Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The EU is just another level of bureaucracy that the UK doesn't need.

Other than trade, which would definitely happen anyway, what is the point in being part of the EU?

The UK can definitely go it alone.

 Medium of Death wrote:
The EU is just another level of bureaucracy that the UK doesn't need.

Other than trade, which would definitely happen anyway, what is the point in being part of the EU?

The UK can definitely go it alone.

I'd agree. The EU should have stayed a trade agreement, not some kind of superstate. I don't particularly see the advantage of the UK splitting up other than some strange sense of "nationalism". I think it would be an utter nightmare to arrange as well, especially given I forsee anything that might even slightly favour [insert the name of whatever the UK would be without Scotland] being screamed about by the MSP's as "those damn English!".

I can imagine the parlimentary debates surrounding the topic would be/are amazing to watch.

Much more exciting then congressional debates.

AustonT wrote:Sorry it took so long I laughed so hard I nearly suffocated.

Such a terrible loss that would be.

That must be why it's so cheap to live in new York. Tell me about New Yorks ability to get natural gas and oil cheaply too.
You live in a fantasy world if you think New York could become independent and thrive. It would be the New Detroit.

I don't think you know the slightest thing about national or urban economics. Why does it need to produce oil to have oil? Most countries on earth don't. Why does it need to be able to produce it's food to be able to eat? Most countries on earth don't. New York is a global financial center, not an industrial center.

I mean, it's not like there are examples of independent city state financial centers with booming economies and high cost of living we can look to...

Jumping out of the EU can save the NHS some money, don't know if you caught that panorama program about Health Tourism? Should still be on iPlayer, I recommend it.

What worries me is the fallout. What happens when Unionists get stuck in a Nationalist and Independent Scotland?

Conversely if the Nationalists don't get their way, what then? Bitterness and even more anti UK sentiment, clearly something that Scotland doesn't need.

 Medium of Death wrote:

No ex-pats get the vote, not to worry the fate of the Union will rest on the shoulders of the kids... and immigrants...
Can I get a face palm?

No, you cannot. The vote will be based on the electoral register, if your not on it you don't get to vote, just like every other election.

As for this New York debate that seems to have arisen IIRC NY State has Shale Gas fields so it could theoretically be it's own energy supplier.

Might be mis-remembering this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Palindrome wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:

No ex-pats get the vote, not to worry the fate of the Union will rest on the shoulders of the kids... and immigrants...
Can I get a face palm?

No, you cannot. The vote will be based on the electoral register, if your not on it you don't get to vote, just like every other election.

So you're saying that the wealth of newly resident immigrants have had no opportunity/will not have the opportunity to be registered?

Well, if you opt out of the EU, you're opting out of free trade, free travel and right to live in the EU.
You're also opting out of most of your chance to effect what happens in the EU, and are essentially giving the finger to the diplomatic efforts of almost all your neighbours.

It seems like a huge backward step. YMMV. I think most british people who think they can "go it alone" have an over inflated sense of britain's current international influence.

Da Boss wrote:

It seems like a huge backward step. YMMV. I think most british people who think they can "go it alone" have an over inflated sense of britain's current international influence.

Very true.

 Medium of Death wrote:
As for this New York debate that seems to have arisen IIRC NY State has Shale Gas fields so it could theoretically be it's own energy supplier.

Might be mis-remembering this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Palindrome wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:

No ex-pats get the vote, not to worry the fate of the Union will rest on the shoulders of the kids... and immigrants...
Can I get a face palm?

No, you cannot. The vote will be based on the electoral register, if your not on it you don't get to vote, just like every other election.

So you're saying that the wealth of newly resident immigrants have had no opportunity/will not have the opportunity to be registered?

NY state has gas not NY city. Inversely the hippy NIMBYs are trying to shut development down completely.

As for this New York debate that seems to have arisen IIRC NY State has Shale Gas fields so it could theoretically be it's own energy supplier.

Might be mis-remembering this.

NY has a good portion of the Marcellus shale formation underneath it, but so far as I know they've been hesitant to engage in drilling near any population centers.

 Medium of Death wrote:

So you're saying that the wealth of newly resident immigrants have had no opportunity/will not have the opportunity to be registered?

What I am saying that that if they are on the register, and are eligable to vote (which most immigrants aren't given that you must be a UK or Irish citizen) then they can. If they aren't on the register, like most ex-pats, they can't vote. i fail to see whats wrong with that.

Da Boss wrote:
I think most british people who think they can "go it alone" have an over inflated sense of britain's current international influence.

Not really sure what international influence has to do with being a self governed country...

Plenty, if you want to stay as relevant in world affairs as you are. How is the UK not self governed right now? If you're talking about bailing out bank debt and so on, I suggest doing some reading about who owes what to who- because right now, you guys are getting a pretty sweet deal for a lot of your private interests who are avoiding bankruptcy by socialising their losses.

Any legal immigrant can get British citizenship is my point. Somebody that has absolutely no basis in the history of the country but can be swayed by a parties generous benefits offered to them. It might not be a massive amount, but it could be enough to swing the vote in such a small pool.

The 16 to 17 year old vote is much more worrying anyway imho.

 Medium of Death wrote:
Any legal immigrant can get British citizenship is my point. Somebody that has absolutely no basis in the history of the country but can be swayed by a parties generous benefits offered to them. It might not be a massive amount, but it could be enough to swing the vote in such a small pool.

The 16 to 17 year old vote is much more worrying anyway imho.

I doubt that many immigrants will vote and even so its their right. How many 16-17 year olds do you realistically expect to vote?

Palindrome wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
Any legal immigrant can get British citizenship is my point. Somebody that has absolutely no basis in the history of the country but can be swayed by a parties generous benefits offered to them. It might not be a massive amount, but it could be enough to swing the vote in such a small pool.

The 16 to 17 year old vote is much more worrying anyway imho.

I doubt that many immigrants will vote and even so its their right. How many 16-17 year olds do you realistically expect to vote?

I should imagine a lot of youngsters will vote, they are yet to be disillusioned. I can see this opening the floodgates to a reduced voting age, which might be good, youngsters tend to be liberal in their outlook. Or might be bad, as they haven't a clue about anything.

This is something that Canadians will be watching very intently..... The Quebecois movement there would see a win by the seperatists as a sign to try again.

 dæl wrote:

I should imagine a lot of youngsters will vote, they are yet to be disillusioned.

18-24 year olds have the lowest voter turnout of any demographic, I can't imagine anyone younger being more interested in politics.

 dæl wrote:
I should imagine a lot of youngsters will vote, they are yet to be disillusioned. I can see this opening the floodgates to a reduced voting age, which might be good, youngsters tend to be liberal in their outlook. Or might be bad, as they haven't a clue about anything.

I'm guessing they wanted the 16-17 year old vote as they would be the easiest to sway with patriotic rhetoric.

They're saying they're going to open it up to 16-17yr olds

I could see them doing it in school to increase turnout.

And I don't like how they took out the "No to independence but yes to more political powers" option.

Although Alot of my friends want independence so it might force a bigger turnout than expected.

In all fairness though at 16 you can serve in the military, get married and leave school, so if you're mature enough for that why aren't you mature enough to vote?

 Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:
In all fairness though at 16 you can serve in the military, get married and leave school, so if you're mature enough for that why aren't you mature enough to vote?

I think the problem here is assuming 16 year olds ARE mature enough to serve in the military, get married, and leave school. The vast bulk of them are not mature enough for those things.

Having the voting age be 18 is just fine. And even then many 18 year olds STILL arn't mature enough to do some of these things.

Gotta say that as a Scot I have no desire to leave the Union.

Alex Salmond seems to see himself as the next Robert the Bruce or William Wallace, when leaving the Union will have absolutely no benefits for the country.

 Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:
In all fairness though at 16 you can serve in the military, get married and leave school, so if you're mature enough for that why aren't you mature enough to vote?

In fairness they are planning to change things so you can't actually leave school at 16 any more and in order to get married and join the army (as a basic soldier) you must have your parent's permission. So why exactly should you be able to vote at 16-17?

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 dæl wrote:
I should imagine a lot of youngsters will vote, they are yet to be disillusioned. I can see this opening the floodgates to a reduced voting age, which might be good, youngsters tend to be liberal in their outlook. Or might be bad, as they haven't a clue about anything.

I'm guessing they wanted the 16-17 year old vote as they would be the easiest to sway with patriotic rhetoric.

Exactly yeah, when you are 16 you have fire in your belly and know jack gak about life.

feth me, I think the voting age should be RAISED to 18! Really.. what the feth do most of us know about politics at 18?

I would say that the independance vote foo those aged 16-17 will be far, far higher than for everyone else. A 16 year old will be easily swayed by nonsense and bigotry.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:
In all fairness though at 16 you can serve in the military, get married and leave school, so if you're mature enough for that why aren't you mature enough to vote?

You aren't mature enough to do all that.. just because you can doesnt mean its a good idea.

Married at 16? People do it.. its a feth up 99% of the time, and said 16 year old will admit it when he hits 30.

The problem is, at 16 you think are ready for all of those things.. when I was 16 I was convinced I was a genius, I had testicles like basketballs and ego of the size of Yugoslavia.

I looked back at my 16 year old self when I was 26 and thought "What a fething dick that guy was"

 mattyrm wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 dæl wrote:
I should imagine a lot of youngsters will vote, they are yet to be disillusioned. I can see this opening the floodgates to a reduced voting age, which might be good, youngsters tend to be liberal in their outlook. Or might be bad, as they haven't a clue about anything.

I'm guessing they wanted the 16-17 year old vote as they would be the easiest to sway with patriotic rhetoric.

Exactly yeah, when you are 16 you have fire in your belly and know jack gak about life.

feth me, I think the voting age should be RAISED to 18! Really.. what the feth do most of us know about politics at 18?

I would say that the independance vote foo those aged 16-17 will be far, far higher than for everyone else. A 16 year old will be easily swayed by nonsense and bigotry.

I believe a recent poll showed that they were more likely to vote to stay in the Union, because they don't know as much, but know that the current system is working fine.

I noticed a typo as well, I meant raised to 21.

Maybe I'm just stupider and more rash than most.. but I think I my mouth was always a gallop before my brain was in the saddle until I was well into my twenties.

Maybe thats why I got punched so often?

Hmm.. I thought that was just Middlesbrough!

 mattyrm wrote:


Hmm.. I thought that was just Middlesbrough!

Its just Middlesbrough.

Both would be my guess