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.

 Orlanth wrote:

 angelofvengeance wrote:
The best thing about Scotland going it alone- there'd never be another Labour Party government again :-). A huge majority of their seats in Parliament are Scottish. That and I'd probably never see Alastair Darling's ridiculous black eyebrow/white hair combo again lol.

I am not so sure, New Labour is a party of the middle classes, and the majority of the working class in northern counties wont vote Tory on principle.

I guess- UKIP seems to be rising quite quickly. In my area, a lot of folks who voted Labour have changed over to UKIP.

Lefties who aren't xenophobic UKIPers should move to Scotland should it become independent. Leave the righties to the austerity-ridden, "White Britain"-wannabe mess that they voted for themselves aha.

Blackhoof wrote:
Lefties who aren't xenophobic UKIPers should move to Scotland should it become independent. Leave the righties to the austerity-ridden, "White Britain"-wannabe mess that they voted for themselves aha.

Thats rather juvenile...

 angelofvengeance wrote:
I guess- UKIP seems to be rising quite quickly. In my area, a lot of folks who voted Labour have changed over to UKIP.

You were saying, Blackhoof?

Yeah, those would be the lefties who ARE xenophobes believing whatever crap UKIP feeds them about immigration and immigrants. The ones who aren't presumably stuck with Labour.

Blackhoof wrote:
Lefties who aren't xenophobic UKIPers should move to Scotland should it become independent. Leave the righties to the austerity-ridden, "White Britain"-wannabe mess that they voted for themselves aha.

White Britain? Would you care to explain that remark a bit more? I'm sure that everyone on here would be fascinated to hear the reasoning behind 'non-left wing' being the same as 'White Britain' and what 'White Britain' would entail exactly.

UKIP is still a protest vote for a lot of people against the big 2... And lib dem as well I guess, not that I think they will get into power again in the next 20 years

And they did well in the European votes because a lot of people see it as a vote in which they can stick it to the ruling parties without any comeback on them... Plus there are a lot of people who want to change the relationship with Europe and don't realise that UKIP are the least likely party to actually do anything on that score.

Blackhoof wrote:
Yeah, those would be the lefties who ARE xenophobes believing whatever crap UKIP feeds them about immigration and immigrants. The ones who aren't presumably stuck with Labour.

Yes... Xenophobic indeed.



UKIP's raison d'être is to leave the European Union. The majority of immigration to the UK is from other European Union countries. Europe is mostly White. Not brown, not black. White.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
UKIP is still a protest vote for a lot of people against the big 2... And lib dem as well I guess, not that I think they will get into power again in the next 20 years

And they did well in the European votes because a lot of people see it as a vote in which they can stick it to the ruling parties without any comeback on them... Plus there are a lot of people who want to change the relationship with Europe and don't realise that UKIP are the least likely party to actually do anything on that score.

On the contrary. The rise in support for UKIP has forced the issue of an EU referendum onto the political agenda.

None of the 3 main parties cared about this. They're all pro-EU, all were happy with the status quo in the relationship with the EU. David Cameron himself has made clear that in the event of a referendum on a British exit from the EU, he'll be campaigning to stay in. Its only now that UKIP is threatening to undermine support for the other parties in key constituencies that they've been forced to address the issues and appeal to voters who really don't like the EU.

The way I see it, I treat UKIP as a pressure group. I know they'll never have a significant number of MP's, hell they'll be extremely lucky if they even get Douglas Carswell re-elected as a UKIP MP. But voting for UKIP forces anti-EU sentiment onto the political agenda, and puts pressure on the Conservatives and Labour (the Tories most of all) to take action. I will vote UKIP until the Tories or whoever, finally pull a finger out and claw back powers from the EU or pull us out of the EU altogether.


Voting for the three pro-EU mainstream parties is a vote for the status quo.

I more meant the direct activities of UKIP MEP's in Europe. Rather than working for change, they either do nothing, or vote against everything just because it was proposed by the EU.

If the Scots vote NO. what will the yes campaigns plan be?

I haven't really heard anything.

My head wants us to stay. My heart wants us to go. My throat is inbetween and I have a cold, so the only logical choice is to cough phlegm all over the ballot paper and let everyone else sort it out.

I'm tired of hearing about bullying every single time someone argues for the Union. I'm tired of hearing about racism and xenophobia when someone argues for separation. I'm tired of no one in Westminster caring until a poll showed that the Yes/No vote was neck and neck, and then politicians came crawling out the woodwork to save their own skins when it wasn't their problem two weeks ago. I'm tired of threats of nationalising businesses, promises of devo-max and then threats that it won't happen.

I think I'll go live on the moon and become a wizard.

I think we have seen the tipping point. I'm sure he doesn't represent the views of all, or probably even most, of the Yes camp, but this seems like it will be catastrophically damaging.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29190302

On Friday, following interventions by some banks, retailers and other businesses ahead of the 18 September referendum, Mr Sillars accused them of "subverting Scotland's democratic process" and called for oil firm BP to be nationalised after independence.

He added: "This referendum is about power, and when we get a 'Yes' majority we will use that power for a day of reckoning with BP and the banks."

I suspect Jim Sillars may have said something so damaging with these threats, however much he is now back peddling or people distance themselves from it, the it will turn the tide. It just feels like one of those statements that ruins a political life. On top of that the Yes camp can no longer make accusations of bullying.

As a perhaps not so neutral outside observer, I end up falling on the Yes side after intense skepticism.

The reasons?
1. It's pretty obvious that the party leaders were totally scornful of the issue until the polls went the "wrong" way and they started promising the moon and stars. I do not respect that.
2. The tone of the debate, and the tone from English people that I've been speaking to, is that the Scots are being emotional and stupid. I find that incredibly patronizing. There is also a heavy focus on economic matters. I think it is perfectly possible for a pretty large chunk of the Yes voters to go into the referendum with little emotion and a calm acceptance that they may trade some economic prosperity for increased self determination and freedom from the political control of their much larger neighbour.
3. The No campaign has failed to articulate any reason for remaining together apart from fear. There is some talk of "Britishness", but this is almost meaningless.
4. As it stands, the UK is essentially London+Suburbs and Everywhere Else. This is pretty unhealthy for a country of it's size and population, and I can really understand the desire to break away from it.

However, despite my leanings, I think the referendum will fail. What will be really interesting is if the party leaders then hold to their promises for further devolution. I suspect not, and that the independence issue will flare up again.

From a more self interested perspective, I am really curious about what will happen in the North of Ireland if there is a Yes vote. We've seen that the Orange Order, which is not on my list of favorite organisations, is pro No (big shock, Ulster says No). I wonder how unionism would react to Scotland breaking away, especially given the North's close historical ties with Scotland?

 Da Boss wrote:
As a perhaps not so neutral outside observer, I end up falling on the Yes side after intense skepticism.

The reasons?
1. It's pretty obvious that the party leaders were totally scornful of the issue until the polls went the "wrong" way and they started promising the moon and stars. I do not respect that.
2. The tone of the debate, and the tone from English people that I've been speaking to, is that the Scots are being emotional and stupid. I find that incredibly patronizing. There is also a heavy focus on economic matters. I think it is perfectly possible for a pretty large chunk of the Yes voters to go into the referendum with little emotion and a calm acceptance that they may trade some economic prosperity for increased self determination and freedom from the political control of their much larger neighbour.
3. The No campaign has failed to articulate any reason for remaining together apart from fear. There is some talk of "Britishness", but this is almost meaningless.
4. As it stands, the UK is essentially London+Suburbs and Everywhere Else. This is pretty unhealthy for a country of it's size and population, and I can really understand the desire to break away from it.

However, despite my leanings, I think the referendum will fail. What will be really interesting is if the party leaders then hold to their promises for further devolution. I suspect not, and that the independence issue will flare up again.

From a more self interested perspective, I am really curious about what will happen in the North of Ireland if there is a Yes vote. We've seen that the Orange Order, which is not on my list of favorite organisations, is pro No (big shock, Ulster says No). I wonder how unionism would react to Scotland breaking away, especially given the North's close historical ties with Scotland?

1. It's pretty obvious that the party leaders were totally scornful of the issue until the polls went the "wrong" way and they started promising the moon and stars. I do not respect that.

To be fair Cameron has stayed out of it because Tories are about as popular as Ebola in Scotland, it was shrewd. Devo max promises materialised late because the cross parties couldnt decide what to offer. It was a standard farce but I dont think it was 'scornful' Westminster has been ta,ing this seriously from day one.

2. The tone of the debate, and the tone from English people that I've been speaking to, is that the Scots are being emotional and stupid. I find that incredibly patronizing.

There is also a heavy focus on economic matters.

Economic matters are key as British society is rather shallow and has been socially engineered that way.
Due to the large dis-emphasis on Britishness under the New Labour years in favour of New Britain the no camapign is fighting entrenched blairite dogma at the same time. Blair trod on Brtiishness and Englishness as part of his new society. He didnt tread on Scottishness or the Welsh or Northerrn Ireland because of divide and rule. Much of the problems stem from this type of cultural inteferference designed to create a permanent Labour government. It would have worked except for the illega Gulf War which Blair could not spin our of.

I think it is perfectly possible for a pretty large chunk of the Yes voters to go into the referendum with little emotion and a calm acceptance that they may trade some economic prosperity for increased self determination and freedom from the political control of their much larger neighbour.

Scots have more self determination than the English actually, with the Barnett formula, the West Lothian question, a separate parliament and a disproportionate percentage of MP's per capita. Also the Union is not a colonial situation, Scots can end up in charge, and as we have seen they sometimes do as with Gordon Brown.

3. The No campaign has failed to articulate any reason for remaining together apart from fear. There is some talk of "Britishness", but this is almost meaningless.

What does being German mean to you? Britishness is of great value, the Uk has done quite a lot actually, and that is and understatement. Scotland achieved nothing of global consequence prior to the Union.
I hear you though, Britishness was undervalued by design in recent decades in favour of New Britain, multi-cultuiralism and disestablishmentarianism. This was engineered in an attempt top per-petualise progressive politics and disenfranchise the centre right.

4. As it stands, the UK is essentially London+Suburbs and Everywhere Else. This is pretty unhealthy for a country of it's size and population, and I can really understand the desire to break away from it.

This point I do not argue against. And the Home Counties attitude is definately 'im alright jack'. Still without being plugged into London Scotland loses a lot of what it has got.

However, despite my leanings, I think the referendum will fail.

On balance I think so to. Mainly because we hear from the on the streets vocal people, the majority of the quiet vote is for 'No'.
However I would not put it past Salmond to try and rig the election.

What will be really interesting is if the party leaders then hold to their promises for further devolution. I suspect not, and that the independence issue will flare up again.

There will be a ticking clock apparently and I do think the devolution will occur. However a no vote will not stop the SNP even though its supposed to be vote once and once only.
Funny that they wont gove Scotland a vote to apply to rejoin the Union, when (not if) Scots find that 'Project Fear' was in fact 'Project Tell the Truth'.

Salmond has lied through his teeth on the pound, europe and the monarchy. He is also intensely anti-English and the post referendum negotiations will get ugly quickly, especially as things unravel both sides of the border.

From a more self interested perspective, I am really curious about what will happen in the North of Ireland if there is a Yes vote. We've seen that the Orange Order, which is not on my list of favorite organisations, is pro No (big shock, Ulster says No). I wonder how unionism would react to Scotland breaking away, especially given the North's close historical ties with Scotland?

A return to terrorism is likely. The hardcore Unionists will not give up, ever. They are very entrenched but Scottish independence will kick off the Nationalists calling for Union with Eire.
Wales will also see unrest.

If you honestly think Scotland didn't do anything of note internationally prior to the Union you really need to get off Dakka and read up on what nationality trained the Swedish army of. Gustavus Adolphus during the 30-years war. You know, the war that more or less gave birth to the modern nation-state following the peace of Westphalia.

I've always been suspicious of possible attempts to rig the vote by Westminster, although on balance, Salmond could try it too, I hope nothing of this sort happens.

I think it could really go either way. I'll be voting yes because we need more control over our own affairs, yes it is true there is a lot of devolved power in Scotland at the present and I think England needs more control over its own destiny. My problem is regardless of the devolved power, Westminster still controls the purse strings so any real change is difficult.

I also don't think spending large amounts of money on Trident is necessary for Scotland.

The EU is a sticky issue for me, because I sometimes question ditching the union, but staying in another one.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
If the Scots vote NO. what will the yes campaigns plan be?

I haven't really heard anything.

The Yes campaign still has the Scottish Parliament which is already getting enhanced powers and will get more.

Salmond wanted so-called "demo max" on the referendum ballot at the beginning. It was refused, but he will get some version of it whichever way the voting goes. There was a theory that Salmond never really wanted independence, because true independence genuinely does mean losing a lot of the security blanket of being in a larger, richer nation -- the use of the GBP, for example. That is an important reason I am so suspicious about Salmon's insistence that monetary union will happen.

As for BBC-Nick-Robinson-Gate, the whole thing is obviously complete bollocks. Both the UK government and public companies like the banks have a duty to argue against independence if they believe it will threaten their interests. For Salomnd to say it is intimidation is an obvious attempt to deflect the damage with an appeal to emotion.

In fairness, the issue will be decided mainly on emotion because relatively little hard facts can be made out about it all.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
If you honestly think Scotland didn't do anything of note internationally prior to the Union you really need to get off Dakka and read up on what nationality trained the Swedish army of. Gustavus Adolphus during the 30-years war. You know, the war that more or less gave birth to the modern nation-state following the peace of Westphalia.

They didn't train them, 90% of his forces were mercenaries, of which a large proportion were Scots. Swedish troops were already highly trained and made up the core of Gustav's army.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
If you honestly think Scotland didn't do anything of note internationally prior to the Union you really need to get off Dakka and read up on what nationality trained the Swedish army of. Gustavus Adolphus during the 30-years war. You know, the war that more or less gave birth to the modern nation-state following the peace of Westphalia.

Swedish pike worked well, and the Scots fought as elite troops of the French kings also. But that was Sweden and France, not Scotland. Scottish pike came south of the border many times and met English billmen, the result was a slaughter of Scots.
AScottish soldiers also did great work when in the Union, fighting for the British army, as again the French found out.

I don't want to get into this pissing context, fact remains Scotland was nothing much prior to the Union, the French considered them useful for nuisance value in their wars against England, however only rarely did the Scots make much headway in invading or raiding England, and not for lack of trying.

Scotland can be something now, but the fact remains that the Union made Scotland what it is and that Scottish identity is not isolated from Britishness, Britishness completes Scottish identity and much of that identity came from time within the Union. No greater example can be found in the industrial revolution which married developments in Scottish engineering with English advances in merchandising and management that invented the modern corporation.

Here is an excellent article on the finances of the newly independent Scotland by Professor Wren-Lewis. Please bear in mind that it does not merely present Wren-Lewis' own views, but also summarises the opinion of the Institute of Fiscal Studies, and impartial international organisation.

Tl;dr: Experts think that independence would be economically damaging to Scotland.

I'm often confused by the whole Scottish and British identity thing. When I'm abroad if anyone asks I tell them I'm Scottish, but I don't get misty eyed over Bannockburn or the shipbuilding prowess of the Clyde of yore. I don't think I've ever identified as British, and again whilst I'm aware of the achievements of a united England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and I can have respect for them, again I don't pause and reflect on our combined history as aside from obvious events it doesn't affect my day to day life or identity.

Regardless of how much Scotland was a gnat on the world stage until the union, and how much the United Kingdom has achieved as a whole both sides of this campaign, and plenty of people in general trot out this sentiment and it's bizarre. It's such an ephemeral thing that only appears when we have to wave flags. Hopefully the last four days of this campaign contain factual content to back up the crazy promises both sides are throwing around.

 Crimson wrote:
Here is an excellent article on the finances of the newly independent Scotland by Professor Wren-Lewis. Please bear in mind that it does not merely present Wren-Lewis' own views, but also summarises the opinion of the Institute of Fiscal Studies, and impartial international organisation.

Tl;dr: Experts think that independence would be economically damaging to Scotland.

There are opposing views from academics, however some views have been paid for and are suspect. Academia doesnt bring in wealth normally, so events like this are causes to hire an academic to back what you want by fiding reasons to do so.
I mention this out of fairness as I think this logic should be applied to both Yes and No camps.

It is a common enough ploy that in evironmentali issues (where its more commonly used) its known as greenwashing. Most comments are along the lines of, we can have more factories spewing gasses because greenhouse gasses wont have a negative effect.

The most telling indicator of questionable thinking from known academics I could se was mentiioned on this thread, a Noble prize winning economist who said that currency union was a good idea, because it worked for panama (paraphrase) yet panama doesn't have currency union, it piggybacks on the dollar.

All this being said Scotland may well do ok, but under Salmond it wont. Especially if this talk to nationalise all the industties that helped the Tories is realised. Nationalise BP, you serious? The SNP just rang the panic bell for every major industry in Scotland: get out before the loons take your assets away.

If Scotland secedes, who keeps the oil reserves? What economy do they have? Is "damp" an actual color?

We keep the chip pan oil reserves for sure. I think damp needs more marketing, Winsor and Newton may want a Drab Scottish Highland colour in their artists range.

I meant North Sea.

Now with their exciting new "Damp" winter line...

Depends on how far North you go? The maritime boundary is pretty mental but Scotland still seems to get most of the Oil fields while the UK gets most of the gas. Might be wrong on that.




Looking forward to the vote. GREASE ME UP.

Don't see why UK would permit that.

Something to think of it if Scotland does become independent do we keep our porn? Remember the Tories were trying to pass that law to block "adult content" on the internet (seriously did that thing pass or not? I have a 1Tb external drive on standby)? Yeah, well, in that case would Scotland be like New Amsterdam to our southern friends?

 Frazzled wrote:
Don't see why UK would permit that.

What are they going to do, declare war?

 Da Boss wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Don't see why UK would permit that.

What are they going to do, declare war?

No need. We'll just say no to a currency union and giggle as Salmond is forced to choose between Sterlingisation and the Euro.

Nah we'll use the Franc. Not like the French are using it anymore, plus there's purdy ladies on the coins.