming from. It's frustrating to have your political voice marginalized and taxes get spent on stuff you don't approve of, but that's a risk in any democracy. Their economy may tank after the split, or the oil may keep it going (till that runs out). If they are smart, they will find ways to diversify their economy to make it less relliant on one product. Maybe they could charge the UK rent for berthing those nuclear submarines up there?
As for Scotland... well, I understand where the "Yes" side of this argument is coming from. It's frustrating to have your political voice marginalized and taxes get spent on stuff you don't approve of, but that's a risk in any democracy. Their economy may tank after the split, or the oil may keep it going (till that runs out). If they are smart, they will find ways to diversify their economy to make it less relliant on one product. Maybe they could charge the UK rent for berthing those nuclear submarines up there?
I believe that the Scotch industry also makes them a fair bit of change, nothing like oil of course... but it's definitely there. Beyond that, I haven't a clue other than possibly "tourism" which only gets you so far, especially when you have the weather patterns of Scotland
As for Scotland... well, I understand where the "Yes" side of this argument is coming from. It's frustrating to have your political voice marginalized and taxes get spent on stuff you don't approve of, but that's a risk in any democracy. Their economy may tank after the split, or the oil may keep it going (till that runs out). If they are smart, they will find ways to diversify their economy to make it less relliant on one product. Maybe they could charge the UK rent for berthing those nuclear submarines up there?
I believe that the Scotch industry also makes them a fair bit of change, nothing like oil of course... but it's definitely there. Beyond that, I haven't a clue other than possibly "tourism" which only gets you so far, especially when you have the weather patterns of Scotland
American Colonists: We can't break away from Britain, we'd lose out on the tea trade.
John Adams/Thomas Jefferson/George Washington et al: Colonists, you're right. Tear up the declaration of independence, we're going home!
Not having a go at you, but Americans should be cheering Scotland to the max. Instead, we have Frazz impersonating a Texan and other American dakka members, reluctant to back Scotland. I'll mention no names
This is getting surreal
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: I think the independence of the Republic of Ireland, and the subsequent war that didn't make a difference in that independence, are probably a good lesson that it is best to let countries do as they wish in that regard.
You're backing Scottish independence? I was about to ask if you really were American (every other American seems to be against it ) but then I remembered your Germany connection.
As for Scotland... well, I understand where the "Yes" side of this argument is coming from. It's frustrating to have your political voice marginalized and taxes get spent on stuff you don't approve of, but that's a risk in any democracy. Their economy may tank after the split, or the oil may keep it going (till that runs out). If they are smart, they will find ways to diversify their economy to make it less relliant on one product. Maybe they could charge the UK rent for berthing those nuclear submarines up there?
I believe that the Scotch industry also makes them a fair bit of change, nothing like oil of course... but it's definitely there. Beyond that, I haven't a clue other than possibly "tourism" which only gets you so far, especially when you have the weather patterns of Scotland
American Colonists: We can't break away from Britain, we'd lose out on the tea trade.
John Adams/Thomas Jefferson/George Washington et al: Colonists, you're right. Tear up the declaration of independence, we're going home!
Not having a go at you, but Americans should be cheering Scotland to the max. Instead, we have Frazz impersonating a Texan and other American dakka members, reluctant to back Scotland. I'll mention no names
This is getting surreal
Lol, I'm all for William Wallace FINALLY gettin' the Freedom he was after... I was merely pointing out, due to some wondering about the economics of Scotland "only" having oil to offer the rest of the world
Of course, as others pointed out, after the American War of Independence, our economy was in the tank, and in the 18th century, that was fine. In the 21st Century, we have such a global economy that Scotland facing a poor economy at home can/probably will have some effect on everyone else out here. This would also be one of the few times that I'd be for sending "foreign aid" to help the Scots get back on their feet... I wouldn't mind one bit of the US Gov't sent me to scotland on vacation so that I could prop up the economy
As for Scotland... well, I understand where the "Yes" side of this argument is coming from. It's frustrating to have your political voice marginalized and taxes get spent on stuff you don't approve of, but that's a risk in any democracy. Their economy may tank after the split, or the oil may keep it going (till that runs out). If they are smart, they will find ways to diversify their economy to make it less relliant on one product. Maybe they could charge the UK rent for berthing those nuclear submarines up there?
I believe that the Scotch industry also makes them a fair bit of change, nothing like oil of course... but it's definitely there. Beyond that, I haven't a clue other than possibly "tourism" which only gets you so far, especially when you have the weather patterns of Scotland
American Colonists: We can't break away from Britain, we'd lose out on the tea trade.
John Adams/Thomas Jefferson/George Washington et al: Colonists, you're right. Tear up the declaration of independence, we're going home!
Not having a go at you, but Americans should be cheering Scotland to the max. Instead, we have Frazz impersonating a Texan and other American dakka members, reluctant to back Scotland. I'll mention no names
This is getting surreal
Lol, I'm all for William Wallace FINALLY gettin' the Freedom he was after... I was merely pointing out, due to some wondering about the economics of Scotland "only" having oil to offer the rest of the world
Of course, as others pointed out, after the American War of Independence, our economy was in the tank, and in the 18th century, that was fine. In the 21st Century, we have such a global economy that Scotland facing a poor economy at home can/probably will have some effect on everyone else out here. This would also be one of the few times that I'd be for sending "foreign aid" to help the Scots get back on their feet... I wouldn't mind one bit of the US Gov't sent me to scotland on vacation so that I could prop up the economy
Like others have mentioned, Scotland has oil, and sooner or later, the USA will cook up an excuse to invade (they'll accuse Scotland of banning Ronald Reagan films ) , Scotland will be annexed, and will be funded for evermore by the US taxpayer. In other words, Scotland's economy is secure.
But then again, Scotland may flirt with China, giving those peace loving people an opportunity to put a dagger at America's throat (to paraphrase Japan's military pre-pearl Harbour )
d-usa wrote: I think the independence of the Republic of Ireland, and the subsequent war that didn't make a difference in that independence, are probably a good lesson that it is best to let countries do as they wish in that regard.
You're backing Scottish independence? I was about to ask if you really were American (every other American seems to be against it ) but then I remembered your Germany connection.
Well, I'm not really backing their independence (I don't have a dog in that fight). I'm just backing the vote in general and their opportunity for self-determination.
When the Irish decided to split it resulted in a war and the split between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland and eventually the Troubles which always have a risk of kicking back up. I'm guessing that this history might have been an influential factor regarding the decision to let this referendum proceed.
d-usa wrote: I think the independence of the Republic of Ireland, and the subsequent war that didn't make a difference in that independence, are probably a good lesson that it is best to let countries do as they wish in that regard.
You're backing Scottish independence? I was about to ask if you really were American (every other American seems to be against it ) but then I remembered your Germany connection.
Well, I'm not really backing their independence (I don't have a dog in that fight). I'm just backing the vote in general and their opportunity for self-determination.
When the Irish decided to split it resulted in a war and the split between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland and eventually the Troubles which always have a risk of kicking back up. I'm guessing that this history might have been an influential factor regarding the decision to let this referendum proceed.
The main factor was that David Cameron thought it was going to be a walkover - his plan was to kill Scottish nationalism stone dead. When the election was announced two years ago, the polls were 65% for staying in the UK. Now it's 50/50
There would be parts all around the country I should imagine. Although it wouldn't really be a religious thing. It's a hard comparison to draw, Scotland never saw the same levels of brutality as the Irish did.
Daba wrote: If troubles turn out like in the ROI/NI, which regions are likely to be in the NI (unionist) zone?
The day that happens is the day America repeals the 2nd amendment. Never going to happen. Scotland is not Northern Ireland.
Even so, in the hypothetical situation it would be interesting to know.
Unlike NI though whether you're pro or anti independence isn't split along religious lines, in NI you say more parochial communities with relatively similar points of view within but in Scotland many households are split and you can't point to specific areas that out and out are completely for or against excepot perhaps some areas of Glasgow where the OO lodges are
I'd like to see the results for this referendum broken up into particular demographics. Ie do certain age ranges, locations or professions vote one way? I mean just as an inclination as to how people are thinking. For instance one thing I've noticed is that within my own peer group nobody was voting no. Is that just a coincidence, or is it indicative of a section of society's views (uh, ie 20-30 something Glaswegians with suedo liberal view)?
Meh, voting day was uneventful for me. I turned up at the polling station (which also happened to be hosting a sort of day care centre at the time), came across some of my neighbours, and we were all in and out within five minutes. I saw plenty of Yes people miling about, but only one person who indicated they were voting no (just a guy wearing a Union Flag tshirt who walked in and out). I guess that particular station wasn't of high importance or whatever (...despite it being in an area where a lot of shipyard workers live, who I would have thought Labour would have tried to sway given the local representative's stance-ie raving like an idiot- on the whole campaign). Either way the SNP will still come out with something. If not Independence then at least more power (a poor compromise) and a load of dirt to bring up about Westminster and the media's handling of the campaign. A pity then if its a No that other's looking to go down the same route will have less precedence (hey there's a reason why certain countries have jumped on the No campaign), but they can at least cite that Yes for the most part showed how to carry out such a campaign.
Like others have mentioned, Scotland has oil, and sooner or later, the USA will cook up an excuse to invade (they'll accuse Scotland of banning Ronald Reagan films ) , Scotland will be annexed, and will be funded for evermore by the US taxpayer. In other words, Scotland's economy is secure.
Well, I'd hate for us to forcibly annex Scotland just for your oil. But maybe you guys could petition for admittance into the US? Okay, okay, I know we use Imperial instead of metric over here, and that's pretty close to a deal breaker, but think of all the good stuff you'd get from joining the US of A...
...
....
.....
......
..... okay, so there isn't much benefit for you guys in joining us. Mostly we'd get the bennies for having you here. I mean, we'd finally have a chance at a really good national soccer team. That's a plus. Bagpipes would become American, by default. That'd be cool. Kilts would become traditional American dress overnight. We'd have to come up with a new name, though, since "United States of America" doesn't do much to address the issue of the 51st state being in Europe.
Wyrmalla wrote: I'd like to see the results for this referendum broken up into particular demographics. Ie do certain age ranges, locations or professions vote one way? I mean just as an inclination as to how people are thinking. For instance one thing I've noticed is that within my own peer group nobody was voting no. Is that just a coincidence, or is it indicative of a section of society's views (uh, ie 20-30 something Glaswegians with suedo liberal view)?
Meh, voting day was uneventful for me. I turned up at the polling station (which also happened to be hosting a sort of day care centre at the time), came across some of my neighbours, and we were all in and out within five minutes. I saw plenty of Yes people miling about, but only one person who indicated they were voting no (just a guy wearing a Union Flag tshirt who walked in and out). I guess that particular station wasn't of high importance or whatever (...despite it being in an area where a lot of shipyard workers live, who I would have thought Labour would have tried to sway given the local representative's stance-ie raving like an idiot- on the whole campaign). Either way the SNP will still come out with something. If not Independence then at least more power (a poor compromise) and a load of dirt to bring up about Westminster and the media's handling of the campaign. A pity then if its a No that other's looking to go down the same route will have less precedence (hey there's a reason why certain countries have jumped on the No campaign), but they can at least cite that Yes for the most part showed how to carry out such a campaign.
Voting was pretty uneventful for me as well as I'm registered back in Perth so I just set up a proxy vote
Daba wrote: If troubles turn out like in the ROI/NI, which regions are likely to be in the NI (unionist) zone?
Scotland won't turn out like NI for a number of reason:
1. There isn't the religious divide we had (have) over here.
2. Not only has there not been the preceding years of violence but there hasn't been the years of bigotry.
3. A lot of the atrocities committed during the troubles which caused the violence to escalate would no longer be tolerated.
Well I spent my day at work supporting with adults with learning disabilities to vote. It was quite interesting, many of them had unique viewpoints and the majority told me they wanted to vote No as they felt only a United Kingdom would have enough resources to support individuals in their position, although a few voted Yes as they felt it was the only way to overhaul what they feel is a broken support system.
Either way interesting viewpoints, now I'm off to vote.
Just for anyone saying the Scottish economy is solely based on oil.
Consider that Scotland has 8.3% of the UK population
32% of the land area.
61% of the sea area.
90% of the fresh water.
65% of the natural gas production.
96.5% of the crude oil production.
47% of the open cast coal production
81% of the untapped coal reserves
62% of the timber production
46% of the total forest area
92% of the hydro electric production
40% of the wind wave and solar energy production
60% of the fish landings
30% of the beef herd
20% of the sheep herd
9% of the dairy herd
10% of the pig herd
15% of the cereal holdings
20% of the potato holdings
...obviously 100% of the Scotch Whisky industry.
17 billion pound construction industry
13 billion food and drink industry
10 billion business services industry
9.3 billion chemical services industry
A 9.3 billion tourism industry
7 billion financial services industry
5 billion aeroservice industry
4.5 billion pound whisky exports industry
3.1 billion pound life sciences industry
Scotland still has 350 million pounds worth of textile exports
25% of Europe's wave and wind energy potential.
Orlanth wrote: Howe long until Quebec can have another referendum, there is a clock IIRC.
Quebec won't be making any noise until 2018 as the Liberals gained a majority during the provincial elections a few months past. Note too that the PQ suffered a historic trouncing and were bumped to near non-existent "can make minor noise in the back row" levels in the provincial legislature.
Quebec won't ever separate either, especially since their actual plans for independence stop at "F-you Canada, we're a country!"
Unlike Scotland which at least has some foundations for their own independent, self sustaining economy through oil & scotch production, (among other mainsteam business), Quebec has... maple syrup! Aaaaaand, nothing really.
They're a 'Have-Not' status province and are only kept afloat by the dollars Ottawa subsidises them through equalisation payments. (mind you, Ontario is Don't bypass the language filter like this. Reds8n ) A large percentage of their power generation is through federal treaties with Aboriginal peoples - in the event of separation, those lands remain federal.
I suppose if Trudurp were to ever somehow bungle his way into the PM's office he'd probably ensure Quebec could choose to leave confederation and keep all the perks of being Canadian... but then the rest of the country would toss him in short order for such stupidity.
Quebec is really like that whiney little brother. Most of 'em are happy to keep the status quo, except for the very vocal minority kicking up a constant tantrum in the corner.
kamakazepanda wrote: Just for anyone saying the Scottish economy is solely based on oil.
Consider that Scotland has 8.3% of the UK population
32% of the land area. 61% of the sea area. 90% of the fresh water. 65% of the natural gas production. 96.5% of the crude oil production. 47% of the open cast coal production 81% of the untapped coal reserves 62% of the timber production 46% of the total forest area 92% of the hydro electric production 40% of the wind wave and solar energy production 60% of the fish landings 30% of the beef herd 20% of the sheep herd 9% of the dairy herd 10% of the pig herd 15% of the cereal holdings 20% of the potato holdings ...obviously 100% of the Scotch Whisky industry.
17 billion pound construction industry 13 billion food and drink industry 10 billion business services industry 9.3 billion chemical services industry A 9.3 billion tourism industry 7 billion financial services industry 5 billion aeroservice industry 4.5 billion pound whisky exports industry 3.1 billion pound life sciences industry Scotland still has 350 million pounds worth of textile exports 25% of Europe's wave and wind energy potential.
A couple of good Tornado sorties could fix that. Come on Queenie don't wuss out on me now.
oh and those numbers look criminally suspect in every area I have any info on. What exactly is "aeorservice" and "chemical services" Where are the hydrocarbons located?
I was woken up by a thunderstorm and have been watching the BBC live results page.
Currently 54% NO with about half the votes still to come in.
Automatically Appended Next Post: NO needs 566,613 votes to win, according to BBC.
BBC are a bit slow; Scotland has voted to stay in the UK.
Really, where did you see that? I haven't seen anything yet.
Also, why is this a simple majority vote rather than a super-majority? Surely something that decides a country's fate should have more of a consensus than 51% to agree. I mean, in America a constitutional amendment has to pass both houses of congress and 3/4 (or possibly 2/3?) of the state legislatures.*
*Not the only way to pass one, but no amendment has ever been passed the other way.
adzila wrote: The BBC are saying the yes votes are too far behind to be able to win now, even though the votes for the last few areas are being counted
I can't even imagine the emotion on both sides right now.
adzila wrote: The BBC are saying the yes votes are too far behind to be able to win now, even though the votes for the last few areas are being counted
Yeah, after looking around that's what I saw.
The No votes haven't won yet, but the Yes votes can't really win.
Cant say I agree with one of the so called experts on BBC saying a no vote means the Scotland still has food banks and poverty. They would still be there even if the Yes side had won.
Now comes the difficult part, both sides have to accept the result.
Looking forward to Tommy Sheridan living down his "You have got to be kidding, is this the face of someone who is looking to lose - we will win 60%-40%." comment.
I was woken up by a thunderstorm and have been watching the BBC live results page.
Currently 54% NO with about half the votes still to come in.
Automatically Appended Next Post: NO needs 566,613 votes to win, according to BBC.
BBC are a bit slow; Scotland has voted to stay in the UK.
CNN says there is still counting...
Yeah, BBC retweeted one of their reporters saying it was over; he probably meant it was what they'd predicted.
That said, with only 6 areas left to declare and 22 out of the 26 already declared voting in favour of staying in the UK, chances are slim that an independent Scotland will emerge. Current percentages are 54 to 46 in favour of staying in the UK with over 60% of the votes counted. Unless Fife, Edinburgh, and Aberdeenshire vote yes by a heavy margin then even a close yes or no won't win them independence, with a 50/50 split only giving them about 600,000 votes out of the 720,000 they need to win.
The people have spoken and I sincerely hope that this is the best for you all. We (Americans) have the utmost respect for you and the courage it takes to even attempt this.
There will have to be constitutional change in the UK. More devolution has already been promised to Scotland and will need sorting out, plus, what that does to affect the mood of the English electorate.
Just glad its all over, I can finally relax.. its been causing me to be distracted and rant over some of the actions of the campaign for weeks. Wasn't doing me any good at all.
Now comes the difficult part, both sides have to accept the result.
IMO, big picture, I think that this vote SHOULD sort of "open" the eyes of the people in London/Parliament that not everything is peachy keen. That there are some out there who are deeply inhappy with perceived or real injustices.
While I am not naive to think that this will "fix" the problems that Scotland had that led to them wanting this vote, I do hope that more people will be amenable to policies that help, and also treat the Scots with deserved respect.
Glad they chose to stay with us. Still, I don't think that the passions that have been running so high will just accept this. I reckon there will be trouble later on.
There does need to be some sort of reform. Maybe this referendum was the only way to deliver that wake up call. Things can't go on as they are.
I ended up voting Yes yesterday, and at the time I assumed it would be a No result anyway and I wasn't too fussed, just making my voice heard and all that.
Now when I wake up to a reality of the No result part of me feels gutted, like an opportunity was missed. I hope this spurs UK wide change and devolution, but I can't see it coming particularly fast or it being implemented fairly.
I think there's going to be a lot of disillusionment with the Yes side which is sad. Doubt we'll have such a turn out again for any other political decision.
"You have to be a grade A moron to think voter fraud consists of putting yes votes on the no table and then letting the news film it in a room full of people."
That's just someone not knowing how counts work... she may have been tired, she might have mixed stuff up, but it doesn't matter others recheck the votes before they are tallied off, and if there is any discrepancy between the different counts, they recount the batch.
As for the 'infamous' table that was just Sky news assuming it was votes for no, where in reality it was just a really daft place to place votes before they where counted.. and the Yes campaign themselves acknowledged that not long after it came to light. The Yes campaign would have been watching the counts like a hawk.
At the end of the day the most telling thing last night was the sudden silence from Salmond and Sturgeon from the point of the polls close and the start of the announcements, they had obviously been informed it wasn't looking good, and their silence left me pretty confident as I went to bed.
It's interesting to see how various media outlets and whether they have the headline "Scotland rejects poll to become independent" or "Scotland choose to remain part of the United Kingdom". The former, which I've seen at Australia's ABC website (a government-funded body, but takes a kind of perverse pride in their leftward leanings), seems to imply that the people of Scotland have done something wrong by staying part of the UK. To be fair, the opposite statement does a similar thing, implying that remaining part of the UK is somehow purer or more righteous.
It'd be nice to see a headline that didn't so obviously flag the bias of the writer, something like "Majority of voters choose 'No' option.", and just leave it at that.
Anyway, I'm not sure what this decision means beyond the fact that nothing changes. The only frame of reference I have are the Republic debates that spark up here every now and again, which I'm always against because it seems like a lot of bother for very little gain. Obviously that isn't the same as a country leaving the UK, but I inherently hold the "Why bother?" attitude nonetheless.
As an aside, one of the striking images of a few years back were from the London Olympics. I've never seen such seas of Union Jacks in my life (outside of maybe celebrations related to the royal family). I do wonder how many of the people cheering for the UK and waving flags two years ago voted "Yes" in yesterday's poll? Hmm...
That's just someone not knowing how counts work... she may have been tired, she might have mixed stuff up, but it doesn't matter others recheck the votes before they are tallied off, and if there is any discrepancy between the different counts, they recount the batch.
As for the 'infamous' table that was just Sky news assuming it was votes for no, where in reality it was just a really daft place to place votes before they where counted.. and the Yes campaign themselves acknowledged that not long after it came to light. The Yes campaign would have been watching the counts like a hawk.
At the end of the day the most telling thing last night was the sudden silence from Salmond and Sturgeon from the point of the polls close and the start of the announcements, they had obviously been informed it wasn't looking good, and their silence left me pretty confident as I went to bed.
Agreed with Morathi.
This is a not a means of rigging an important election, too many people, too easy to check and recount. Though large scale 'counting error' is a prominent rigging strategy in less important elections. I am pretty sure some of my own town council elections went this way as I have spoken to eye witnesses of this type of fraud at local elections. There were vote rigging fears though, and I was told that the police were at the voting stations to ensure both sides got a good look at the count process and had every opportunity to point our 'errors'.
To rig a vote properly:
- vote on behalf of he recently dead (graveyard voting)
- exchange unwanted voting slips with preassigned ones (ballot swapping)
- add extra bogus voting slips to the box (ballot stuffing, - though ballot stuffing is hard to do in the Uk system as the vote tally is marked several ways)
- spoil unwanted ballot papers (spoiling - the easiest method but unworkable over large amounts of people, forget it here)
and my favourites
steal the postal vote of or simply deregister an unwanted voter. - Both New Labour favourites done frequently enough in parts of the UK.
I have heard of the latter being attempted in Scotland, a personal aquaintance and prominent local No supporter found it very difficult to re-register to vote, and had to ask several times for his ballot slip as the Council had 'administrative problems'. Though those are likely the actions of a few individual council worker tits rather than any official mishandling.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SilverMK2 wrote: In solidarity with Scotland, the weather across England is wet and horrible.
Though probably not as wet as Salmond's tear stained pillow.
Salmond gets a very nice consolation prize, some say Devo Max is what he always wanted. I dont agre with that as he wont get to be President, but he will get an even bigger trough to feed in and a lot of power.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: It's interesting to see how various media outlets and whether they have the headline "Scotland rejects poll to become independent" or "Scotland choose to remain part of the United Kingdom". The former, which I've seen at Australia's ABC website (a government-funded body, but takes a kind of perverse pride in their leftward leanings), seems to imply that the people of Scotland have done something wrong by staying part of the UK. To be fair, the opposite statement does a similar thing, implying that remaining part of the UK is somehow purer or more righteous.
It'd be nice to see a headline that didn't so obviously flag the bias of the writer, something like "Majority of voters choose 'No' option.", and just leave it at that.
Difficult, you have to lead with the line that explains which country you are talking about.
Anyway, I'm not sure what this decision means beyond the fact that nothing changes. The only frame of reference I have are the Republic debates that spark up here every now and again, which I'm always against because it seems like a lot of bother for very little gain. Obviously that isn't the same as a country leaving the UK, but I inherently hold the "Why bother?" attitude nonetheless.
a yes vote would have triggered seperatism in different forms worldwide, this has now been averted. There will be pressure for the SNP to permanently accept the referendum results from within Europe now. The referendum happened, it was lost and if they ask for another one (not unlikely) Spain Italy and France will howl a demand that the Uk government puts its foot down and say the current referendum stands.
During the campaign there was been a sympathy among cybernats that Scotland has the right to demand referenda every session of parliament until successful because 'democracy'.
As an aside, one of the striking images of a few years back were from the London Olympics. I've never seen such seas of Union Jacks in my life (outside of maybe celebrations related to the royal family). I do wonder how many of the people cheering for the UK and waving flags two years ago voted "Yes" in yesterday's poll? Hmm...
Orlanth wrote: Salmond gets a very nice consolation prize, some say Devo Max is what he always wanted. I dont agre with that as he wont get to be President, but he will get an even bigger trough to feed in and a lot of power.
I think it is what he wanted as well (other than not getting to be Emperor Salmond) - lots more power and "wealth" to spend, and still "THE ENGLARSH!" to blame.
So, as I suspected, Scotland bottled independence. The first country in the world to do so...
Australians, New Zealanders, Canadians, or even Americans, beware - you might have me turning up on your shores looking for a fresh start
I feel sorry for the Yes voters, the poor who will suffer, and for Scotland when Westminster's empty promises turn out to be...empty.
But for those Yes people still wanting to fight on, here's one of my favourite historical examples of never giving up:
in 1776, under pressure from congress, George Washington tried to capture New York from the British. It was a disaster. He lost the battle of Long island, he lost the battle of white shore plain, he very nearly lost the war. In his darkest hour, with most of his army drifting away, Washington lost his cool, something he rarely done. He lashed out at his men, he hit rock bottom...Few believed that Great Britain could be defeated...
But even in his darkest hour, Washington believed, he never gave up...he got on that boat and gave us a famous painting of crossing the Amazon...or was it the Nile
Thanks to David McCullough for that
But seriously, it is one of my favourite historical examples of triumphing against the odds.
Whilst there were a vocal minority shouting about the ills of "English Oppression" the majority of Yes voters I believe simply wanted closer and greater self determination that many felt could not be provided under the current political system. I certainly didn't vote Yes because I hate the rest of the UK, and I found the nationalist or patriot arguments on both sides wearying. I've noticed today that there's a large rift in the community as my council was one of the most closely divided. I don't think reducing either sides arguments down to the most base and vile sentiments is going to help us heal.
I'm fully expecting a vote in the next few years to devolve England from the rest of the UK, which presumably will be the new priority judging by the words of Mr Cameron this morning.
Now comes the difficult part, both sides have to accept the result.
IMO, big picture, I think that this vote SHOULD sort of "open" the eyes of the people in London/Parliament that not everything is peachy keen. That there are some out there who are deeply inhappy with perceived or real injustices.
While I am not naive to think that this will "fix" the problems that Scotland had that led to them wanting this vote, I do hope that more people will be amenable to policies that help, and also treat the Scots with deserved respect.
Sorry I wasn't clear. Both sides in Scotland has to accept the result. The question was asked and an answer was given, complaining that the answer was not the one you wanted is not going to change that. Some will still push for the referendum to be recounted, votes cast again, ad infinitum until they get a yes vote. Yes lost. No won, lets get over it and move on. Politics in the UK have had a shift in the 'bedrock' of the establishment. If those promises given are not followed through then all bets are off.
Scotland has had a persecution complex for what feels like forever, nothing Is ever our fault it is always someone else to blame. But the Scots are also good at bearing a grudge that would put a dwarf to shame, those that voted Yes will not forgive or forget those that voted No.
I'm curious Zond, I grew up on the south side of Glasgow in the 70/80s so there may be a generational shift here, but look at the bedrock of the Student Unions argument here. Thatcher is bad, so vote for independence. Ditto for resisting anything proposed by the Tories
The persecution complex has always been there along with that grudge.
As I've said there were certainly elements of raving nationalism and feelings of persecution on both sides of the campaign. I've seen plenty of "Vote Yes To Kick The Tories Out" posters and equally as many "Vote No To Keep The Union and Remove the Left Majority".
Both sides had blanket moronic statements being issued. Whilst there's no point hiding it and it should certainly be addressed it's clear they were issued by the extreme vocal minorities on both sides.
All I'm saying is that if everyone is to move on and continue the political shift that seems to now be sweeping the UK in a respectful, democratic manner blanket, sweeping generalisations about a nation aren't going to help.
As has been mentioned here and by Salmond this morning, he's still came out on top of this. The Yes campaign didn't win the vote, but they came out with what they had wanted in the first place. It was the Westminster government which removed the additional powers option from the ballot, their promising it later on for those who backed No rather than it as a separate option just shows a bias. Were those extra powers always on the table? Well they must have been planned for a while. How they were presented though make Westminster come out over the SNP, rather than the other way around. Meh, but whatever, I'm just dissapointed I won't be having a snazzy new flag next to my Dakka profile.
Frazzled wrote: Crap. Send the recall order for Operation Texas Haggis. Oh well. Next time my pretties. Next time.
There are many things I dislike about America: foreign policy, gun laws, and giving the green light to star trek enterprise!!! Probably the worst TV series I have ever seen!!
But I've always admired their pride in themselves, their fighting spirit, and their self-belief. I wish Scotland had that level of pride and self-belief...
Frazzled wrote: Crap. Send the recall order for Operation Texas Haggis. Oh well. Next time my pretties. Next time.
There are many things I dislike about America: foreign policy, gun laws, and giving the green light to star trek enterprise!!! Probably the worst TV series I have ever seen!!
But I've always admired their pride in themselves, their fighting spirit, and their self-belief. I wish Scotland had that level of pride and self-belief...
I don't know about that, I mean they plowed through with the belief that Scotland could survive anything economically/politically by leaving the UK regardless of issues that have been mentioned by both sides that would happen.
the poor who will suffer, and for Scotland when Westminster's empty promises turn out to be...empty.
Cameron can and will deliver on his promises of greater devolution. He wants to go the wghole hog and bring our devolution for all the UK including getting rid of the West Lothian question.
It was Salmond who could not deliver on his promises but made them anyway.
But for those Yes people still wanting to fight on, here's one of my favourite historical examples of never giving up: <snip>
Gong to put my foot down hard on this one
This is not 1776, not a colonial situation and TERRORISM IS NOT AN ANSWER.
The last thing anyone wants is for some braindead moron, whether you or someone else, deciding that if you cant win iScotland at the ballot box, try it with the gun.
FFS grow a brain before its too late.
Sorry I wasn't clear. Both sides in Scotland has to accept the result. The question was asked and an answer was given, complaining that the answer was not the one you wanted is not going to change that. Some will still push for the referendum to be recounted, votes cast again, ad infinitum until they get a yes vote. Yes lost. No won, lets get over it and move on. Politics in the UK have had a shift in the 'bedrock' of the establishment. If those promises given are not followed through then all bets are off.
Agreed. However if the SNP have any suspicions that the vote was improperly counted and demand a recount that should be respected. So long as it is proven only legal votes from the day or postal votes already accepted by the postal vote deadline are counted.
Scotland has had a persecution complex for what feels like forever, nothing Is ever our fault it is always someone else to blame. But the Scots are also good at bearing a grudge that would put a dwarf to shame, those that voted Yes will not forgive or forget those that voted No.
such is always the result of a ballot, those who say 'what if' and those who blame others for lost dreams. It is unhealthy but it is to be expected.
The same could be said if Yes had won. I could say more so, but that would be in this case an unfair comment. Yes voters have every right to their opinions and to thus to feel disappointed by the ballot, so long as the democratic process is respected.
I for one am not going to spend the day gloating at the Yers supporters from this thread, to them the vote was a tragedy and those are lawful sentiments and they have all due sympathy. Such opportunities do not appear often and many have waited all their lives for the opportunity to vote Yes yesterday.
) idiots making a case for independence, you're going to end up with some animosity in Scotland regardless of the outcome.
Otherwise it depends on work and schedule.
with the Arts Council of Wales you 
