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.

It's not that i'd think Scotland would do poorly on their own but I would prefer them to stay...
I'd prefer the government to be re-structured to better suit the idea of a unified Britain.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

"A new union jack, to encompass all Brits," says Kieron George of a flag that embraces a number of Commonwealth countries and also draws inspiration from the US and EU flags.

I feel like a lot of commonwealth members such as Aussies, Canadians, North Irish, Kiwis, Scots, etc would react quite poorly to being called "Brits". I say that because the flag this was attached to has symbols for all those nations.

Funny you would mention that, and not the bit about the US and EU at the end.

Didn't get to that bit, I just browsed it and wondered at the skills of the U.K.'s finest MS Paint users. That popped up as worthy of comment so I commented and didn't finish the rest of the article.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

I really do enjoy the last bit, I've only seen willful misunderstanding on that scale in one person bef....hey, you're not Anas Sarwar are you? At the present time, since they are part of Scotland, the Islands are part of the UK. If Scotland were to become independent, and the Islanders decided to hold their own referendum and vote to remain within the UK, they would then be overseas territories because they would exist within the EEZ of another country.

Wont bother with the rest of your 'arguments', but to highlight here.

Scotland doesn't currently have an EEZ, the UK does, one would need to be created, so if the northern isles remained in the UK the EEZ partition would be different.

A good example of this are the maritime borders and EEZ of small existing territories at the time that EEZ's were introduced. The UK did not pres a case for Gibraltar to be 'friendly' (and thus had only a 3 miles border), the Sopanish however claimed full border s for their territory on the African coast and got it and secured a much larger chunk of the isthmus.

Now if the Shetlands joined the union from an existing Scotland you would be correct, they would get 12 miles, not more. But as the partition of territorial waters would occur concurrently they would be entitled to a lot more as a section of UK coastline and would be no less UK coastline than if calculated from English or Welsh shores. This is why Salmond is desperate to ensure that the rights of the Islanders are put off. until after independence.


As for your other arguments of a better local democracy. We have seen Salmond's version of democracy thank you. Wee Eck smelled Donald Trumps gold and after calling in the Menie estate deal mobilised the police on a harassment campaign against local residents opposed. There is plenty of evidence for this.
Salmond is a cheap thug and liar, and those who think that he is after more fairness and democracy are a deluded as those who listened to Blair promise the same things.

Add this to constant evasion on how economic promises will be delivered, and other irregularities and I can see the point I am repeatedly hearing from Scots.
Independent Scotland might be a good idea, independent Scotland under Salmond would be a disaster.
Fortunately for the SNP there are a small army of cybernats willing to echo claims that any attempts to point out the numbers don't add up, or there is something fishy about Salmond is just 'scare mongering'. It's easy to do, and requires no thought, all together now.....

Regarding the Islands; I've still to see you provide any evidence that the Islanders actually want to stay with the UK, but regardless, Scottish waters are already defined under international law, they're just considered part of UK waters because of the Treaties of Union; the UK might "press" for the Islands to get a bigger oceanic territory, but that would be a matter for negotiation, not the automatic "hurr durr Islands gunna take the oil!" guff that was brought up initially. As for the rights of the Islanders; this sort of nonsense is why people who evidently know nout about Scottish politics should refrain from acting like they're an authority on the subject. First, the SNP have supported the Islanders' aspirations for greater autonomy for decades, in 1987 when the Orkney and Shetland Movement stood in the elections, the SNP agreed not to run a candidate(OSM came 4th with less than 15% of the vote, by the by). Second, the constitutional settlement isn't a devolved matter, the Scottish Government couldn't give the Islanders greater autonomy right now regardless of how much they want to.

If there's "plenty of evidence" that Salmond is "a thug and a liar", I'm sure you'll provide some. Don't forget to mention that Trump's deal was originally conceived and organised by the former Labour First Minister Jack McConnell and the constituency's Labour-Lib Dem coalition council, and it was that council which refused to rule out using Compulsory Purchase Orders to force people from their homes(which to date, none have been). You might also want to note that it is the present Scottish Government which told Trump to go take a long walk off a short pier when he began demanding that the offshore wind farm development in the region be cancelled so it wouldn't spoil the view from his course, and that Trump still cites that refusal as one of the two major reasons development on the courses has stopped.

I was going to address this next bit, but frankly I'd rather address Wolfstan's similar question, since spewing this "army of cybernats" dross makes it quite evident that you're not even remotely interested on actually discussing the matter, just slagging off people who disagree with you.

 Wolfstan wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Wolfstan wrote:


Surely the simplest thing for Mr Salmond to do is put down in black & white how he will achieve all the promises he's making. There does appear to be a lot of assumption going on. If he produces the cold hard facts then the No vote will have to produce similar cold hard facts disproving them. At least the voters will have facts and not emotions... or is that too simple?

Technically he did exactly that with the Referendum document. However while long the document is sparse on information on how promises are to be achieved.
When politicans spend a lot of time and effort saying nothing, savvy people smell a rat.

That's right, but there does seem to be a lot of "assumptions". He assumes that the EU will accept them, that they will still keep the £, stuff like that. From an outsiders perspective he comes across as someone covering his bases. If they get independence (with still some UK back up) or if it fails, Scotland gets more powers (again with UK support). That's how he comes across to me anyway.

There's a difference between "assumptions" and "reasoned arguments laying out a starting negotiating position". If Scotland votes for independence in September 2014, there will be an 18 month period during which Scotland remains within both the UK and by virtue of that also the EU, prior to Independence Day in spring 2016, and the white paper argues that this is sufficient time to negotiate continuing EU membership. It makes that argument on the basis of several factors, such as; Scotland is already fully compliant with all EU laws and the Acquis Communitaire(indeed they're part of the legislation that establishes the Scottish Parliament) and compliance with EU law and acquis are the main reason there's an accession process to begin with, and such as; the EU has an interest in ensuring a smooth transition to continuing membership, given the thousands of EU students studying in Scottish universities, the tens of thousands of EU citizens working in Scotland(and vice versa in both cases), and the fact that Scotland has the EU's largest oceanic territory to which its fishing fleets(particularly the Spanish fishing fleets) would be extremely keen to maintain access, and such as; there is no legal mechanism or treaty article which provides for existing EU citizens to be stripped of their citizenship, and Scots are currently EU citizens, and such as; the timescale they advocate was called "entirely reasonable" or words to that effect by the UK government's own advisor. The argument on the pound, or more accurately the proposal for a Sterling Zone since as the pound is an internationally traded currency nobody can actually be prevented from using it, is similarly just a rational and pragmatic proposal; rUK is Scotland's biggest trading parner, and Scotland is the rUK's second biggest, maintaining the same currency prevents any unnecessary barriers to trade; the UK currently runs a borderline-unsustainable balance of trade deficit, without Scottish exports of oil, food, alcohol etc the current deficit would almost double, which could seriously undermine the value of the pound and that would be a bad outcome for both parties.

As for Scotland getting more powers if we vote no, I seriously doubt that he's that thick to be honest. It took the UK nearly a decade to implement some of the proposals of the Calman Commission in the 2012 Scotland Act, and out of that we increased the total revenue raising power of the Scottish Parliament to 15% of all revenues, including such far-ranging powers as...erm, Landfill Tax. Oh yes, and airgun regulation, we're allowed to regulate those now. Not one of the three main Unionist parties will even discuss continued devolution until after such time as we've voted No in the referendum(thereby throwing away our only bargaining chip of course, since to "kill nationalism stone-dead" was the only reason we got devolution in the first place, in the words of Lord Robertson), and meanwhile you have politicians and opinion journos making remarks about how "losers should lose" and a No vote shouldn't be rewarded with more powers, or that the ideal outcome of a No vote would the rollback of devolution and eventually its eradication. Just this week, the Lords put an amendment in the Energy bill that, if the amended version passes the Commons vote, will strip away the Scottish Government's existing powers over renewable energy. Nobody with an ounce of sense actually believes devolution will get anything other than token attention from Westminster if we vote No.

EDIT: If you're genuinely interested in the subject Wolfstan, this debate is quite good, as not only is Stuart Hosie good at articulating the case in favour, Lord Robertson's vacant waffling really shows up the utter paucity of the Unionist argument.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You haven't on a world cup, though.

Which is probably for the best, considering how countries that care about that sort of thing would pop gaskets upon seeing 99% of Americans not caring if it did happen.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
So if I'm understanding this correctly... Scotland wants independence mostly because they feel under-appreciated by England?

Some Scottish people want independence because our political culture has diverged from the one which prevails at the UK level, and Westminster have taken all the alternative solutions to that problem off the table. Even those who don't currently support full independence tend to favour full fiscal autonomy, so-called "devo-max", or at the very least more devolution than exists presently. I used to advocate the Lib Dem idea of a federal model for the UK, until I realised that A; the Liberal Democrats are possible the most spineless, worthless, pointless sacks of flesh masquerading as people ever to run for office, and B; a federal UK is a pipe-dream, because the power structures at Westminster are too heavily ingrained to allow any kind of substantial reform.

I was being facetious and troll-like, don't feed me lol.

That being said, if, hypothetically, the various commonwealth nations and the US were to join together in some sort of "super-union", I'd say we use this flag:



Just increase the number of stars around the Union Jack roundel as appropriate.

That would be a good flag for an English-speaking-countries group. The Anglosphere or something like that.

 Yodhrin wrote:

Regarding the Islands; I've still to see you provide any evidence that the Islanders actually want to stay with the UK, but regardless, Scottish waters are already defined under international law, they're just considered part of UK waters because of the Treaties of Union; the UK might "press" for the Islands to get a bigger oceanic territory, but that would be a matter for negotiation, not the automatic "hurr durr Islands gunna take the oil!" guff that was brought up initially.

I could have sworn I ran through the whole orkney islands business with you before Yodhrin?

There's a difference between "assumptions" and "reasoned arguments laying out a starting negotiating position". If Scotland votes for independence in September 2014, there will be an 18 month period during which Scotland remains within both the UK and by virtue of that also the EU, prior to Independence Day in spring 2016, and the white paper argues that this is sufficient time to negotiate continuing EU membership. It makes that argument on the basis of several factors, such as; Scotland is already fully compliant with all EU laws and the Acquis Communitaire(indeed they're part of the legislation that establishes the Scottish Parliament) and compliance with EU law and acquis are the main reason there's an accession process to begin with, and such as; the EU has an interest in ensuring a smooth transition to continuing membership,

The main problem with Scotland getting EU membership is that it requires all 28 member states to agree to an independent Scottish application, and the Spanish seem to have been steadily drawing up opposing lines to it. If the EU admits Scotland, then Catalonia as an independent state gets a big boost, and they really want to avoid that at the moment.


You know Yodhrin? Just on a personal basis for a minute here, were the positions reversed and I was offered an extra £10 a week in my wallet for independence, I still wouldn't vote for it. Economics fluctuate all the time, and we've got a decent thing going here. Scotland if anything benefits from more powers of devolution and local representation than those of us (un)fortunate(?) enough to live southwards, and we're not crying out for salvation from the evils of westminster particularly.

I think that something should be done in terms of breaking up central government influence and promoting local government generally. But peeling off bits of the place here and there doesn't ultimately change a huge amount except reducing the power we have to influence world and european politics as a group. Salmond and co. won't run Scotland that much differently to how things are run now, and if London were to become independent tomorrow, I really doubt much would change around here. Different label, same faces and all that.

When you get right down to it, we're all in the same boat (or island) together, we all share a language, and we have so much in common culturally that it just seems a downright shame to cause a major political and economic ruckus for everyone, just so one batch of politicians can get slightly more power and another batch lose a little bit. I was in Glasgow just the other day. I wandered around the Hunterian museum, had a banter with the hotel receptionist, saw some of the sights, and it was like a home away from home. It was nice, y'know?

It would be cool if the SNP's platform was to give everyone a little bit more independence and devolution in general. Heck, if they started pushing for Parliament to rotate country every five years, a devolved local Government for Wales, Scotland, England & NI, and something closer to proportional representation, I'd probably vote for them even being south of the border! Our current democracy is highly resistant to change, and that makes it incredibly stable. But it is by no means the last byword in democratic structure, and could do with some changes.

But rather than do that, the SNP just want to take their ball and go home. They go on and on about 'representing Scotland', which is ultimately drawing something of a racial/national line which just plain makes me uncomfortable. What makes them happy to represent someone a mile north of the border and not south? They talk about all these things they want for the Scottish people, but why don't they want those things for the English, Welsh and Irish as well? Why don't they campaign in a southernly direction on the backs of all those promises? If their ideas are good and true, and they fulfill those promises, than I'm positive a lot of the rest of us would be more than happy to cast our votes their way!

But they don't. Despite having recently had a Scottish Prime Minister, and Scotland having the most devolved government of all of us, we just get told that Scotland is special and should rule itself despite already being able to vote on English local affairs whilst we get no say in reciprocal Scottish ones. Though Scotland gets better healthcare and education than the rest of us due to its devolved Government, the SNP say that it simply isn't enough. They don't try and reform the country for the good and wellbeing of all, instead they try and break off their own little fiefdom. And that ultimately, is what sets me against them. I don't feel like they're in it for the Scottish people particularly, because if they were, they'd be in it for all of us. We're all in the same boat here after all, we're all the same people. The SNP are just in it because they're a bunch of politicians who want to grab real power, and see fanning (frankly stupid) nationalistic flames as the easiest way to do it.

I don't think they'll succeed, frankly. And I'm glad of that. Like I said at the start of my little monologue, if you offered me an extra tenner a week to secede as a Londoner, I'd rather keep the union. It sounds a bit corny, but I have a lot of affection for the Scots as part of the history of my country (Great Britain), and I'd be terribly sad to see my own people split for such minute problems.

 Yodhrin wrote:

Regarding the Islands; I've still to see you provide any evidence that the Islanders actually want to stay with the UK, but regardless, Scottish waters are already defined under international law, they're just considered part of UK waters because of the Treaties of Union; the UK might "press" for the Islands to get a bigger oceanic territory, but that would be a matter for negotiation, not the automatic "hurr durr Islands gunna take the oil!" guff that was brought up initially.

Like the way you word any pro-Unionist approach as if the quoted opinions of a slow. If you attack there person you don't have to defend against the argument.
I am not surprised you resort to this.

 Yodhrin wrote:

As for the rights of the Islanders; this sort of nonsense is why people who evidently know nout about Scottish politics should refrain from acting like they're an authority on the subject.

That is a very good reason for you to shut up.

Many of the critiques of the independence movement are hand waved away as 'scares' because of a lack of ability to counter them.
A good example is the known fact that Scotland will have to reapply to join the EU. Everyone says this is so except the SNP and those who wish to dig their heads in th sand alongside them.
Several very high officials in the EU including from France and Spain have confirmed, repeatedly, that Scotland would have to reapply. It would be delusional to claim otherwise.
Yet when it is mentioned its 'project fear'. Salmond and his supporters hope that by writing off known facts as 'scares' enough they can hoodwink the voters into believing the independence movement is better thought through than it is.
To them it doesn't matter if it ends in a disaster, so long as independence happens, so no lie is low enough if the goal is achieved and Scotland can find out the truth too late.

You should know better than to follow this hype, as you don't its a fair conclusion to say that your demands that the willfully ignorant should not voice political opinions should first be applied to yourself.

 Ketara wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

Regarding the Islands; I've still to see you provide any evidence that the Islanders actually want to stay with the UK, but regardless, Scottish waters are already defined under international law, they're just considered part of UK waters because of the Treaties of Union; the UK might "press" for the Islands to get a bigger oceanic territory, but that would be a matter for negotiation, not the automatic "hurr durr Islands gunna take the oil!" guff that was brought up initially.

I could have sworn I ran through the whole orkney islands business with you before Yodhrin?

We did, as I recall we agreed to disagree since I wasn't prepared to put any stock in thirty+ year old polling data, but I wasn't able to produce any newer polling data which you(and myself, after you pointed out the flaws) would accept. I maintain that since the only recent clamour for the Islands to remain within the UK comes from Tavish Scott and his Lib Dem colleague Alastair Carmichael(who is one of the leading faces of the No campaign), I've yet to see any convincing evidence that this scenario is any more likely than the dozens of other piles of crap that Better Together have been laying out every week like clockwork. I'll also note that since our last discussion the aforementioned agreement for additional powers for the Island Councils was completed, and said councils seemed happy enough with it.

There's a difference between "assumptions" and "reasoned arguments laying out a starting negotiating position". If Scotland votes for independence in September 2014, there will be an 18 month period during which Scotland remains within both the UK and by virtue of that also the EU, prior to Independence Day in spring 2016, and the white paper argues that this is sufficient time to negotiate continuing EU membership. It makes that argument on the basis of several factors, such as; Scotland is already fully compliant with all EU laws and the Acquis Communitaire(indeed they're part of the legislation that establishes the Scottish Parliament) and compliance with EU law and acquis are the main reason there's an accession process to begin with, and such as; the EU has an interest in ensuring a smooth transition to continuing membership,

The main problem with Scotland getting EU membership is that it requires all 28 member states to agree to an independent Scottish application, and the Spanish seem to have been steadily drawing up opposing lines to it. If the EU admits Scotland, then Catalonia as an independent state gets a big boost, and they really want to avoid that at the moment.

To your voting point; not necessarily. As with every other aspect of the EU issue, there's no actual evidence it would require universal assent, just plenty of opinion on whether it would or not, because this is a scenario which has no existing European case law or treaty provision. The Scottish Government's advice from our Attorney General is that a case can be made under Article 48, but I'm not so sure on that one myself. Professor Sir David Edward, who served as a Judge in the European Court of Justice and its predecessor the Court of First Instance from 1989 to 2004, has put forward the view that the process would be completed via treaty amendments, and that view is broadly supported by Graham Avery who spent 33 years working at the EU Commission, many of them in the Directorate for Enlargement. It's been suggested, without naming names although everyone was doubtless doing a bit of the old "*cough*SPAIN*cough*", that a measure could be included in that process that would allow a member state to abstain without affecting the outcome.

As for the Spanish, and in particular Rajoy's recent comments; he was asked during the interview with El Pais, to which the UK press were gleefully referring, four or five times, point-blank, if Spain would consider vetoing Scotland's membership of the EU, and he refused to say any such thing. Instead, he repeated exactly what he and other officials from Partido Popular have been saying for months now; regions which declare independence from a member state would have to apply from scratch, and that Catalonia should not be emboldened by Scotland because the situations are not equivalent, since Westminster has passed an act of Parliament making the referendum legal and agreeing to abide by the result, while Spain cannot and will not ever allow a legal referendum for Catalonia because their constitution forbids it. In the context of the latter statement, the former statement is evidently aimed at Catalonia not Scotland. The deliberate ambiguity of his statements, which allow them to be twisted by the British press into categorical pronunciations that Scotland will join the EU over Spain's dead body, are doubtless a result of the cosy wee meetings Partido Popular officials have been having with the Conservatives over the last 18 months.

EDIT: If you don't have time to watch the Edinburgh Royal Society debate for Mr Avery's view, here is a link to his testimony at the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, and below are some particularly pertinent sections.

4. The EU has no historical precedent for dealing with Scottish independence. The following cases are relevant, but hardly constitute precedents:

· Greenland joined the EU in 1973 as part of Denmark. Later it obtained home rule and voted to leave the EU. This led to a decision of the EU in 1989 removing Greenland from the EU’s customs territory and legal framework.

· In March 1990 the German Democratic Republic elected a new government committed to reunification; in October 1990, when it joined the German Federal Republic, its 16 million people became members of the EU.

· As a result of Czechoslovakia’s ‘velvet divorce’ the Czech Republic and Slovakia became independent states in 1993. Slovakia applied for EU membership in 1995, the Czech Republic in 1996, and they both became members in 2004.

5. German reunification represents in some ways the opposite of Scottish independence: it was enlargement without accession, whereas Scottish independence would be accession without enlargement. Nevertheless it is pertinent for the Scottish case from the point of view of procedure. Under pressure of the date for reunification, the EU adopted a simplified procedure for negotiation under which the Commission explored with Bonn and Berlin the changes needed in EU legislation, and its proposals were approved rapidly by the Council of Ministers and European Parliament. No EU intergovernmental conference was necessary because there was no modification of the EU Treaties.

7. At this point we need to consider the timing and procedure for such Treaty changes. Scotland’s EU membership would need to be in place simultaneously with Scottish independence. For practical and political reasons the idea of Scotland leaving the EU, and subsequently applying to join it, is not feasible. From the practical point of view, it would require complicated temporary arrangements for a new relationship between the EU (including the rest of the UK) and Scotland (outside the EU) including the possibility of controls at the frontier with England. Neither the EU (including the rest of the UK.) nor Scotland would have an interest in creating such an anomaly.

8. From the political point of view, Scotland has been in the EU for 40 years; and its people have acquired rights as European citizens. If they wish to remain in the EU, they could hardly be asked to leave and then reapply for membership in the same way as the people of a non-member country such as Turkey. The point can be illustrated by considering another example: if a break-up of Belgium were agreed between Wallonia and Flanders, it is inconceivable that other EU members would require 11 million people to leave the EU and then reapply for membership.

9. It follows that negotiations on the terms of Scottish membership would take place in the period between the referendum and the planned date of independence. We do not know at this stage how long that period would be; complicated negotiations between Edinburgh and London would have to take place; but we may guess that not more than one or two years be needed.

You know Yodhrin? Just on a personal basis for a minute here, were the positions reversed and I was offered an extra £10 a week in my wallet for independence, I still wouldn't vote for it. Economics fluctuate all the time, and we've got a decent thing going here. Scotland if anything benefits from more powers of devolution and local representation than those of us (un)fortunate(?) enough to live southwards, and we're not crying out for salvation from the evils of westminster particularly.

Honestly this remark depresses me a little bit. The constant presence of economic arguments in the independence debates are not there because we fancy a bit of extra cash in our pockets, it's there because Scotland's capacity to run its own economic affairs has been denigrated and maligned by Unionists for decades, and that constant barrage of negativity has seeped into the public consciousness and as such must be countered vigorously. The argument is not "vote for independence, get an extra tenner", it's "you can safely vote for independence without worrying your nation and you will end up destitute".

As for devolution, there's no doubt that Scotland has benefited from it, the obvious success of devolution is likely the main reason we're even having this debate; afterall, many will think to themselves that if we benefit so much from having some powers over our affairs, would we not benefit more with all of them? We hear a lot about how we're "abandoning" other parts of the UK, or how we should be happy with devolution because the North of England don't have a regional assembly and they're not moaning, but for me that is not a persuasive argument for remaining within the Union, just the opposite in fact; the failure of the various campaigns for regional assemblies or a devolved English parliament, and the simple acceptance of those outcomes in the parts of the UK which would have benefited from them, are to be shining examples that the UK is broken beyond repair, that there is no more radical thought in UK politics beyond UKIP, and that opposition to the neo-liberal consensus within the Westminster system is doomed to failure. Quite simply, too many people in the North and in Wales and Northern Ireland, not to mention the inner-city poor and vulnerable people in the South, have given up. That's a great shame, but it's hardly a fantastic incentive to stay is it?

I think that something should be done in terms of breaking up central government influence and promoting local government generally. But peeling off bits of the place here and there doesn't ultimately change a huge amount except reducing the power we have to influence world and european politics as a group. Salmond and co. won't run Scotland that much differently to how things are run now, and if London were to become independent tomorrow, I really doubt much would change around here. Different label, same faces and all that.

And a few years ago, I would have agreed with you entirely. Despite being a staunch Labour voter until the 2010 UK election, I was always a great fan of the Lib Dem proposals for a federal model for the UK, they seemed to me like a really attractive synthesis of ideas from the US, Germany, and the Nordic nations. I support independence now for the simple reason that I don't believe that's possible to achieve within my lifetime from inside the existing UK legal, political, and constitutional framework. I might have found the arguments about global and EU influence persuasive, but the UK's record on that score is abysmal; Iraq, our complicity in the Americans' rendition and torture scheme, our complicity in the Five-Eyes massive expansion of state surveillance, and our narrowly avoided attempt to throw ourselves into another quagmire pseudo-war in Syria recently are just the biggest examples of why I actually find the argument that we should stay within the UK so we can keep "punching above our weight" to actually be rather sinister. As for the EU, the UK's strategy in the EU has been atrocious for Scotland; the UK government has systematically bargained away Scottish interests in order to secure opt-outs and rebates to placate the swivel-eyed UKIP-fanciers among the backbenches of the Tories(both Red and Blue) - Scottish farmers are at the bottom of the list for both kinds of CAP subsidy, and recently the UK government appropriated the CAP topup payment which they only got because of the massive underpayment to Scottish farmers, and is passing it out "fairly" around the whole UK, including to English farmers who already receive the EU average or greater(dependent on what they produce). Our fishing rights were actually described as "expendable" by UK negotiators. Not to mention that there's a very good chance we could be dragged out of the EU against our will regardless in the proposed 2017 referendum, since unless the vote was by the very narrowest of margins(and that doesn't seem likely) Scottish opinion will simply be drowned out by English votes by pure numerical superiority.

As for whether things will be different, the most obvious point is that Salmond is completely irrelevant to that argument - a Yes vote in the referendum is not a vote to establish a monarchy with Great Leader Salmond as King and Emperor in perpetuity, it is a vote to transfer all the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of statehood to the Scottish nation, and ensure that we're the ones who elect our governments in future. The SNP might lose the election in 2016, they might win the first election and then disintegrate by the one in 2020 as their "broad church" falls apart without the goal of independence as a uniting factor, and on top of that Salmond is 58 years old, he's not long off retirement.

But that said, I think you're wrong. Have a look at the Scotland's Future white paper, apart from one or two questionable(IMO) bits like the corporation tax cut, it's a breath of fresh air compared to the UK's staid neo-liberal agenda. Nevermind the white paper even, look at their record in office; free personal care and bus travel for the elderly, free prescriptions, the NHS taken entirely back into public hands, an end to PFI/PPP scams, attempts to mitigate the worst impacts of the UK's often despicable immigration and welfare policies. The SNP still live firmly in the land of the UK's post-war consensus, while Westminster lurches ever further to the right. Besides which, even if we did vote Yes, the SNP were elected, and they tried to renege on their promises; Yes Scotland has an army of activists, most of them non-party affiliated, many of them people who normally don't involve themselves in politics at all - groups like Radical Independence aren't just going to vanish in a puff of smoke after the referendum, the SNP, or whoever gets in at the first elections, will be held to account.

When you get right down to it, we're all in the same boat (or island) together, we all share a language, and we have so much in common culturally that it just seems a downright shame to cause a major political and economic ruckus for everyone, just so one batch of politicians can get slightly more power and another batch lose a little bit. I was in Glasgow just the other day. I wandered around the Hunterian museum, had a banter with the hotel receptionist, saw some of the sights, and it was like a home away from home. It was nice, y'know?

And you expect that after independence, we'll all suddenly start speaking Gaelic or Doric, and shoot crossbows at any Englishmen who try to cross the border? Tell me, have you ever been to Eire? I've been round the UK a fair bit(still need to visit Wales one of these days), and do you know what the difference was between my experience in England or Northern Ireland, and in the Republic of Ireland? None, zero, zip, zilch, nada. I had exactly those same familiar, welcoming experiences as you describe; those cultural and linguistic bonds don't vanish just because they're no longer ruled by Westminster, and Eire isn't the only example; look at Norway and Sweden. Extremely similar language(Norwegian and Swedish are broadly comparable to the differences between English and the broader varieties of Scots and Scottish Standard English in terms of differences and mutual intelligibility), many cultural similarities; do the Norwegians seem worse off than the Swedish for their independence from the latter? Did the bonds between people and families, the cultural ties and relationships just vanish when Norway decided to govern themselves? Also point of fact; we're not talking about "slightly" or "little" anything - these are just some of the matters reserved to Westminster;

* benefits and social security
* immigration
* defence
* foreign policy
* employment
* broadcasting
* trade and industry
* nuclear energy, oil, coal, gas and electricity
* consumer rights
* data protection
* the Constitution.

It would be cool if the SNP's platform was to give everyone a little bit more independence and devolution in general. Heck, if they started pushing for Parliament to rotate country every five years, a devolved local Government for Wales, Scotland, England & NI, and something closer to proportional representation, I'd probably vote for them even being south of the border! Our current democracy is highly resistant to change, and that makes it incredibly stable. But it is by no means the last byword in democratic structure, and could do with some changes.

But rather than do that, the SNP just want to take their ball and go home. They go on and on about 'representing Scotland', which is ultimately drawing something of a racial/national line which just plain makes me uncomfortable. What makes them happy to represent someone a mile north of the border and not south? They talk about all these things they want for the Scottish people, but why don't they want those things for the English, Welsh and Irish as well? Why don't they campaign in a southernly direction on the backs of all those promises? If their ideas are good and true, and they fulfill those promises, than I'm positive a lot of the rest of us would be more than happy to cast our votes their way!

Another point of fact; the original SNP proposal was for a two-question referendum. The first question was to ask if we wanted independence, the second was to ask if, in the event the result of the first vote was a No, would we want "devo-max" instead. It was the British government that insisted it be a single-question straight-up in-out referendum. The UK establishment decided to gamble the future of GB for the chance to wreck the SNP once and for all with a hefty "No" victory, the irony being of course that given the broad popularity of devo-max in Scotland, and the total insincerity of the rhetoric about more devolution post-No vote from the Unionist parties, that decision could very well lead to exactly the opposite outcome.

As for campaigning down south; one of the key arguments in favour of independence, or even just devo-max, is that the UK's first past the post voting system is inherently regressive and undemocratic. There is no realistic chance that the SNP could build sufficient support south of the border to actually win any seats within the next few decades, if at all, because FPTP inevitably results in a two-party system where people are afraid to vote for minority parties in case someone they utterly oppose gets in - look at the last UK election, how many lefties disillusioned with New Labour voted for the Lib Dems and would now give their right bollock to travel back in time and slap some sense into their past selves? How many of them will ever risk voting anything other than "not-Tory"(in practice Labour) in the future? You might have had an argument on this score if the Lib Dems hadn't completely sabotaged their pledge to bring in proportional representation at Westminster, but the simple reality on the ground is this: the SNP and the Scots cannot fix Westminster, only the English can do that simply by virtue of your relative size - since there's no actual concerted effort to do so, and since Westminster has now diverged politically from the Scottish electorate to an unacceptable degree, we only have two real choices; vote Yes, govern ourselves, and hope we can inspire by example tomorrow what we cannot achieve with our votes today; or vote No and accept that we will be governed under a consensus that doesn't represent our views and aspirations.

But they don't. Despite having recently had a Scottish Prime Minister, and Scotland having the most devolved government of all of us, we just get told that Scotland is special and should rule itself despite already being able to vote on English local affairs whilst we get no say in reciprocal Scottish ones. Though Scotland gets better healthcare and education than the rest of us due to its devolved Government, the SNP say that it simply isn't enough. They don't try and reform the country for the good and wellbeing of all, instead they try and break off their own little fiefdom. And that ultimately, is what sets me against them. I don't feel like they're in it for the Scottish people particularly, because if they were, they'd be in it for all of us. We're all in the same boat here after all, we're all the same people. The SNP are just in it because they're a bunch of politicians who want to grab real power, and see fanning (frankly stupid) nationalistic flames as the easiest way to do it.

I don't think they'll succeed, frankly. And I'm glad of that. Like I said at the start of my little monologue, if you offered me an extra tenner a week to secede as a Londoner, I'd rather keep the union. It sounds a bit corny, but I have a lot of affection for the Scots as part of the history of my country (Great Britain), and I'd be terribly sad to see my own people split for such minute problems.

I've already debunked the "West Lothian Question" issue in this very thread, and the very few examples of genuine intrusion are considered shameful up here, and perhaps fittingly have mainly been perpetrated by the most vehement Unionists(for example, Alastair Carmichael, current Secretary of State for Portsmouth....sorry, for Scotland, was formerly the Lib Dem's chief whip and was instrumental in helping the Tories force Lib Dem backbenchers into line over education and healthcare reforms). Whether the UK has had Scottish Prime Ministers or not is irrelevant, as is how devolved our government is at present, because neither has any bearing on the core of the argument; Westminster is corrupt and beyond repair, we're better off out of it. Gordon Brown may be marginally less despised up here than down south, but that just means he can safely leave his home without being pelted by rotten fruit - he and Blair fethed over Scots as much as they did other parts of the UK.

You also have a deep misunderstanding of exactly what Scottish nationalism is; it is NOT ethnic, it is NOT insular and self-regarding. Scottish nationalism is civic, liberal, inclusive; the SNP have MSPs who were born and brought up in England, and one Frenchman - the Yes campaign includes specific groups formed by Polish Scots, Asian Scots, and European Citizens for Yes. This isn't about "Scotland for Scots", or anti-English hatred, it is nothing more and nothing less than our desire to escape the ever rightward neo-liberal trajectory of Westminster, emboldened by our realisations that the society we want isn't achievable under the current system, and that system is beyond our ability to reform.

I like history, but history means nothing to me when contrasted against photos of smiling Unionist politicos opening food banks, constant foreign policy blunders, neo-colonialist warfare, the steady surrender of our social institutions to corporate leeches in Serco, ATOS, G4S and the rest, and all the other incurable ills which afflict the British state.


Orlanth; I'll just say this - I'm beginning to remember why I put you on ignore. Oh, and "Project Fear" was a moniker Better Together devised themselves to label their campaign, then ran a mile from when a journalist spotted it on a document and it became public knowledge. We're done.

I just have one conundrum I'd liked cleared up, and I accept it could be looked upon as too simple or argumentative, which I apologise for. It is this,

If Independence is such a big thing for the Scots, why is there such a big need to persuade voters to vote Yes? Shouldn't the No camp be wondering why they are even bothering as it's such a forgone conclusion? The only thing the Yes camp should be worrying about is complacency, that voters won't turn out because others will, so no need to bother, but I don't see this. What I see is the Yes camp having to prove that it would be better for Scotland to leave the Union.

Which begs the question, do the majority of Scots actually don't find being part of the Union as bad as Salmond makes out? Does it mean that the majority of Scots actually are actually no different to the rest of the UK in so far as moaning about Westminster. I can see no difference in the moans from a village in the middle of Dorset, about the lack of "Westminster understanding" to the moans of people in Stirling.

 Yodhrin wrote:

Honestly this remark depresses me a little bit. The constant presence of economic arguments in the independence debates are not there because we fancy a bit of extra cash in our pockets, it's there because Scotland's capacity to run its own economic affairs has been denigrated and maligned by Unionists for decades, and that constant barrage of negativity has seeped into the public consciousness and as such must be countered vigorously. The argument is not "vote for independence, get an extra tenner", it's "you can safely vote for independence without worrying your nation and you will end up destitute".

Perhaps it's what I get from down here, but when people talk about 'the economic case for independence', it seems to be, 'Vote for independence and be wealthier than if you didn't'.

As for devolution, there's no doubt that Scotland has benefited from it, the obvious success of devolution is likely the main reason we're even having this debate; afterall, many will think to themselves that if we benefit so much from having some powers over our affairs, would we not benefit more with all of them? We hear a lot about how we're "abandoning" other parts of the UK, or how we should be happy with devolution because the North of England don't have a regional assembly and they're not moaning, but for me that is not a persuasive argument for remaining within the Union, just the opposite in fact; the failure of the various campaigns for regional assemblies or a devolved English parliament, and the simple acceptance of those outcomes in the parts of the UK which would have benefited from them, are to be shining examples that the UK is broken beyond repair, that there is no more radical thought in UK politics beyond UKIP, and that opposition to the neo-liberal consensus within the Westminster system is doomed to failure. Quite simply, too many people in the North and in Wales and Northern Ireland, not to mention the inner-city poor and vulnerable people in the South, have given up. That's a great shame, but it's hardly a fantastic incentive to stay is it?

I would say that the logical alternative outcome is to push a nation wide devolution campaign. If the Welsh and Irish join in, I have no doubt the rest of us won't be too far behind. There IS a potential for reform from within, it just takes a bit of sustained effort.

And a few years ago, I would have agreed with you entirely. Despite being a staunch Labour voter until the 2010 UK election, I was always a great fan of the Lib Dem proposals for a federal model for the UK, they seemed to me like a really attractive synthesis of ideas from the US, Germany, and the Nordic nations. I support independence now for the simple reason that I don't believe that's possible to achieve within my lifetime from inside the existing UK legal, political, and constitutional framework. I might have found the arguments about global and EU influence persuasive, but the UK's record on that score is abysmal; Iraq, our complicity in the Americans' rendition and torture scheme, our complicity in the Five-Eyes massive expansion of state surveillance, and our narrowly avoided attempt to throw ourselves into another quagmire pseudo-war in Syria recently are just the biggest examples of why I actually find the argument that we should stay within the UK so we can keep "punching above our weight" to actually be rather sinister.

Frankly, one could use the Syria example as a positive model for the success of democracy. Iraq I agree with, but those missteps crop up regularly throughout any nations history. Internet surveillance? I'll be honest with you, I wrote my undergraduate dissertation on cyber-warfare capablities, and not only is it a) laughably easy to avoid such things if you know about them, and b) its a case of technology developing quicker than legislation. Like how tobacco smoking used to advertised as good for you. The issue has now been raised, and it will most likely be niggled away at with legislators with nothing better to do over the next twenty years until we arrive at a suitable compromise with intelligence services. Which they will inevitably break, and then we'll nail them when they do.

I guess my point is that these things happen. I know the press is horribly negative and only ever reports bad stuff, but the government does do good stuff too, y'know?

As for the EU, the UK's strategy in the EU has been atrocious for Scotland; the UK government has systematically bargained away Scottish interests in order to secure opt-outs and rebates to placate the swivel-eyed UKIP-fanciers among the backbenches of the Tories(both Red and Blue) - Scottish farmers are at the bottom of the list for both kinds of CAP subsidy, and recently the UK government appropriated the CAP topup payment which they only got because of the massive underpayment to Scottish farmers, and is passing it out "fairly" around the whole UK, including to English farmers who already receive the EU average or greater(dependent on what they produce). Our fishing rights were actually described as "expendable" by UK negotiators. Not to mention that there's a very good chance we could be dragged out of the EU against our will regardless in the proposed 2017 referendum, since unless the vote was by the very narrowest of margins(and that doesn't seem likely) Scottish opinion will simply be drowned out by English votes by pure numerical superiority.

See, I'd say that that's democracy. Sometimes you get the bottom end of the stick. And coming from a very poor family, I totally get that. It sucks. Sometimes stuff can happen that makes your way of life uneconomical, sometimes you get utterly screwed over by the 'democratic process'.

As for whether things will be different, the most obvious point is that Salmond is completely irrelevant to that argument - a Yes vote in the referendum is not a vote to establish a monarchy with Great Leader Salmond as King and Emperor in perpetuity, it is a vote to transfer all the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of statehood to the Scottish nation, and ensure that we're the ones who elect our governments in future. The SNP might lose the election in 2016, they might win the first election and then disintegrate by the one in 2020 as their "broad church" falls apart without the goal of independence as a uniting factor, and on top of that Salmond is 58 years old, he's not long off retirement.

I highly doubt the SNP will just dissolve within five years of successful independence. I said 'Salmond and Co.' as opposed to 'Salmond' because I'm referring to the SNP as a whole regardless. Don't worry, I'm not one of those who analyses these things simply by public figureheads.

But that said, I think you're wrong. Have a look at the Scotland's Future white paper, apart from one or two questionable(IMO) bits like the corporation tax cut, it's a breath of fresh air compared to the UK's staid neo-liberal agenda. Nevermind the white paper even, look at their record in office; free personal care and bus travel for the elderly, free prescriptions, the NHS taken entirely back into public hands, an end to PFI/PPP scams, attempts to mitigate the worst impacts of the UK's often despicable immigration and welfare policies. The SNP still live firmly in the land of the UK's post-war consensus, while Westminster lurches ever further to the right.

I repeat, that's democracy. Yes, it can suck. But using that logic, England should break away now, because we usually vote differently to you. Wales should break away under Cymru. And then we should all disintegrate into individual countries depending on whether Labour or Tories, or Lib Dems hold sway.

And you expect that after independence, we'll all suddenly start speaking Gaelic or Doric, and shoot crossbows at any Englishmen who try to cross the border?

Not now. Give it one or two hundred years of wrangling over border smuggling, new oilfields, separate cultural and legislative evolution, and so on. Wars occur and reoccur.

Another point of fact; the original SNP proposal was for a two-question referendum. The first question was to ask if we wanted independence, the second was to ask if, in the event the result of the first vote was a No, would we want "devo-max" instead. It was the British government that insisted it be a single-question straight-up in-out referendum. The UK establishment decided to gamble the future of GB for the chance to wreck the SNP once and for all with a hefty "No" victory, the irony being of course that given the broad popularity of devo-max in Scotland, and the total insincerity of the rhetoric about more devolution post-No vote from the Unionist parties, that decision could very well lead to exactly the opposite outcome.

I would argue it should have been a four question one and applied to absolutely everybody.

'1. Should the Scots be independent?
2. Should the Scots not be independent?
3. Should the Scots get Devo-max?
4. Should everyone get devo max?'

Or alternatively, just the bottom two. But instead, the SNP spend all their time arguing for special rights for people living North of the border. Which apparently means those of us not living within their delineated 'Scotland' shouldn't get a say in things.

As for campaigning down south; one of the key arguments in favour of independence, or even just devo-max, is that the UK's first past the post voting system is inherently regressive and undemocratic.

Not perfectly democratic, yes, undemocratic, no. We are a democracy.

There is no realistic chance that the SNP could build sufficient support south of the border to actually win any seats within the next few decades, if at all, because FPTP inevitably results in a two-party system where people are afraid to vote for minority parties in case someone they utterly oppose gets in - look at the last UK election, how many lefties disillusioned with New Labour voted for the Lib Dems and would now give their right bollock to travel back in time and slap some sense into their past selves? How many of them will ever risk voting anything other than "not-Tory"(in practice Labour) in the future? You might have had an argument on this score if the Lib Dems hadn't completely sabotaged their pledge to bring in proportional representation at Westminster, but the simple reality on the ground is this: the SNP and the Scots cannot fix Westminster, only the English can do that simply by virtue of your relative size - since there's no actual concerted effort to do so, and since Westminster has now diverged politically from the Scottish electorate to an unacceptable degree, we only have two real choices; vote Yes, govern ourselves, and hope we can inspire by example tomorrow what we cannot achieve with our votes today; or vote No and accept that we will be governed under a consensus that doesn't represent our views and aspirations.

Like the majority of the population. We are under a coalition, remember? Sorry, I still don't accept the argument 'a small bloc of the UK voted differently to the rest of it, and didn't like the outcome, so they should rule themselves and break off'. After all, what if 40% of Scotland votes no and 60% yes? Do you only split off the bits that voted yes? Or do you insist that the bits that voted 'no' have to come with you anyway? Do you break it up region by region? What if there's a bit that voted overwhelmingly to stay British surrounded by bits that didn't? Do you force them to be 'Scottish' instead of 'British'? Or do we just abandon them? If so, where is the democracy? And why should the rest of us British citizens allow a new sovereign nation to absorb our other citizens and land unwillingly?

Whether the UK has had Scottish Prime Ministers or not is irrelevant, as is how devolved our government is at present, because neither has any bearing on the core of the argument;

The primary point is that scottish people can have clout in our political system. Hardly irrelevant.

You also have a deep misunderstanding of exactly what Scottish nationalism is; it is NOT ethnic,

It is highly ethnic. It says, 'this part is Scotland, and should be treated differently to this part marked Wales'. 'Why?' 'Because they're Scottish. And the new country will be called Scotland. For Scottish people. Who are different to Welsh people, because they live in Scotland.

it is NOT insular and self-regarding. Scottish nationalism is civic, liberal, inclusive; the SNP have MSPs who were born and brought up in England, and one Frenchman - the Yes campaign includes specific groups formed by Polish Scots, Asian Scots, and European Citizens for Yes. This isn't about "Scotland for Scots", or anti-English hatred, it is nothing more and nothing less than our desire to escape the ever rightward neo-liberal trajectory of Westminster, emboldened by our realisations that the society we want isn't achievable under the current system, and that system is beyond our ability to reform.

I still don't buy it. If the British system were inherently opposed to reform, the Labour party would never have risen, and we'd still be looking at Whigs. It's highly resistant to change, yes. But ultimately, do you think that fair, inclusive, democratic policies are universally hated south of the border or something? If the SNP had broad policies and campaigned down south on them I would vote for them. I am personally sick of tories, liberals, and labour. And I'm not alone on that one, I assure you.

But the SNP go, 'We want to break off Scotland' and that's it. They don't appeal for my vote. They don't tell me I deserve the same rights as they think the average Scot should get. Instead, they want to take part of my country, and run. And yes. It is MY country. As much as it is yours, as far as I'm concerned. We're all British. I am just as entitled to buy land and live there as any 'Scottish person.

 Ketara wrote:

As for devolution, there's no doubt that Scotland has benefited from it, the obvious success of devolution is likely the main reason we're even having this debate; afterall, many will think to themselves that if we benefit so much from having some powers over our affairs, would we not benefit more with all of them? We hear a lot about how we're "abandoning" other parts of the UK, or how we should be happy with devolution because the North of England don't have a regional assembly and they're not moaning, but for me that is not a persuasive argument for remaining within the Union, just the opposite in fact; the failure of the various campaigns for regional assemblies or a devolved English parliament, and the simple acceptance of those outcomes in the parts of the UK which would have benefited from them, are to be shining examples that the UK is broken beyond repair, that there is no more radical thought in UK politics beyond UKIP, and that opposition to the neo-liberal consensus within the Westminster system is doomed to failure. Quite simply, too many people in the North and in Wales and Northern Ireland, not to mention the inner-city poor and vulnerable people in the South, have given up. That's a great shame, but it's hardly a fantastic incentive to stay is it?

I would say that the logical alternative outcome is to push a nation wide devolution campaign. If the Welsh and Irish join in, I have no doubt the rest of us won't be too far behind. There IS a potential for reform from within, it just takes a bit of sustained effort.

I'm going to try really hard not to come off as confrontational or dismissive, because you've been a damn sight more reasonable when discussing the subject than some who disagree with the proposition, but this one baffles me a little; what do you think has been going on over the last several decades? The Home Rule movement began in the mid 19th century, it was its complete failure to win anything other than lip service from the establishment which led to the foundation of the SNP and, among other factors, the Irish rebellion. British Nationalism was resurgent in the middle 20th century thanks to the war, but by the 70's Home Rule was back on the agenda and in '79 Scotland held the first devolution referendum - Yes won the vote itself, but Westminster invalidated the result using some creative maths to claim the turnout was too low. "Vote No for now and we'll discuss a more sensible devolution settlement in the next couple of years" was the message then, and after the No vote the issue was promptly shelved for twenty years. Advocates of Home Rule, or the many different varieties of devolution, have been fighting this fight in various forms for over a century and a half, and everything we've managed to achieve so far had to be clawed slowly and painfully away from the British establishment, and even then is completely precarious since Parliamentary Sovereignty means any future government could abolish the entire devolution settlement with the stroke of a pen.

Must we keep fighting this fight for another century before people in England will grudgingly accept that we've done our best and we can try independence?

And a few years ago, I would have agreed with you entirely. Despite being a staunch Labour voter until the 2010 UK election, I was always a great fan of the Lib Dem proposals for a federal model for the UK, they seemed to me like a really attractive synthesis of ideas from the US, Germany, and the Nordic nations. I support independence now for the simple reason that I don't believe that's possible to achieve within my lifetime from inside the existing UK legal, political, and constitutional framework. I might have found the arguments about global and EU influence persuasive, but the UK's record on that score is abysmal; Iraq, our complicity in the Americans' rendition and torture scheme, our complicity in the Five-Eyes massive expansion of state surveillance, and our narrowly avoided attempt to throw ourselves into another quagmire pseudo-war in Syria recently are just the biggest examples of why I actually find the argument that we should stay within the UK so we can keep "punching above our weight" to actually be rather sinister.

Frankly, one could use the Syria example as a positive model for the success of democracy. Iraq I agree with, but those missteps crop up regularly throughout any nations history. Internet surveillance? I'll be honest with you, I wrote my undergraduate dissertation on cyber-warfare capablities, and not only is it a) laughably easy to avoid such things if you know about them, and b) its a case of technology developing quicker than legislation. Like how tobacco smoking used to advertised as good for you. The issue has now been raised, and it will most likely be niggled away at with legislators with nothing better to do over the next twenty years until we arrive at a suitable compromise with intelligence services. Which they will inevitably break, and then we'll nail them when they do.

I guess my point is that these things happen. I know the press is horribly negative and only ever reports bad stuff, but the government does do good stuff too, y'know?

Syria was averted by luck and gross incompetence, not democratic success. And frankly, I don't know how anyone can have such a casual attitude towards the atrocious extent of state surveillance revealed recently in the press, nor towards MI5's collusion in the detention, rendition, and torture not just of foreign nationals, but British residents too. Not just MI5 either; police conducting long-term infiltration of peaceful protest groups, GCHQ passing data on millions of emails and phone conversations to the Americans, and now we see the fruits of their labours as the government buses the Territorial Support Group around the country to crack skulls at student protests.

And you expect that after independence, we'll all suddenly start speaking Gaelic or Doric, and shoot crossbows at any Englishmen who try to cross the border?

Not now. Give it one or two hundred years of wrangling over border smuggling, new oilfields, separate cultural and legislative evolution, and so on. Wars occur and reoccur.

I'm sorry, but this is just patently absurd. I would have thought the smiley indicated I was using a ridiculous joke to illustrate my point. You're seriously arguing that two modern, ostensibly democratic nations, with no bitter blood feud or ethnic tension between them could go from political union to open warfare in as little as a century? So in your view, given Norway became independent of Sweden in 1905, it's only a matter of time until Norwegian tanks are rolling into Gothenburg? Of course some catastrophic natural disaster or the rise of a fascistic political movement or some other extraordinary event could conceivably lead to genuine discord, but the idea that that's even remotely likely is just silly.

Whether the UK has had Scottish Prime Ministers or not is irrelevant, as is how devolved our government is at present, because neither has any bearing on the core of the argument;

The primary point is that scottish people can have clout in our political system. Hardly irrelevant.

Extremely irrelevant. I'm not pretending the two scenarios are equivalent, merely using this as an example, but let's imagine for a moment that the UK had an Indian PM in the 1940's; would you say to Ghandi "come on now chum, stop complaining and agitating for Indian independence, afterall the fact an Indian person can have clout in our political system obviously makes the issues that system causes the Indian people nothing more than a minor quibble"?

As for campaigning down south; one of the key arguments in favour of independence, or even just devo-max, is that the UK's first past the post voting system is inherently regressive and undemocratic.

Not perfectly democratic, yes, undemocratic, no. We are a democracy.

In name only, to my mind. The vast majority of the population are, functionally, disenfranchised, because if you live in a "safe" seat for one party but support a different party, your vote is worthless and can have no impact on the electoral process.

It is highly ethnic. It says, 'this part is Scotland, and should be treated differently to this part marked Wales'. 'Why?' 'Because they're Scottish. And the new country will be called Scotland. For Scottish people. Who are different to Welsh people, because they live in Scotland.

And the fact that the SNP have explicitly stated on dozens of occasions that as far as they're concerned, the only criteria that qualifies someone to be considered a Scot is "presently lives in Scotland", regardless of their original place of birth or whether their stay here is permanent or transitory, you contend that despite that Scottish nationalism is still ethnic...because it acknowledges that different places can have a different consensus view on politics and economics?

See, I'd say that that's democracy. Sometimes you get the bottom end of the stick. And coming from a very poor family, I totally get that. It sucks. Sometimes stuff can happen that makes your way of life uneconomical, sometimes you get utterly screwed over by the 'democratic process'.

...

I repeat, that's democracy. Yes, it can suck. But using that logic, England should break away now, because we usually vote differently to you. Wales should break away under Cymru. And then we should all disintegrate into individual countries depending on whether Labour or Tories, or Lib Dems hold sway.

...

Like the majority of the population. We are under a coalition, remember? Sorry, I still don't accept the argument 'a small bloc of the UK voted differently to the rest of it, and didn't like the outcome, so they should rule themselves and break off'. After all, what if 40% of Scotland votes no and 60% yes? Do you only split off the bits that voted yes? Or do you insist that the bits that voted 'no' have to come with you anyway? Do you break it up region by region? What if there's a bit that voted overwhelmingly to stay British surrounded by bits that didn't? Do you force them to be 'Scottish' instead of 'British'? Or do we just abandon them? If so, where is the democracy? And why should the rest of us British citizens allow a new sovereign nation to absorb our other citizens and land unwillingly?

...

I still don't buy it. If the British system were inherently opposed to reform, the Labour party would never have risen, and we'd still be looking at Whigs. It's highly resistant to change, yes. But ultimately, do you think that fair, inclusive, democratic policies are universally hated south of the border or something? If the SNP had broad policies and campaigned down south on them I would vote for them. I am personally sick of tories, liberals, and labour. And I'm not alone on that one, I assure you.

But the SNP go, 'We want to break off Scotland' and that's it. They don't appeal for my vote. They don't tell me I deserve the same rights as they think the average Scot should get. Instead, they want to take part of my country, and run. And yes. It is MY country. As much as it is yours, as far as I'm concerned. We're all British. I am just as entitled to buy land and live there as any 'Scottish person.

I've edited this a bit and brought these together, since they all have a similar theme. You still seem to be misapprehending the rationale here; people are not agitating for independence because the Tories got in at the 2010 election, they're agitating for independence because we live in a system under which Scotland has voted firmly for Labour at almost every election since the end of the second world war, but we only ever got the government we voted for if England was in the mood to agree with us. You can talk about how the SNP should campaign across the UK, but at the end of the day it's completely unreasonable to expect Scotland to drive an entirely new constitutional framework for the whole of the UK in the face of near complete apathy on the matter from its other constituent parts.

But the other remarks begin to make it clear to me why you don't see that as a problem; to you, Scotland is no different than Dorset, or Kent, or Yorkshire - we're just "North Britain", a region of "your" country. But that isn't how Scotland sees itself, and it never has been; Scotland is a nation. We did not cease to exist in 1707, we entered into a partnership(or rather, our destitute nobility and merchant class did, the people have never been consulted before now), and in the face of the British establishment's continuing reticence to reform itself, many of us are now arguing that said partnership should be dissolved. You can argue the wisdom of that decision, but to argue we don't have the right to make it isn't on, and as for your points about "splitting off the bits that voted Yes", you must see how absurd that argument is; to illustrate just how absurd, lets say that the EU referendum goes ahead in 2017 - would you seriously argue that if the result was narrowly in favour of remaining within the EU, but the Home Counties and some bits of London voted heavily to leave, those bits of the country should be put out of the EU, while the rest remains within?

This thread is slightly off topic now... it is not about why scotland wants to commit suicide, it is about what cool flag the rest of us should have if they do decide to jump off Hadrians wall

Again I say this is the flag y'all should adopt.



Rebuild Hadrians Wall and line its parapets with those, I bet the Scots will be begging to come back so they can fly that kickass flag.

It's nice but I'd like to see a mock up of it flying over a burning White House before I can fully decide.

 Yodhrin wrote:

I'm going to try really hard not to come off as confrontational or dismissive, because you've been a damn sight more reasonable when discussing the subject than some who disagree with the proposition, but this one baffles me a little; what do you think has been going on over the last several decades? The Home Rule movement began in the mid 19th century, it was its complete failure to win anything other than lip service from the establishment which led to the foundation of the SNP and, among other factors, the Irish rebellion. British Nationalism was resurgent in the middle 20th century thanks to the war, but by the 70's Home Rule was back on the agenda and in '79 Scotland held the first devolution referendum - Yes won the vote itself, but Westminster invalidated the result using some creative maths to claim the turnout was too low. "Vote No for now and we'll discuss a more sensible devolution settlement in the next couple of years" was the message then, and after the No vote the issue was promptly shelved for twenty years. Advocates of Home Rule, or the many different varieties of devolution, have been fighting this fight in various forms for over a century and a half, and everything we've managed to achieve so far had to be clawed slowly and painfully away from the British establishment, and even then is completely precarious since Parliamentary Sovereignty means any future government could abolish the entire devolution settlement with the stroke of a pen.

Must we keep fighting this fight for another century before people in England will grudgingly accept that we've done our best and we can try independence?

Sorry. Considering my original point was that one could push a nation wide devolution agenda as opposed to just splitting off, I don't quite see how telling me getting to this point was difficult somehow invalidates it? Yes, change in this country is torturously slow. But it still happened. And that it means that if the agenda continues to be pushed, I think it could go further still.

I mean, look around. Everyone you talk to on the street is disenfranchised with politicians who say one thing and deliver another. Social mobility has dropped drastically low. Voter turnout keeps falling, people feel unrepresented, and membership of all the political parties has fallen to numbers never before seen.

I believe that the time is ripe for a new option, one untainted by the current lot. And had they done it right, the SNP could have been that option!

Syria was averted by luck and gross incompetence, not democratic success.

They voted, the vote went against it. I'd call that democracy at it's most basic level?

And frankly, I don't know how anyone can have such a casual attitude towards the atrocious extent of state surveillance revealed recently in the press,

It's not casual. It's a practical opinion, which is that technology has outpaced modern ethics and legislation. You ask most people whether or not pirating is stealing, searching people's public facebooks when hiring is ethical, whether slagging someone off on Twitter is libel, and so on. There's a whole raft of current problems, of which this is simply one.

nor towards MI5's collusion in the detention, rendition, and torture not just of foreign nationals, but British residents too.

I agree on this one. It's a bad thing. It should be sorted out. Write to your MP.

And you expect that after independence, we'll all suddenly start speaking Gaelic or Doric, and shoot crossbows at any Englishmen who try to cross the border?

I'm sorry, but this is just patently absurd. I would have thought the smiley indicated I was using a ridiculous joke to illustrate my point. You're seriously arguing that two modern, ostensibly democratic nations, with no bitter blood feud or ethnic tension between them could go from political union to open warfare in as little as a century?

Having studied the history of Europe professionally for some time, I can tell you with certainty that a century is a long time. Nations have risen and fallen in less. And you know the funny thing? Every single nation thinks it is the most modern and culturally advanced nation at the time.

In name only, to my mind. The vast majority of the population are, functionally, disenfranchised, because if you live in a "safe" seat for one party but support a different party, your vote is worthless and can have no impact on the electoral process.

That's the joy of first past the post. It is democratic. But votes are not proportionally counted. I will point out though, that you have it the wrong way round. The problem of first past the post is that the majority opinion rules (and is not disenfranchised at all). In a safe seat, the majority opinion rules, and people who vote elsewhere are sidelined. At a national level, the party with the majority seats gains the government, and the rest of them are sidelined. That's why coalition governments have been so rare of late.

First past the post means that the majority rules absolutely. The upside is that the minor parties do not get a say (keeping out all the extremists). The downside is that the minor parties do not get a say (keeping out everyone who isn't an extremist but isn't mainstream).

And the fact that the SNP have explicitly stated on dozens of occasions that as far as they're concerned, the only criteria that qualifies someone to be considered a Scot is "presently lives in Scotland", regardless of their original place of birth or whether their stay here is permanent or transitory, you contend that despite that Scottish nationalism is still ethnic...because it acknowledges that different places can have a different consensus view on politics and economics?

Do you think it a coincidence that he delineates Scotland around national lines? That Newcastle, for example, is not included? My point is that Salmond represents a very specific area of the country, and says that everybody within it is 'Scottish'. In other words, he creates a social construct in which people who live in Edinburgh are somehow more worthy of a new political system than those in Newcastle, even though those in Newcastle may very well agree with him completely. Linking back to my first point in this post I feel that did he ultimately have the best aims for us at heart, he would be fighting to change things for all of us. Not just people who live across a border dating back to a period older than most European nations.

I've edited this a bit and brought these together, since they all have a similar theme. You still seem to be misapprehending the rationale here; people are not agitating for independence because the Tories got in at the 2010 election, they're agitating for independence because we live in a system under which Scotland has voted firmly for Labour at almost every election since the end of the second world war, but we only ever got the government we voted for if England was in the mood to agree with us.

This is basic democracy. If a hundred people live in place A, and a thousand across Places B to F, than no. Place A will never be able to overrule Place B to F on their own. That is deliberate and thoroughly democratic. Not sure why it is a problem that Scotland cannot singlehandedly impose a Government it likes across all of Britain.

You can talk about how the SNP should campaign across the UK, but at the end of the day it's completely unreasonable to expect Scotland to drive an entirely new constitutional framework for the whole of the UK in the face of near complete apathy on the matter from its other constituent parts.

Question:- Is it apathetic because there are no alternative options being offered and the SNP do not bother campaigning across that historic border? Or is it because people genuinely are...happy? ...with the current way of things?

But the other remarks begin to make it clear to me why you don't see that as a problem; to you, Scotland is no different than Dorset, or Kent, or Yorkshire - we're just "North Britain", a region of "your" country.

Yup. Got it in a nutshell. We speak the same language, live on the same island, eat the same fish and chips, and drink the same whiskey. Sure, some people have funny accents, but they have those in manchester and Liverpool too. Sure, some of the bits used to be other countries four hundred years ago, but then again, they were completely different countries a thousand years before that.

But that isn't how Scotland sees itself, and it never has been; Scotland is a nation.

Scotland has not existed as a completely separate culture to England for an extraodinarily long time. By this stage of the game, it's like trying to resurrect the Holy Roman Empire. We've blended, merged, and become more or less one. Saying 'Scotland sees itself as a nation' is deliberately trying to create a new national social construct from a pre-existing ethnic social construct. Which rarely leads to good places.

We did not cease to exist in 1707, we entered into a partnership(or rather, our destitute nobility and merchant class did, the people have never been consulted before now), and in the face of the British establishment's continuing reticence to reform itself, many of us are now arguing that said partnership should be dissolved. You can argue the wisdom of that decision, but to argue we don't have the right to make it isn't on, and as for your points about "splitting off the bits that voted Yes", you must see how absurd that argument is; to illustrate just how absurd, lets say that the EU referendum goes ahead in 2017 - would you seriously argue that if the result was narrowly in favour of remaining within the EU, but the Home Counties and some bits of London voted heavily to leave, those bits of the country should be put out of the EU, while the rest remains within?

YES!
That is the exact problem!

When you say, 'We are leaving to exercise our democratic vote', then fine. That's great. No problem with that on the surface. But issues start to arise as you dig deeper. Run through my earlier(and highly possible) scenario with me. Imagine we get a 60/40 split in favour of independence.

Okay. First problem. You claim to be leaving Britain to stop the majority drowning out the minority (Britain as a whole outvoting Scotland alone). What happens then? Do the 60% impose their will on the 40%? Isn't that somewhat....undemocratic? I mean sure, it's a majority, but heavy enough to force people to renounce their citizenship? Make them live in a new country? Because this is, in effect, what you are doing. And that's a lot of people.

Second problem. Locality. Out of that 40%. what if counties are geographically concentrated who want to stay in the Union?



Let's say Sutherland heavily voted to stay British. Say, 90% in favour of it. Who are you to say that all of those people, all of those British Citizens, must renounce their voice and be part of this new 'Scotland'? They don't want to be! They're happy where they are and with their political affiliations. Telling them that a map of a nation from four hundred years ago has them as part of a different country is hardly a good enough reason to impose a new government on them, is it? Especially if they don't want it.

Take it a step further. 'Fine' you say. 'They can stay with Britain'. But take it a step further. What if the five nations most geographically to the North all heavily want to stay British? Who gets the local oil then? You can't say it belongs to the 'Scottish' people further south. And it just gets more complex from there. Do we have two borders? What if Argyllshire want to stay British? How can you want to close the nuclear base there, if the people there want to stay British? It's their territory.

Ultimately, you reach a point where you have to say, 'the democratic rights of the new Scottish nation should overrule other democratic rights of people who want to be British'. And in a case like that? As far as I'm concerned, if several counties want to stay British? They should. Ireland style. If there are areas that overwhelmingly want independence, give it to them. But I'm not happy with the democratic right of British citizens being overruled because the SNP want to stick to the borders on a map from 400 years ago.

Speaking of places the British need to leave... by that logic Britain should be returning Derry to Free Irish control, and the American south should be it's own nation as well.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
the American south should be it's own nation as well.

We can all dream.

 Ketara wrote:

Let's say Sutherland heavily voted to stay British. Say, 90% in favour of it. Who are you to say that all of those people, all of those British Citizens, must renounce their voice and be part of this new 'Scotland'?

Sutherland has never been independent whereas Scotland was a sovereign nation nearly 3 times as long as it has been part of the UK. Scotland, in common with England and Wales are nations in their own right who (currently) happen to be part of a composite whole.

If Sutherland really wants to become independent (I wouldn't recommend it) then there is nothing stopping them from getting the ball rolling.

 Palindrome wrote:

Sutherland has never been independent whereas Scotland was a sovereign nation nearly 3 times as long as it has been part of the UK.

The Holy Roman Empire was knocking around a lot longer than modern Germany. The fact another nation existed within a set of borders for a length of time in the distant past, is not a particularly compelling argument for ignoring the democratic rights of modern citizens.

If Sutherland really wants to become independent (I wouldn't recommend it) then there is nothing stopping them from getting the ball rolling.

It wasn't a question of Sutherland being independent. The question was if just over half of Scotland wants independence, but the vast majority of Sutherland want to be British, why should we ignore the votes of those in Sutherland, and force them into a new country based on ancient borders?

As far as I'm concerned, any county that is 60%+ inclined to being British should stay that way. Any county that is 30%-60% should be redesignated as a British protectorate and local government set up accordingly. And any that is 30% or below should be granted full independence.


You see, the main problem is how to allow someone to exercise the democratic right to make their own country, without superseding/overruling/oppressing those who do not. I would argue that if even the vast minority still wish to be British (say 45%), then they still deserve the protection of the British Government, and their interests should be defended accordingly. For the majority opinion to ultimately overrule that of the minority on something so important, I would argue it needs to be overwhelming, and thus at least 70%.

Such an approach will doubtless result in a hodgepodge patchwork quilt across Scotland. But as those who are shouting for the restoration of Scotland's ancient borders are no doubt aware, there were borders in the region called Scotland long before it unified, and those are just as valid, historically speaking. Anyone heard of the Picts? The Bernicians? Dalriata?

 Ketara wrote:

It wasn't a question of Sutherland being independent. The question was if just over half of Scotland wants independence, but the vast majority of Sutherland want to be British, why should we ignore the votes of those in Sutherland, and force them into a new country based on ancient borders?

Yes. I have never voted Tory in my life yet we currently have a Tory government (plus some fairly useless ornamentation). Democracy will always have losers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:

The Holy Roman Empire was knocking around a lot longer than modern Germany. The fact another nation existed within a set of borders for a length of time in the distant past, is not a particularly compelling argument for ignoring the democratic rights of modern citizens.

It is a pretty compelling argument to allow those citzens to exersize their democratic rights though. The HRE also had signiciantly different borders to Imperial Germany never mind the Federal Republic of Germany, Scotland's borders have remained stable for nearly 6 centuries.

 Palindrome wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

It wasn't a question of Sutherland being independent. The question was if just over half of Scotland wants independence, but the vast majority of Sutherland want to be British, why should we ignore the votes of those in Sutherland, and force them into a new country based on ancient borders?

Yes. I have never voted Tory in my life yet we currently have a Tory government (plus some fairly useless ornamentation). Democracy will always have losers.

Using that logic, Scotland should never gain independence in the first place though, as the rest of us are still quite attached to it.

Thing is, you can't have it both ways. Either we're giving the people there the ability to decide for themselves, or we're not. And if we are, than those who wish to remain British need to be heard. They need to have their own decisions respected. So I repeat, unless the majority who want complete independence are overwhelming enough to justify it, we need to defend the right of those who want to stay British. The logical result is a compromise. It means that no, New Scotland does not get borders equivalent to those existing 300 years ago, just because they existed 300 years ago. It gets borders according to its influence, and the desire of its citizens to actually, y'know. Be its citizens.

It is a pretty compelling argument to allow those citzens to exersize their democratic rights though. The HRE also had signiciantly different borders to Imperial Germany never mind the Federal Republic of Germany, Scotland's borders have remained stable for nearly 6 centuries.

Precisely. If one may exercise one's democratic right, one must also respect that of somebody else's. If a group of citizens decided to reform the HRE today, the fact that citizens in one section of what used to be the HRE want it brought back does not give them the right to appropriate every other areas of what used to be the HRE.

Likewise, some citizens may wish to set up New Scotland. But New Scotland should be formed along the lines of the area occupied by those who actually want it. It should not be imposed on people who do not want it, because maps happen to exist saying Scotland was so many miles big 300 years ago.

 Ketara wrote:

Using that logic, Scotland should never gain independence in the first place though, as the rest of us are still quite attached to it.

You don't have a vote though (unless you live in Scotland) so in the end your wishes don't count.

Democracy works on the principle of the majority, not the overwhelming majority. Going by your logic if the No vote gets, for example, 60% of the vote should the rights of those who wish an independent Scotland be defended? Perhaps they should be granted 40% of Scotland to govern as their own?

The bottom line is that Scotland is a nation in its own right, historically, legally and culturally, and as such it should be allowed the fair opportunity to forge its own destiny.

 Palindrome wrote:

You don't have a vote though (unless you live in Scotland) so in the end your wishes don't count.

You have it the wrong way around.

The logic is that the area known as 'Scotland' wishesto take a vote on independence yes? Now if we are following the rules of the majority vote in its purest sense, Britain as a whole must vote on the issue, as it directly affects all of us. This is a democracy, and we should all get a say in things.

If however, you choose to restrict that vote solely to the people who live in the region known as 'Scotland', then are conceding that we are permitting the right of local self-determination to supersede the rights of the people of the state of Britain as a collective. You cannot then turn around in the event a 60/40 vote in favour of independence, and say that now the majority vote should apply, and overwhelm the principle of self-determination. Because if the majority vote applied, everyone would be voting, and not just the Scots.

If self-determination is being cited here as the mechanic by which the people who live in the region delineated as Scotland would gain independence, than self-determination must logically dictate the boundaries of any settlement. Not a 400 year old map.

Democracy works on the principle of the majority, not the overwhelming majority. Going by your logic if the No vote gets, for example, 60% of the vote should the rights of those who wish an independent Scotland be defended? Perhaps they should be granted 40% of Scotland to govern as their own?

If I see any area/county with 70% plus in favour of independence, then I say that they should have it. Grant them full independence. I'm consistent if nothing else.

The bottom line is that Scotland is a nation in its own right, historically, legally and culturally, and as such it should be allowed the fair opportunity to forge its own destiny.

Scotland has not been a separate independent nation in it's own right for longer than most countries have existed. And in a 60/40 split, than I agree, those who wish to forge their own destiny should be allowed to do so. But they should not be allowed to forcibly remove British citizenship and land from those who do not wish to be a part of it. Your right to self-determination does not supersede somebody else's.
You and nine other people fifty miles away may wish to be Scottish, but if me and the other nine people who live locally to me wish to be British, tough. You do not have the right to force it upon us, or you are voiding the principle of self-determination from the word go.

Now for practicality's sake, we can't split Scotland up on a per household basis. But if an area strongly wishes to remain British, than it should remain so. If Sutherland is 90% pro-British, then they are my fellow citizens, and I wouldn't want them and their land given up against its will. And if the belief of those who wish to be independently Scottish is that the principle of self-determination should apply, then neither should they.

Otherwise, their belief is more accurately, 'Under the right of self-determination, we should be free to declare an independent Scotland, and in the process oppress and ignore all local self-determination in some areas in order to claim their land'.

I repeat:-

If self-determination is being cited here as the mechanic by which the people who live in the region delineated as Scotland would gain independence, than self-determination must logically dictate the boundaries of any settlement. Not a 400 year old map.

You seem to be treating this as if its a completely new novel idea, but it kind of already happened in Ireland? A good chunk of the place wanted independence, some if it didn't. The bit that didn't is still with us, because they comprised a large enough majority in a specific area. And the bit that did went independent.

And the funny thing is, it all seems to have worked out.

It would be amusing if the bits with all the oil and the nuclear base stayed British though. It might spoke the SNP's wheel a little.

Ketara I'm just reading your gloating about Northern Ireland as "We have managed to conquer and brainwash a part of one our conquests so thoroughly that, like a beaten spouse they want to stay with us! Isn't that grand?" *chortling*

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Ketara I'm just reading your gloating about Northern Ireland as "We have managed to conquer and brainwash a part of one our conquests so thoroughly that, like a beaten spouse they want to stay with us! Isn't that grand?" *chortling*

Then you're being obtuse.

If conquer and brainwash was/is the goal then I'm certain the whole of Ireland would still be waving the British flags under a nicely polished boot.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Ketara I'm just reading your gloating about Northern Ireland as "We have managed to conquer and brainwash a part of one our conquests so thoroughly that, like a beaten spouse they want to stay with us! Isn't that grand?" *chortling*

....gloating? What on earth are you talking about? I can't say I personally remember conquering or brainwashing anybody personally, as the British.

That is, unless you're trying to put some bizare ethnic/racial spin on my words that quite simply isn't there. You wouldn't be doing that now, would you?

I should also point out that rather than allow half the country to secede, the US engaged in ever so slightly more hostile activities than the British currently are with Scotland.

Ketera, I'm going to have to walk away at this point, because I can't keep arguing a point with someone who seriously equates an existing nation(which Scotland is, read the Treaties of Union sometime) who are seeking independence from a Union because that Union refuses to offer them the constitutional settlement we actually wanted, with some fictional mad wee minority group trying to resurrect the Holy Roman Empire, not without resorting to name calling, because you've moved beyond absurd and into the evidently and unequivocally ludicrous now.

You can believe that we're just North Britain all you like; the vast majority of people who live here consider themselves either exclusively Scottish, or Scottish first, British second, and you will struggle to find anyone at all who doesn't consider Scotland a nation.

I wish you and the other eleven people in England who actually want a devolved/federal UK luck, but we're done waiting around for the rest of the UK to pull itself together while the people who live here are stuck watching the country we actually want to live in drift away into the distance.

 Ketara wrote:

You seem to be treating this as if its a completely new novel idea, but it kind of already happened in Ireland? A good chunk of the place wanted independence, some if it didn't. The bit that didn't is still with us, because they comprised a large enough majority in a specific area. And the bit that did went independent.

Northen Ireland happened because the issue of Irish home rule was forced by the Easter rising. If the prevaling political winds at the time had been allowed to run their natural course there would simply be 'Ireland' today and the 70's would have been a good deal quiter in Ulster. The people of Ireland never had a say in the matter one way or another (aside from politicians and insurrectionists that is) so while it has been done before its not exactly worked out well for the Irish of all political persuations (Cork used to be a unionist stronghold for instance) nor is it a very good comparison to the independence referendum.

I really can't fathom why you don't think that Scotland should be allowed to decide its own fate.

Yodhrin wrote:Ketera, I'm going to have to walk away at this point, because I can't keep arguing a point with someone who seriously equates an existing nation(which Scotland is, read the Treaties of Union sometime) who are seeking independence from a Union because that Union refuses to offer them the constitutional settlement we actually wante, with some fictional mad wee minority group trying to resurrect the Holy Roman Empire, not without resorting to name calling, because you've moved beyond absurd and into the evidently and unequivocally ludicrous now.

I'm dealing in equivalencies here. I agree that the Holy Roman Empire rising again is absurd. I never seriously proposed that. I suggest you actually read what context I used the HRE in (namely, as a comparison for Scottish democratic possibilities in a post independence vote settlement).

You can believe that we're just North Britain all you like; the vast majority of people who live here consider themselves either exclusively Scottish, or Scottish first, British second, and you will struggle to find anyone at all who doesn't consider Scotland a nation.

I may well be considering things on something of a more technical level than you are. I'm talking about ethnic social constructs, their composition and makeup, and racial/national social constructs comparatively speaking. When you ultimately get down to it, being 'Scottish' is nothing more than a self-proclaimed title, and possesses whatever meaning you choose to ascribe to it.

I wish you and the other eleven people in England who actually want a devolved/federal UK luck, but we're done waiting around for the rest of the UK to pull itself together while the people who live here are stuck watching the country we actually want to live in drift away into the distance.

...England? See, I would say 'Britain'. I think that alone points to what direction you're already identifying yourself in, in terms of ethnic makeup.

Palindrome wrote:
Northen Ireland happened because the issue of Irish home rule was forced by the Easter rising. If the prevaling political winds at the time had been allowed to run their natural course there would simply be 'Ireland' today and the 70's would have been a good deal quiter in Ulster. The people of Ireland never had a say in the matter one way or another (aside from politicians and insurrectionists that is) so while it has been done before its not exactly worked out well for the Irish of all political persuations (Cork used to be a unionist stronghold for instance) nor is it a very good comparison to the independence referendum.

I really can't fathom why you don't think that Scotland should be allowed to decide its own fate.

I do. Far more so than you do. Allow me compare and contrast, to show just how much more democratic and pro-Scottish rights and democracy I am here.

Ketara's vision

1. Hold independence referendum.
2. If slim majority in favour of independence, go to the polls a second time on a county by county basis.
3. Allocate all counties largely in favour of independence to the new sovereign state of Scotland. Retain those that are largely pro-British. Assign those that are roughly equivalent a united protectorate status.

Palindrome's Vision

1. Hold independence referendum.
2. If majority in favour of independence(no matter how slim), set up borders for a new sovereign Scotland based on a map that is 400 years old.
3. Tell any dissenters (even if as high as 40%) that they should be ignored (as that is apparently how democracy works) and allowing them to remain British as they like would not be allowing them to decide their own fate.....

 Ketara wrote:


Palindrome's Vision

1. Hold independence referendum.
2. If majority in favour of independence(no matter how slim), set up borders for a new sovereign Scotland based on a map that is 400 years old.
3. Tell any dissenters (even if as high as 40%) that they should be ignored (as that is apparently how democracy works) and allowing them to remain British as they like would not be allowing them to decide their own fate.....

1. Yes
2. If there is a very slim majority in either direction then a recount would be fine. The borders of an independent Scotland would be the same as Scotlands borders today. I really don't see what the issue is.
3. it is how democracy works when there is a binary choice.