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.

I ROFL'd so damned hard just now... thank you for that.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

Tibbsy wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
I think the new flag should look something like this....

Oh no you didn't!

Last I checked you owed us about two hundred years worth of taxes and a couple of crates of tea!

We paid that back when we saved yer butts during dubba dubba 1 and 2. Cause these colors don't run cousin


'MURICA

You haven't on a world cup, though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZaGWGAMjus

I'm looking forward to Salmond's face when the Orkneys put up the two fingers and say they separating from Scotland. Bang go the oil rights! (apparently Mr Salmond thinks that idea is us English stirring it up!!) Hmm, I wonder what the distance is from Edinburgh to the Orkneys? Do you think they may have the same view of Edinburgh as Edinburgh has about London?

Hey, if the Falklands can be on team England, I think we can let our friends in the islands play too

Except that the islanders are unlikely to want to play http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-politics/7203-northern-isles-are-scottish-say-islanders



Sabre rattling by the local Lib Dem MSP (who are pro unionist) isn't a very strong base for anti independence scare stories.

I cant read most of the graphics on my phone but i can read the poll question which is not asking if they should remain part of the union but if they should be their own countries...

 filbert wrote:
I personally hope the Scots do bugger off. I'm sick of all the whinging about how oppressed they are as part of the union.

What was that number one rule again, Mr Moderator? Oh but of course, if you're just slagging off the Jockos, who cares, eh?

 Wolfstan wrote:
I'm looking forward to Salmond's face when the Orkneys put up the two fingers and say they separating from Scotland. Bang go the oil rights! (apparently Mr Salmond thinks that idea is us English stirring it up!!) Hmm, I wonder what the distance is from Edinburgh to the Orkneys? Do you think they may have the same view of Edinburgh as Edinburgh has about London?

*sigh* Really? This again?

First, the Scottish Government has already signed an agreement with the various Island Councils to grant them substantial devolution under an independent regime, and there's no evidence I've yet seen that suggests they aren't happy enough with that deal. Just because a couple of -stirring Lib Dem arch-Unionists have dusted off this positively Jurassic scare story(it first appeared way back in the mists of time around the 1979 referendum, and put in a cameo appearance at the devolution referendum as well, along with 90% of the rest of Better Together's playbook) doesn't mean its any more likely than the one where they say they'll annex Faslane, or our mobile phones will cost more, or we won't get Doctor Who

One of the big attractions of independence for a lot of us, Islanders included I would assume, is the possibility we can move to a more European notion of "local democracy", based on subsidiarity, with powers placed as close to the people they affect as is reasonably possible. The goal here isn't just to swap Westminster for Holyrood, it's to completely transform our democracy.

Second, in the incredibly unlikely even the whole "Island Secession" shtick isn't just Tavish Scott and Alastair Carmichael being massive bell-ends as usual, anyone who believes they'll be walking away with all the oil is in for a shock; dependencies of one nation state inside the Exclusive Economic Zone of another nation state don't get full national maritime borders.

Third, I hate to break it to you chaps, but independence is not dependent on oil. It would allow us to achieve our goals sooner than otherwise, and long term an oil fund or a green investment bank would be useful to have, but Scotland raises 99% of the UK per capita average in tax revenues before you even think about oil.

Next? I've debated Scottish independence with Euan McColm("the Sarah Palin of Unionists" as I call him) on twitter, you lot are tame by comparison

So the "arch-unionist meda" is saying that only a passionate minority wants independence for scotland.

And what have we seen in this thread?

 Corpsesarefun wrote:
So the "arch-unionist meda" is saying that only a passionate minority wants independence for scotland.
And what have we seen in this thread?

Apprantly a lot of English posters and a few lost Americans.

Americans like to eat out of giant bowls! We're the best...AROUND. No ones going to eh-ver keep us down!

 Yodhrin wrote:


The Yes vote has been steady in all the polling for nearly a year, in spite of a constant barrage of negativity and fearmongering from Better Together(We'll annex Faslane! We'll bomb Edinburgh Airport! You won't get Doctor Who or Eastenders! ....<snip>

Salmond ministry of truth been working overtime.

Yes vote has been steady indeed but at about 25%-30%, which means they would lost to the Better Together campaign as the No vote polls about 40%-45% with consistency.

I still think that the Yes will prevail but only because Salmond likely wont leave it to chance. He has tried all legal means of slanting the ballot, for example lowering voting age for the first time in the our history to take personal advantage of youth, which is far more easily easy radicalised by nationalistic fervour. However I don't think he will stop there.

Blair opened the doors for ballot stuffing and missing votes, it happens with alarming frequency and is difficult to stop. With the Scottish assembly running the election and Salmond running the Scottish assembly I am filled with healthy scepticism (as opposed to fearmongering) that Scots will wake up on polling day to missing ballot papers in Edinburgh and a (metaphorical) 101% turnout in Glasgow.

It has been said by many Scots that an honest Yes vote might well occur if Salmond was not in charge



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Yodhrin wrote:


First, the Scottish Government has already signed an agreement with the various Island Councils to grant them substantial devolution under an independent regime, and there's no evidence I've yet seen that suggests they aren't happy enough with that deal. Just because a couple of -stirring Lib Dem arch-Unionists have dusted off this positively Jurassic scare story(it first appeared way back in the mists of time around the 1979 referendum, and put in a cameo appearance at the devolution referendum as well, along with 90% of the rest of Better Together's playbook) doesn't mean its any more likely than the one where they say they'll annex Faslane, or our mobile phones will cost more, or we won't get Doctor Who

One of the big attractions of independence for a lot of us, Islanders included I would assume, is the possibility we can move to a more European notion of "local democracy", based on subsidiarity, with powers placed as close to the people they affect as is reasonably possible. The goal here isn't just to swap Westminster for Holyrood, it's to completely transform our democracy.

Second, in the incredibly unlikely even the whole "Island Secession" shtick isn't just Tavish Scott and Alastair Carmichael being massive bell-ends as usual, anyone who believes they'll be walking away with all the oil is in for a shock; dependencies of one nation state inside the Exclusive Economic Zone of another nation state don't get full national maritime borders.

Third, I hate to break it to you chaps, but independence is not dependent on oil. It would allow us to achieve our goals sooner than otherwise, and long term an oil fund or a green investment bank would be useful to have, but Scotland raises 99% of the UK per capita average in tax revenues before you even think about oil.

Next? I've debated Scottish independence with Euan McColm("the Sarah Palin of Unionists" as I call him) on twitter, you lot are tame by comparison

So what you are saying is the Scots should be 'free' of Westminster but the Islanders will have to toe the line with Edinburgh.

Also the substantial devolution promise is not as well received in the Orkneys and Shetlands as you like to imply and not just because the islanders have been talking to them Liberal Democrats (you make it sound as if they cant think for themselves). This is not unreasonable sceptisim on thier part, the promises come from an unreliable source. 'Be absorbed, don't make waves, let Holyrood have all the oil and we promise jam tomorrow. Signed Alex' Yeah right.

Also Sheltands are Orkeneys arent a dependency, they are a part of the Union. They have their own MP's that vote in Westminster and one of them has as much entitlement to become a Minister or even Prime Minister as any other MP. If you are taught to think of them as dependencies then it betrays your own factions intentions. Future colonies of Salmondia.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:


The Yes vote has been steady in all the polling for nearly a year, in spite of a constant barrage of negativity and fearmongering from Better Together(We'll annex Faslane! We'll bomb Edinburgh Airport! You won't get Doctor Who or Eastenders! ....<snip>

Salmond ministry of truth been working overtime.

Yes vote has been steady indeed but at about 25%-30%, which means they would lost to the Better Together campaign as the No vote polls about 40%-45% with consistency.

I still think that the Yes will prevail but only because Salmond likely wont leave it to chance. He has tried all legal means of slanting the ballot, for example lowering voting age for the first time in the our history to take personal advantage of youth, which is far more easily easy radicalised by nationalistic fervour. However I don't think he will stop there.

Blair opened the doors for ballot stuffing and missing votes, it happens with alarming frequency and is difficult to stop. With the Scottish assembly running the election and Salmond running the Scottish assembly I am filled with healthy scepticism (as opposed to fearmongering) that Scots will wake up on polling day to missing ballot papers in Edinburgh and a (metaphorical) 101% turnout in Glasgow.

It has been said by many Scots that an honest Yes vote might well occur if Salmond was not in charge.

Oh get a grip.

Seriously, you sound like one of those Tea Party psychos claiming Obama's gunna dun dur steal ur gunz un put us in FEMA cayumps.

I did enjoy your selective quoting though, even more brazen than usual in that you stopped the quote literally right before it completely refuted the entire point you were trying to make(Yes steady, No falling, Undecided rising - even Ipsos MORI, which consistently shows the largest No vote, has been recording the same trend). You'll note I already dealt with the fallacious argument that enlarging the franchise to include 16 and 17 year olds is a ploy to increase the Yes vote, so how about you list some of the other ways Salmond has been trying to "slant the ballot"? I mean come on, seriously, I know some people love to wallow in their vacant tribal hatred of the SNP, personified by Alex "antichrist" Salmond, but are you seriously going to try and convince people that he's going to personally rig the referendum?

 Yodhrin wrote:


First, the Scottish Government has already signed an agreement with the various Island Councils to grant them substantial devolution under an independent regime, and there's no evidence I've yet seen that suggests they aren't happy enough with that deal. Just because a couple of -stirring Lib Dem arch-Unionists have dusted off this positively Jurassic scare story(it first appeared way back in the mists of time around the 1979 referendum, and put in a cameo appearance at the devolution referendum as well, along with 90% of the rest of Better Together's playbook) doesn't mean its any more likely than the one where they say they'll annex Faslane, or our mobile phones will cost more, or we won't get Doctor Who

One of the big attractions of independence for a lot of us, Islanders included I would assume, is the possibility we can move to a more European notion of "local democracy", based on subsidiarity, with powers placed as close to the people they affect as is reasonably possible. The goal here isn't just to swap Westminster for Holyrood, it's to completely transform our democracy.

Second, in the incredibly unlikely even the whole "Island Secession" shtick isn't just Tavish Scott and Alastair Carmichael being massive bell-ends as usual, anyone who believes they'll be walking away with all the oil is in for a shock; dependencies of one nation state inside the Exclusive Economic Zone of another nation state don't get full national maritime borders.

Third, I hate to break it to you chaps, but independence is not dependent on oil. It would allow us to achieve our goals sooner than otherwise, and long term an oil fund or a green investment bank would be useful to have, but Scotland raises 99% of the UK per capita average in tax revenues before you even think about oil.

Next? I've debated Scottish independence with Euan McColm("the Sarah Palin of Unionists" as I call him) on twitter, you lot are tame by comparison

So what you are saying is the Scots should be 'free' of Westminster but the Islanders will have to toe the line with Edinburgh.

Also the substantial devolution promise is not as well received in the Orkneys and Shetlands as you like to imply and not just because the islanders have been talking to them Liberal Democrats (you make it sound as if they cant think for themselves). This is not unreasonable sceptisim on thier part, the promises come from an unreliable source. 'Be absorbed, don't make waves, let Holyrood have all the oil and we promise jam tomorrow. Signed Alex' Yeah right.

Also Sheltands are Orkeneys arent a dependency, they are a part of the Union. They have their own MP's that vote in Westminster and one of them has as much entitlement to become a Minister or even Prime Minister as any other MP. If you are taught to think of them as dependencies then it betrays your own factions intentions. Future colonies of Salmondia.

This is just so blatantly dishonest and disingenuous I don't know where to begin. No wait, actually I do, with your very first line, in which you try to claim that "what [I am] saying" is exactly the opposite of what I'm saying. I trust you have evidence that the Islanders are unhappy with the proposed settlement...a poll? Anything at all? Aye thought not. The fact you'll seriously use the "jam tomorrow" phrase in reference to the Scottish Government, considering its origin, makes me suspect you're just trolling at this point. I mean really, all you're missing is "Scottish independence is just about anti-English racism" and you'd have the full set.

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.

Out of interest, what do you think "my faction" is? I'm intrigued. Oh, and out of interest, what's your "faction"? I have an idea, but unlike yourself, I try not to jump to conclusions about people based on my own prejudices and selective quotations of their argument.



As an aside, it really is interesting how aggressively dismissive certain people are of the concept of Scottish self-determination. I mean, even if you disagree with it, we're still talking about something that, even in the most No vote-friendly polling, is supported by at least a quarter of the population, and it is part of the policy platform of the political party which won a majority at the last Scottish elections under a system of proportional representation(unlike the archaic first past the post system of voting in use at Westminster). I mean really, people must think we're a nation of idiots, afterall we're apparently incapable of governing ourselves successfully and have somehow managed to elect a secret dictator that nobody's noticed is a dictator yet(apart from his political opponents).

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-yes-support-up-3-poll-1-3226485

SUPPORT for Scottish independence has risen for the first time in nearly a year, according to a new poll published last night, offering evidence that the contest is getting closer in the run-up to next autumn’s historic vote.

The Ipsos-Mori poll registered a rise in support of three percentage points, with a total of 34 per cent of those who are certain to vote choosing the Yes side.

Backing for Scotland remaining in the UK was still the most popular option, but support had dropped two points since September to 57 per cent. A further 10 per cent of those certain to vote had yet to decide.

The poll – the first since the Scottish Government launched its white paper on independence two weeks ago – finds that, for the first time, there are more people in the most deprived parts of Scotland who support independence than there are who oppose it. Some 45 per cent back leaving the UK, with 42 per cent supporting the status quo.

That is in marked contrast to the country’s better-off areas, where the No side is ahead by

68 per cent to 26 per cent.

However, the poll found that just over half of all voters said the white paper would make no difference to their vote. While 18 per cent said it would make them more likely to vote Yes, 20 per cent said they were now more likely to vote No.

The poll also found that while the gender gap is still wide, it is narrowing. Among women, 61 per cent said they would vote No, against 64 per cent in September’s Ipsos-Mori poll. And

52 per cent of men said they would be voting No, down from 54 per cent in September.

A spokesman for the pro-independence campaign, Yes Scotland said: “This poll, like a number of others, shows an ­increase in those intending to vote Yes. But from our own ongoing research, we believe that the polls in general have yet to catch up with the campaign.”

Blair McDougall, of the Better Together campaign, said: “It is ­astonishing that, according to this poll, the SNP white paper has put-off more voters than it has attracted.”

 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.....

So... If I'm understanding all this correctly... The UK (more precisely England) will be getting its own Canada if and when the Scots split off?

Its about damned time!

No really, Canada is a place with a stable economy and a long term resource base.

 Orlanth wrote:
No really, Canada is a place with a stable economy and a long term resource base.

And a population of more than 6.

Scotland has more than enough population for a viable nation state, i'll wont deny them that.

I didn't mean for it to be taken literally, it was meant to be an insult... to who I'm not really sure, but thats besides the point

 Orlanth wrote:
Scotland has more than enough population for a viable nation state, i'll wont deny them that.

Not if they want to spend all that extra money on vote buying polici... erm... I mean "distinguishing Scotland from the rest of the UK"

chaos0xomega wrote:
So... If I'm understanding all this correctly... The UK (more precisely England) will be getting its own Canada if and when the Scots split off?

Its about damned time!

We had our own Canada...

It was called Canada.

Canada is ours now, Scotland can be your new Canada.

Can Scotland please take back Gordon Brown and crown him King of Scotland?

He did enough damage to England as its leader, it's only fair that Scotland should have to put up with its finest export as well for a good decade or so.

Give them all our political parties; I'm sure they'd like a few "words" with some of them.

Once that's done we can get to voting in Stephen Fry as Prime Minister.

"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.

 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.....

DISCLAIMER: I don't care either way, but it is interesting

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?

 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.

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.

To be fair it is only a matter of time until they (re)join the Empire...

 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.

 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.