I've only been there once and thought it was a ghastly place full of toothless drunks and those that weren't drunk were grasping toothless beings determined to fleece an innocent Englishman like me. And it poured with rain the whole week in August I was there. Hideous.
So I guess you're hoping they vote yes then !
Lol, sounds like you've been to Paisley in Glasgow. Try Inverness next time, I had a great time up their. As for rain, in my experience it rains non stop from Manchester upwards
What have you got against the toothless? Do you know the prices the mostly privatised dental services charge now? Though, in Scotland that probably still have NHS dentists, given the culture of greater equality and fairness than in England there- and their health system still seems to be pretty good.
Well, I noticed the difference when I moved back to England from Glasgow - where my wife is from-ie it's a lot worse here if you're ill or old or disabled.
There are rich and poor areas in the west of Scotland just like anywhere else, though Glasgow does have some of the worst poverty and unemployment in Europe, as well as well off fashionable areas.
That was Stamford Bridge
There are deprived and wealthy area's in Scotland thr same as England. My inlaws who live in Edinburgh are dead against independence, where as my husband who lives down south is changing now towards a yes vote, as he feels it would be a more equal society on Scotland and plans to move back eventually. I personally think we should stay united as one country.
What I am worried about is if it works out a 51% to 49% Yes vote, then you will have a seperate country formed with only half the population wanting it.
Quote from: win-dup on September 09, 2014, 09:22:05 AM
I've only been there once and thought it was a ghastly place full of toothless drunks and those that weren't drunk were grasping toothless beings determined to fleece an innocent Englishman like me. And it poured with rain the whole week in August I was there. Hideous.
".....innocent Englishman"...... As your name suggests, a good wind up.
Quote from: win-dup on September 09, 2014, 09:22:05 AM
I've only been there once and thought it was a ghastly place full of toothless drunks and those that weren't drunk were grasping toothless beings determined to fleece an innocent Englishman like me. And it poured with rain the whole week in August I was there. Hideous.
I think you have visited the scottish red light district where all the good looking scottish women hang out..!!
However much we may want Scotland to get lost -- a NO vote would decimate the UK, weaken the £-Pound, completely muck up our economy, eradicate most of our defence systems, probably reduce our standing in the world so much we could lose our security council standing at the UN, reduce our power in football and our ruling vote on all things FIFA, etc etc
Quote from: Berserker on September 09, 2014, 10:31:13 AM
There are deprived and wealthy area's in Scotland thr same as England. My inlaws who live in Edinburgh are dead against independence, where as my husband who lives down south is changing now towards a yes vote, as he feels it would be a more equal society on Scotland and plans to move back eventually. I personally think we should stay united as one country.
What I am worried about is if it works out a 51% to 49% Yes vote, then you will have a seperate country formed with only half the population wanting it.
I'm sure we in England would be better off economically (eventually at least, once we've repatriated the necessary infrastructure) but we'd lose some political clout. It would be interesting to see what they do on border controls if it's a "yes". If Scotland goes independent and is outside the EU until they negotiate re-admittance then there'll have to be controls. On the other hand, as and when they're re-admitted, all new members have to join the Schengen agreement so we'd need controls in that case anyway - as with France.
Either way, I can't see it suiting Scotland.
It's head v. heart. If we in England were offered independence my heart would want it but my head would overrule. We are better off together and separation would cost Scotland more in my view.
I love Scotland and used to go on holidays to the castles and countryside and enjoyed it both as a kid and as an adult. We used to buy the usual tat and must admit have still kept badges and tartan of my mums maiden name.
I think any further level of bureaucracy just makes money for the system running it and not for the people. But as I was always proud to be British, the less the other countries in the UK want to be British, the more English I become.
I have no idea how the change, if it happens will effect us in England. All I do know is those implementing it will make money out of it while others will suffer.
Its going to fail we tried it once with Hadrian's wall .There still keep coming :022:
The real down side is that as separate entities we have less chance of leaving (and making a success of leaving) that dreadful EU with its bureaucracy and top heavy management, and where they have to get 20 odd nations to agree before the slightest action.
"Divide and rule" ...they must be laughing over there, because they can set the rules for us to reapply as individuals.....(as we probably will...given how like lemmings that our politicians are).
Ooops politics. Sorry !
I'm all for the Yes vote. If they become independent and outside of the EU we can buy Duty Free whiskey and Irn Bru :005:
I suggest you try the west Highlands then.
092.gif
You have to admit that Salmond is wiping the floor with our lot.
The funny thing is, the Tories, who are all for unionism, win either way. A No vote keeps ths Scots in the union, a Yes vote makes it all but impossible for Labour to win any general election for the forseeable future as England always votes in more Conservative MPs than any other party.
By the by, why weren't we given a vote as to whether we wanted to let them stay in the UK? That might have made interesting reading.
Quote from: Peabody on September 09, 2014, 01:14:22 PM
You have to admit that Salmond is wiping the floor with our lot.
He's a farce. Just a yes PR man. Coming to the front of the audience talking about homeless people and the disabled and offering money when the reality is, it might not be there so cuts could be forced. At no point did he outline plan B scenarios. I honestly don't mind if the Scots wish to leave as thats there choice but I fear for them if they do.
Quote from: Peabody on September 09, 2014, 01:14:22 PM
You have to admit that Salmond is wiping the floor with our lot.
I have a neutral view on the whole referendum, as the result will have little to no effect on my daily life, living in the RoI. The 'No' campaign and it's complete lack of organisation and drive has been remarkably poor. Personally, I suspect that the 'No' side will win out, as some Scottish people are afraid to voice their opposition to independence for fear of being branded as unpatriotic.
IF the 'Yes' side pulls through, it will be by a slender majority. The Scots will be in for one rocky ride over the next few years and I suspect that the SNP will feel the full force of a massive backlash from the public, when all the rainbows and sunshine that they promised don't come to fruition. I am not convinced that Salmond has a genuine economic road-map for an independent Scotland. Alas, Alastair Darling failed to focus in on that simple fact during the debates.
I think that even the Tories (inc Cameron) have suddenly realised that although Labour will probably be finished (40 seats gone), the impact on the UK and the British people will be overridingly catastrophic - and for cynical politicians, that is really saying something - the UK will be finished as a world political and economic power (or what it has left anyway these days)
Quote from: Baszab on September 09, 2014, 01:38:51 PM
I think that even the Tories (inc Cameron) have suddenly realised that although Labour will probably be finished (40 seats gone), the impact on the UK and the British people will be overridingly catastrophic - and for cynical politicians, that is really saying something - the UK will be finished as a world political and economic power (or what it has left anyway these days)
That could be his legacy as PM. I'd say he is one worried man at this moment in time.
Quote from: Peabody on September 09, 2014, 01:14:22 PM
You have to admit that Salmond is wiping the floor with our lot.
yes if by wiping the floor you mean looking silly, he has no plan for a currency, has been told they can not join the eu and he wants to join nato but abolish nukes. the mind boggles
Scotland leaving would be a disaster for everyone involved long term. My only hope is that they see sense on the day of the vote.
Quote from: MJG on September 09, 2014, 02:16:29 PM
Scotland leaving would be a disaster for everyone involved long term. My only hope is that they see sense on the day of the vote.
i dont think it will be that bad. we will gain jobs when the big companies move back down south
If they become an independent country, there is a chance that the economy in parts of England nearer the border would improve - I am thinking mainly of the North East. By necessity, the South East centralisation will have to be re-thought. This can only be a good thing for England as a whole.
I love visiting scotland, the place is beautiful, the people hospitable (in my experieince) and we had excellent weather.
there are duff bits too and a few so and sos but that is true everywhere but overall i love the place.
Quote from: Baszab on September 09, 2014, 11:12:06 AM
However much we may want Scotland to get lost -- a NO vote would decimate the UK, weaken the £-Pound, completely muck up our economy, eradicate most of our defence systems, probably reduce our standing in the world so much we could lose our security council standing at the UN, reduce our power in football and our ruling vote on all things FIFA, etc etc
I think you meant if Scotland get a "YES" vote the whole world would cave in and we would have the same standing in the World as Moldova. Well I don't see it that way, Scotland only account for 8% of the population and GDP is again only a small percentage. Also bearing in mind under the formula for funding they get more per year than they pay in we would be better off to the tune of approx £5 billion per year and while we would have to suffer a little bit we would still bounce back. As for FIFA we are not represented nationally but as the English FA, Scotland has their own representatives so no change there.
Quote from: Baszab on September 09, 2014, 01:38:51 PM
the UK will be finished as a world political and economic power (or what it has left anyway these days)
The thing is, the UK already has almost lost much of its relevance as a world power. The Empire has gone, the last few living citizens of that empire are well into their retirement years. We are still important as we have nukes, so countries have to be a little bit wary of annoying us too much, but even so, what are the chances of a British/Greater Engish PM nuking anyone? Whatever the provokation.
I do not dispute that the Scots leaving would cause problems, not least making it easier for Europe to ignore or absorb us, by the way, but we may be long overdue a realisitc reappraisal of our world status, regardless of the vote.
Sorry I'm thick - I meant a YES vote would........
I still think it would affect our standing economically (£ already falling) politically (on UN Security council for example) and our image on NATO etc without Scottish harbours, nuke facilities etc
Perhaps we could join the USA as a state - that would be more fun
Quote from: Baszab on September 09, 2014, 03:49:40 PM
Sorry I'm thick - I meant a YES vote would........
I still think it would affect our standing economically (£ already falling) politically (on UN Security council for example) and our image on NATO etc without Scottish harbours, nuke facilities etc
Perhaps we could join the USA as a state - that would be more fun
England would have to be the 52nd State then, behind Puerto Rico!! :005:
Having served in the armed forces if we were to close the dock yards and air bases parts of Scotland would become a Desert economically speaking We could then disband the Jocks in Frocks (Scottish regiments) and there would be no need for redundancies in our armed forces. Think of the civilian jobs created around relocated dock yards and air bases . If the Scots are daft enough to believe Mr Salmond fairy tale politics then they don't deserve the free ride anymore.
I thought this was a football forum and yes, Scotland had a gallant game against Germany. Could have got a point away but for schoolboy defending near the end. Nasty Neil, please inject a bit of intelligence into your nasty comments. We are all Fulham and most on here do display a lot of intelligence. Thanks.
Quote from: Nasty Neil on September 09, 2014, 05:35:52 PM
Having served in the armed forces if we were to close the dock yards and air bases parts of Scotland would become a Desert economically speaking We could then disband the Jocks in Frocks (Scottish regiments) and there would be no need for redundancies in our armed forces. Think of the civilian jobs created around relocated dock yards and air bases . If the Scots are daft enough to believe Mr Salmond fairy tale politics then they don't deserve the free ride anymore.
I assume this must be a windup; there's no way someone can be this idiotic.
If they aren't prepared to issue their own currency, I don't see how independence will work. I've heard the arguments, and I just don't see an economic benefit. This is a vote of the heart, not the head.
Wingnut made some interesting points from the RoI.
At first glance you'd think that the N. Irish (the majority population of 6 counties of Ulster) would have much more in common with the Scots, ethnically if nothing else, and it might make more sense for them to throw in their lot with them. Until you come to think that the two peoples of very similar origins have totally opposite views on the Union!
Such is the way it is - amplified petty differences seem to rule over mutuality of benefit. And I say this as a patriotic Englishman. In this big bad world we are better together. I'd rather the "jocks in frocks" fighting with us if necessary.
Quote from: Hurby on September 09, 2014, 02:32:09 PM
If they become an independent country, there is a chance that the economy in parts of England nearer the border would improve - I am thinking mainly of the North East. By necessity, the South East centralisation will have to be re-thought. This can only be a good thing for England as a whole.
The complaints of the Scots can be heard in the North East, North West, South West, Midlands etc. If anything good can come out of this then the Westminster village waking up and realising that there is life outside of their and the City of London would be about time in coming
Large numbers of HMRC offices are currently in Scotland and could be moved to the North East. Naval shipping could be moved to Portsmouth (that has only recently had large layoffs) or Devonport. I am sure there are other 'English' government employment opportunities that can be moved south if there is a "yes" vote.
With the reported 'bribes' being touted by Westminster to keep the union I have changed my viewpoint on this. If Scotland want out then let them go and stand on their own 2-feet, independent, and lets concentrate on the making all areas of England prosperous not just London and the South East.
From someone married to a Scot, working in London and living in the south east.
The thing with this is that if there is a narrow yes majority on even a 90% turnout, that is still less than half the population that have voted in favour and all those Scots living in England and elsewhere (who would most likely vote NO) have been denied a vote anyway! I can't see anything more than a continuous campaign to vote to get back in within 10 years as surely there will be a negative economic impact when devolved UK government activities return to England as FFC73 points out. Can only see it turning out messy for Scotland - lets face it, they would have done an Iceland 6 years ago had they had had to bail out RBS instead of Westminster doing it!
Quote from: Artful Dodger on September 09, 2014, 10:20:01 PM
The thing with this is that if there is a narrow yes majority on even a 90% turnout, that is still less than half the population that have voted in favour and all those Scots living in England and elsewhere (who would most likely vote NO) have been denied a vote anyway! I can't see anything more than a continuous campaign to vote to get back in within 10 years as surely there will be a negative economic impact when devolved UK government activities return to England as FFC73 points out. Can only see it turning out messy for Scotland - lets face it, they would have done an Iceland 6 years ago had they had had to bail out RBS instead of Westminster doing it!
See the point, though there is an argument that if those that are living elsewhere wish to vote, then they should live back in the country and say their peace. Not saying its my argument, but I don't live in the UK any longer and so I don't vote, and honestly wouldn't wish to, that's why I don't live there any longer.
Quote from: Logicalman on September 09, 2014, 11:48:45 PM
Quote from: Artful Dodger on September 09, 2014, 10:20:01 PM
The thing with this is that if there is a narrow yes majority on even a 90% turnout, that is still less than half the population that have voted in favour and all those Scots living in England and elsewhere (who would most likely vote NO) have been denied a vote anyway! I can't see anything more than a continuous campaign to vote to get back in within 10 years as surely there will be a negative economic impact when devolved UK government activities return to England as FFC73 points out. Can only see it turning out messy for Scotland - lets face it, they would have done an Iceland 6 years ago had they had had to bail out RBS instead of Westminster doing it!
See the point, though there is an argument that if those that are living elsewhere wish to vote, then they should live back in the country and say their peace. Not saying its my argument, but I don't live in the UK any longer and so I don't vote, and honestly wouldn't wish to, that's why I don't live there any longer.
you don't live here cos you don't want to vote ;-)
Quote from: fulhamben on September 09, 2014, 11:52:34 PM
Quote from: Logicalman on September 09, 2014, 11:48:45 PM
Quote from: Artful Dodger on September 09, 2014, 10:20:01 PM
The thing with this is that if there is a narrow yes majority on even a 90% turnout, that is still less than half the population that have voted in favour and all those Scots living in England and elsewhere (who would most likely vote NO) have been denied a vote anyway! I can't see anything more than a continuous campaign to vote to get back in within 10 years as surely there will be a negative economic impact when devolved UK government activities return to England as FFC73 points out. Can only see it turning out messy for Scotland - lets face it, they would have done an Iceland 6 years ago had they had had to bail out RBS instead of Westminster doing it!
See the point, though there is an argument that if those that are living elsewhere wish to vote, then they should live back in the country and say their peace. Not saying its my argument, but I don't live in the UK any longer and so I don't vote, and honestly wouldn't wish to, that's why I don't live there any longer.
you don't live here cos you don't want to vote ;-)
Ha ha, I see what I wrote now - it did sound quite logical in my head!!! 1500.gif
No, what I meant is that I moved away and am happy living abroad as it offers more opportunities, and from my pov, voting in the UK is a waste anyways. By that same measure, as I accept I cannot now cast a vote in the UK because I chose to live abroad, the same applies to those that don't wish to reside in Scotland, for the various reasons that abound.
Quote from: Logicalman on September 09, 2014, 11:58:52 PM
Quote from: fulhamben on September 09, 2014, 11:52:34 PM
Quote from: Logicalman on September 09, 2014, 11:48:45 PM
Quote from: Artful Dodger on September 09, 2014, 10:20:01 PM
The thing with this is that if there is a narrow yes majority on even a 90% turnout, that is still less than half the population that have voted in favour and all those Scots living in England and elsewhere (who would most likely vote NO) have been denied a vote anyway! I can't see anything more than a continuous campaign to vote to get back in within 10 years as surely there will be a negative economic impact when devolved UK government activities return to England as FFC73 points out. Can only see it turning out messy for Scotland - lets face it, they would have done an Iceland 6 years ago had they had had to bail out RBS instead of Westminster doing it!
See the point, though there is an argument that if those that are living elsewhere wish to vote, then they should live back in the country and say their peace. Not saying its my argument, but I don't live in the UK any longer and so I don't vote, and honestly wouldn't wish to, that's why I don't live there any longer.
you don't live here cos you don't want to vote ;-)
Ha ha, I see what I wrote now - it did sound quite logical in my head!!! 1500.gif
No, what I meant is that I moved away and am happy living abroad as it offers more opportunities, and from my pov, voting in the UK is a waste anyways. By that same measure, as I accept I cannot now cast a vote in the UK because I chose to live abroad, the same applies to those that don't wish to reside in Scotland, for the various reasons that abound.
yes totally agree. Voting should be for the country you permantly reside in.
What happened to the no politics rule?
Seems to be rather subjectively applied. 063.gif
Quote from: YankeeJim on September 10, 2014, 12:20:21 AM
What happened to the no politics rule?
Seems to be rather subjectively applied. 063.gif
this is a major subject here, one that you can't avoid, especially on telly.
Quote from: RaySmith on September 09, 2014, 09:51:35 AM
What have you got against the toothless? Do you know the prices the mostly privatised dental services charge now? Though, in Scotland that probably still have NHS dentists, given the culture of greater equality and fairness than in England there- and their health system still seems to be pretty good.
Well, I noticed the difference when I moved back to England from Glasgow - where my wife is from-ie it's a lot worse here if you're ill or old or disabled.
There are rich and poor areas in the west of Scotland just like anywhere else, though Glasgow does have some of the worst poverty and unemployment in Europe, as well as well off fashionable areas.
his name is win-dup, aka troll, don't let him get to you.
Quote from: fulhamben on September 10, 2014, 12:27:18 AM
Quote from: YankeeJim on September 10, 2014, 12:20:21 AM
What happened to the no politics rule?
Seems to be rather subjectively applied. 063.gif
this is a major subject here, one that you can't avoid, especially on telly.
I think we've done really well to avoid the party politics, this is purely about Scotland itself, and whether what they expect from a split is a reality, or just pie-in-the-sky idealism, with a little of why some don't vote in the referendum, of course. Congrats to everyone in avoiding the dreaded locking mechanism of abuse.
Without bloodshed in the gabardene swinemass, I just don't understand why people keep trying to block this type of thread on the forum. This has been one of the most interesting, intelligent, largely unemotional debates I have seen on here for a month of bloody Sundays. And frankly, the footie threads are repetitive, predictable and increasingly infrequent.
Keep the NFR discourse going I say. It's healthy.
Nogood "but what about Wales, isit" Boyo
Quote from: NogoodBoyo on September 10, 2014, 03:25:32 AM
Without bloodshed in the gabardene swinemass, I just don't understand why people keep trying to block this type of thread on the forum. This has been one of the most interesting, intelligent, largely unemotional debates I have seen on here for a month of bloody Sundays. And frankly, the footie threads are repetitive, predictable and increasingly infrequent.
Keep the NFR discourse going I say. It's healthy.
Nogood "but what about Wales, isit" Boyo
I think that all the regions should have some form of local representation above county level - even Wales! Here in the SW, London seems very remote and irrelevant (except for footballing reasons!). I know people who get a nosebleed if they go past Exeter.
I have to say that I like the German model of federalism. There are, of course, historic reasons for that because Germany was unified (and I mean Bismarck's work, not the reunification of East and West) so much more recently than England. It would be interesting to know how long the German model will last - or whether it would still be in place here if England had gone the same way.
Federalism is a relevant way to work. It keeps entities together for all the relevant benefits of size whilst allowing a degree of autonomy to regions having their own identity and history. I'm, really surprised that it hasn't been suggested as a solution to the present difficulties. Except that Euro-sceptics don't like to use the F-word.
Ah the unification of Germany, I still have a text book on it
Quote from: Berserker on September 10, 2014, 06:50:37 AM
Ah the unification of Germany, I still have a text book on it
But what if England had been unified along similar lines with the kingdoms becoming federal regions?
Quote from: Forever Fulham on September 09, 2014, 07:33:34 PM
If they aren't prepared to issue their own currency, I don't see how independence will work. I've heard the arguments, and I just don't see an economic benefit. This is a vote of the heart, not the head.
What I don't understand about this whole currency argument is that I thought any country that now joins the EU has to take on the Euro. Why would Scotland be exempt from this requirement if they claim they can rejoin the EU as a separate entity within a year? At the same time I don't understand why no one has challenged Salmond on his claims of all the benefits gaining independence from Llondon, where the Scottish MPs do hold sway on many decisions yet at the same time selling the fact they will get immediate entry into the EU which will again cede control even further away to Brussels where they will hold no influence on law making or the infamous Fishery & CA policies which have a huge impact on Scotland
If I were Scottish i would probably vote yes but it is a foolish way to go IMO. The perceived benefit will not happen and the individuals will in the end be no better off and risk being rather worse off. the cost of the break up will be high and in the end the politicians will remain the politicians and not deliver on their promises of economic paradise if we break apart.
The reason for the scotts to want to be independent is the same reason as so many want to leave europe, we want to rule ourselves regardless of the facts of what will happen to our economies.
I think I will draw a circle around myself and declare myself independent and not pay any more taxes to the government who have spectacularly failed to keep any of their promises to me over the years. That is all types of regime whether red, blue or coalition, the whole lot of them are worthless. Maybe a theme for my up and coming 2,000th post.
Quote from: crazycottager on September 10, 2014, 03:11:11 AM
Quote from: RaySmith on September 09, 2014, 09:51:35 AM
What have you got against the toothless? Do you know the prices the mostly privatised dental services charge now? Though, in Scotland that probably still have NHS dentists, given the culture of greater equality and fairness than in England there- and their health system still seems to be pretty good.
Well, I noticed the difference when I moved back to England from Glasgow - where my wife is from-ie it's a lot worse here if you're ill or old or disabled.
There are rich and poor areas in the west of Scotland just like anywhere else, though Glasgow does have some of the worst poverty and unemployment in Europe, as well as well off fashionable areas.
his name is win-dup, aka troll, don't let him get to you.
Troll? What cheek. If you want to see trolls go and see what a diet of whisky and deep fried Mars bars do to a physique.
On a more serious note, has someone has said earlier, what a considered and calm debate this has been on here. For what it's worth I think that if London were ruled from Edinburgh I would be definitely tempted to vote for independence.
Someone made a crack about Culloden being an English victory over the Scots. The thing is, it was mostly lowland Scots on the winning side and mostly highland Scots (with a smattering of Irish and even some English) on the losing side. Scotland has invested as much blood and effort in the Union as England, and it is strange seeing how many of them want to lose the benefits of that sacrafice.
Oh, and all the Scots I know (several dozen) living in England are all anti independence. They see it as folly. They may or may not be an unrepresentative group.
I think it unwise to form a firm opinion about a place on the basis of a single visit.
For instance, many years ago I went on a school trip to Caen. A fine city and an ideal base from which to explore norther France.
My Dad, however didn't have a good word to say for the place. On his visit, he said, the place was literally falling down around his ears and that it was more dangerous than Glasgow on a Saturday night. I suppose the summer of '44 was poor timing for a visit, but he didn't have a lot of choice in the matter.
Perhaps someone might like to remind the Scots that Edinburgh was actually founded by King Edwin of Northumbria ("Edwin's borough"), until later ceded to (i think) Malcolm of Scotland, and that the eastern side of the country is mostly originally ethnically English.
So. if you draw a line from the Solway Firth through Edinburgh it's actually almost all our oil. You also get a positive result even if you extrapolate the present border which lies SW-NE.
If it weren't for the oil and gas they wouldn't want independence.
Hats off to the Mods for keeping it open. Really enjoyed this thread. The currency is an interesting one. I thought after the yes campaigners said they could do a Panama with the currency, it would have been a landslide No but hey, what do I know. For me, the debate on the telly was about the politicians and not about the country going forward. Lots of 'NHS to privatize' and 'we have young people living on the streets' and 'we will give money to the disabled' and less on how he will provide money if deficits occur and where the cuts will occur. Love the tradition of the UK and hope it continues.
The interesting thing would be the separation. They have just no idea how much will have to be repatriated and how much they'll have to start providing for themselves. Suddenly they'd be part of the real world.
If it stops the BBC from showing a clip from the so called Scottish premier league every Saturday night on the national news and all the results then I am for it, also take all their MPs back north so they don't ever vote on anything to do with the rest of us
I will be gutted if we split. I'm really depressed by the prospect
Quote from: Berserker on September 10, 2014, 12:49:13 PM
I will be gutted if we split. I'm really depressed by the prospect
I'm all for it now as long as it is full on, no bail outs or subsidiaries for anything. No popping south of the border for treatment you cant get up there or anything like that. And a proper border will have to be erected, not to protect us from the Scots but from foreign wrong doers who will probably find it easier to sneek in from the north due to the very small armed forces they are proposing to protect there land
[/quote]yes totally agree. Voting should be for the country you permantly reside in.
[/quote]
that's my thought too.....I have been living and paying taxes abroad for 40 years and could still vote in the UK but not here where I am directly affected by government decisions!!!
Quote from: epsomraver on September 10, 2014, 09:50:12 AM
If it stops the BBC from showing a clip from the so called Scottish premier league every Saturday night on the national news and all the results then I am for it, also take all their MPs back north so they don't ever vote on anything to do with the rest of us
It would as the BBC would have to stop broadcasting north of the border as they won't pay licence fees. Internet access will also have to be separated to stop them using i-player.
Quote from: MasterHaynes on September 10, 2014, 08:24:35 AM
Quote from: Forever Fulham on September 09, 2014, 07:33:34 PM
If they aren't prepared to issue their own currency, I don't see how independence will work. I've heard the arguments, and I just don't see an economic benefit. This is a vote of the heart, not the head.
What I don't understand about this whole currency argument is that I thought any country that now joins the EU has to take on the Euro. Why would Scotland be exempt from this requirement if they claim they can rejoin the EU as a separate entity within a year? At the same time I don't understand why no one has challenged Salmond on his claims of all the benefits gaining independence from Llondon, where the Scottish MPs do hold sway on many decisions yet at the same time selling the fact they will get immediate entry into the EU which will again cede control even further away to Brussels where they will hold no influence on law making or the infamous Fishery & CA policies which have a huge impact on Scotland
Can they enter the EU in just a year? I'm not too sure of that claim, even so, what do they do for that gap year? Dollars sounds good.
Quote from: Logicalman on September 10, 2014, 03:31:45 PM
Quote from: MasterHaynes on September 10, 2014, 08:24:35 AM
Quote from: Forever Fulham on September 09, 2014, 07:33:34 PM
If they aren't prepared to issue their own currency, I don't see how independence will work. I've heard the arguments, and I just don't see an economic benefit. This is a vote of the heart, not the head.
What I don't understand about this whole currency argument is that I thought any country that now joins the EU has to take on the Euro. Why would Scotland be exempt from this requirement if they claim they can rejoin the EU as a separate entity within a year? At the same time I don't understand why no one has challenged Salmond on his claims of all the benefits gaining independence from Llondon, where the Scottish MPs do hold sway on many decisions yet at the same time selling the fact they will get immediate entry into the EU which will again cede control even further away to Brussels where they will hold no influence on law making or the infamous Fishery & CA policies which have a huge impact on Scotland
Can they enter the EU in just a year? I'm not too sure of that claim, even so, what do they do for that gap year? Dollars sounds good.
He quoted 'we can do what Panama did...' end of debate.
In the current climate, joining the EU means you join the euro. No country in the last 15-20 years have been able to avoid it and I can't see Scotland being any different. They can use the pound but will be heavily subsidized for the privilege.
No logic on an economical basis.
They can use pounds issued on Scottish banks but the exchange rate won't necessarily be 1:1 and the currencies won't be usable in the other countries as they are at present.
Rather like when Ireland de-linked to the pound but for a while the coins were the same size and shape so you could use them in machines but not over the counter.
Quote from: FFC1987 on September 10, 2014, 03:54:59 PM
Quote from: Logicalman on September 10, 2014, 03:31:45 PM
Quote from: MasterHaynes on September 10, 2014, 08:24:35 AM
Quote from: Forever Fulham on September 09, 2014, 07:33:34 PM
If they aren't prepared to issue their own currency, I don't see how independence will work. I've heard the arguments, and I just don't see an economic benefit. This is a vote of the heart, not the head.
What I don't understand about this whole currency argument is that I thought any country that now joins the EU has to take on the Euro. Why would Scotland be exempt from this requirement if they claim they can rejoin the EU as a separate entity within a year? At the same time I don't understand why no one has challenged Salmond on his claims of all the benefits gaining independence from Llondon, where the Scottish MPs do hold sway on many decisions yet at the same time selling the fact they will get immediate entry into the EU which will again cede control even further away to Brussels where they will hold no influence on law making or the infamous Fishery & CA policies which have a huge impact on Scotland
Can they enter the EU in just a year? I'm not too sure of that claim, even so, what do they do for that gap year? Dollars sounds good.
He quoted 'we can do what Panama did...' end of debate.
In the current climate, joining the EU means you join the euro. No country in the last 15-20 years have been able to avoid it and I can't see Scotland being any different. They can use the pound but will be heavily subsidized for the privilege.
No logic on an economical basis.
but they wont be joining the eu anytime soon. and as it stands spain and one other have said they will veto scotlands application.
Quote from: fulhamben on September 10, 2014, 12:58:42 PM
Quote from: Berserker on September 10, 2014, 12:49:13 PM
I will be gutted if we split. I'm really depressed by the prospect
I'm all for it now as long as it is full on, no bail outs or subsidiaries for anything. No popping south of the border for treatment you cant get up there or anything like that. And a proper border will have to be erected, not to protect us from the Scots but from foreign wrong doers who will probably find it easier to sneek in from the north due to the very small armed forces they are proposing to protect there land
Just as you outline here is the way I see things turning out if the Yes vote wins the day. All wind and p**s about being an oil-rich independent country, followed by trying to keep all the good bits like hospital treatment/currency/bailouts etc. etc.
Cue the gag doing the rounds...Salmond won't be a king, because it won't be a kingdom, neither a prince because it won't be a principality......in fact it will just be a country............
If they do vote yes, what happens to the armed services? There are lots of Scots serving, would they continue in the forces, who would pay for the Scottish regiments? In fact would the Scottish Regiments carry on?
Also would the Union Flag still be used?
Quote from: Peabody on September 10, 2014, 05:36:09 PM
If they do vote yes, what happens to the armed services? There are lots of Scots serving, would they continue in the forces, who would pay for the Scottish regiments? In fact would the Scottish Regiments carry on?
I guess currently-serving peeps will have the choice to stay or leave, though I would the regiments themselves would be disbanded or handed over to Scotland complete, without funding.
Quote from: Peabody on September 10, 2014, 05:36:09 PM
Also would the Union Flag still be used?
We'd lose the white 'X' and blue bits!! :005:
Quote from: fulhamben on September 10, 2014, 05:33:11 PM
Quote from: FFC1987 on September 10, 2014, 03:54:59 PM
Quote from: Logicalman on September 10, 2014, 03:31:45 PM
Quote from: MasterHaynes on September 10, 2014, 08:24:35 AM
Quote from: Forever Fulham on September 09, 2014, 07:33:34 PM
If they aren't prepared to issue their own currency, I don't see how independence will work. I've heard the arguments, and I just don't see an economic benefit. This is a vote of the heart, not the head.
What I don't understand about this whole currency argument is that I thought any country that now joins the EU has to take on the Euro. Why would Scotland be exempt from this requirement if they claim they can rejoin the EU as a separate entity within a year? At the same time I don't understand why no one has challenged Salmond on his claims of all the benefits gaining independence from Llondon, where the Scottish MPs do hold sway on many decisions yet at the same time selling the fact they will get immediate entry into the EU which will again cede control even further away to Brussels where they will hold no influence on law making or the infamous Fishery & CA policies which have a huge impact on Scotland
Can they enter the EU in just a year? I'm not too sure of that claim, even so, what do they do for that gap year? Dollars sounds good.
He quoted 'we can do what Panama did...' end of debate.
In the current climate, joining the EU means you join the euro. No country in the last 15-20 years have been able to avoid it and I can't see Scotland being any different. They can use the pound but will be heavily subsidized for the privilege.
No logic on an economical basis.
but they wont be joining the eu anytime soon. and as it stands spain and one other have said they will veto scotlands application.
That was what I was getting it.
The Union Flag would lose its blue ground and the white diagonal cross which come from the cross of St. Andrew. The cross of St George is obviously the base, the red diagonal cross represents N. Ireland.
An issue would be whether foreigners (i.e. Scots) would be allowed to serve in our regiments.
Quote from: Peabody on September 10, 2014, 05:36:09 PM
If they do vote yes, what happens to the armed services? There are lots of Scots serving, would they continue in the forces, who would pay for the Scottish regiments? In fact would the Scottish Regiments carry on?
Also would the Union Flag still be used?
from some of the debates ive seen, they were suggesting that the younger scots would stay on with us while the older ones would go up north for a cushy desk job to see out there time. they are only planning on having 1800 troops. are a dads army as they were reffering to it. as for flag, i doubt we will change it. and i heard they wont be getting legendry regiments but who knows what will be negotiated.
Quote from: FFC1987 on September 10, 2014, 03:54:59 PM
Quote from: Logicalman on September 10, 2014, 03:31:45 PM
Quote from: MasterHaynes on September 10, 2014, 08:24:35 AM
Quote from: Forever Fulham on September 09, 2014, 07:33:34 PM
If they aren't prepared to issue their own currency, I don't see how independence will work. I've heard the arguments, and I just don't see an economic benefit. This is a vote of the heart, not the head.
What I don't understand about this whole currency argument is that I thought any country that now joins the EU has to take on the Euro. Why would Scotland be exempt from this requirement if they claim they can rejoin the EU as a separate entity within a year? At the same time I don't understand why no one has challenged Salmond on his claims of all the benefits gaining independence from Llondon, where the Scottish MPs do hold sway on many decisions yet at the same time selling the fact they will get immediate entry into the EU which will again cede control even further away to Brussels where they will hold no influence on law making or the infamous Fishery & CA policies which have a huge impact on Scotland
Can they enter the EU in just a year? I'm not too sure of that claim, even so, what do they do for that gap year? Dollars sounds good.
He quoted 'we can do what Panama did...' end of debate.
In the current climate, joining the EU means you join the euro. No country in the last 15-20 years have been able to avoid it and I can't see Scotland being any different. They can use the pound but will be heavily subsidized for the privilege.
No logic on an economical basis.
What on earth was he talking about.
The only thing I have read/heard is his threat to withhold Scotland share of UK debt unless the other three agree to a monetary union of some kind. I guess he has set the tone for what Scotland will be should it become independant - just threaten other countries to bend to its will (where have we heard that before?).
Quote from: Logicalman on September 10, 2014, 05:49:16 PM
Quote from: FFC1987 on September 10, 2014, 03:54:59 PM
Quote from: Logicalman on September 10, 2014, 03:31:45 PM
Quote from: MasterHaynes on September 10, 2014, 08:24:35 AM
Quote from: Forever Fulham on September 09, 2014, 07:33:34 PM
If they aren't prepared to issue their own currency, I don't see how independence will work. I've heard the arguments, and I just don't see an economic benefit. This is a vote of the heart, not the head.
What I don't understand about this whole currency argument is that I thought any country that now joins the EU has to take on the Euro. Why would Scotland be exempt from this requirement if they claim they can rejoin the EU as a separate entity within a year? At the same time I don't understand why no one has challenged Salmond on his claims of all the benefits gaining independence from Llondon, where the Scottish MPs do hold sway on many decisions yet at the same time selling the fact they will get immediate entry into the EU which will again cede control even further away to Brussels where they will hold no influence on law making or the infamous Fishery & CA policies which have a huge impact on Scotland
Can they enter the EU in just a year? I'm not too sure of that claim, even so, what do they do for that gap year? Dollars sounds good.
He quoted 'we can do what Panama did...' end of debate.
In the current climate, joining the EU means you join the euro. No country in the last 15-20 years have been able to avoid it and I can't see Scotland being any different. They can use the pound but will be heavily subsidized for the privilege.
No logic on an economical basis.
What on earth was he talking about.
The only thing I have read/heard is his threat to withhold Scotland share of UK debt unless the other three agree to a monetary union of some kind. I guess he has set the tone for what Scotland will be should it become independant - just threaten other countries to bend to its will (where have we heard that before? Oh yes, North Korea).
spot on thought the samething when he came out with this, nigh on an economical terrorist.
My mother and father in law are very depressed and unhappy. She is beside herself with worry
Quote from: Berserker on September 10, 2014, 05:51:51 PM
My mother and father in law are very depressed and unhappy. She is beside herself with worry
I really do feel for those that will be adversely affected by all this, in either way. It's a pity that so many of these idealist get their way whilst ignoring what might appear to obvious pitfalls. I'm all for an Independant Scotland, if both that is what the vast majority want (not a simple majority) and they can show that it benefits the people (not the Politicians) in the long term.
Quote from: Berserker on September 10, 2014, 05:51:51 PM
My mother and father in law are very depressed and unhappy. She is beside herself with worry
fear not it will be a no vote by a mile. too many scots will be effected for the worse for the day dreamers to get there way
if they vote yes at least it will put to an end once and for all the nonsense about Celtic and Rangers playing in the Premiership.
If they vote yes, then they won't be allowed to stay in the EU - Spain would veto it because it would encourage Catalonia to go the same route. So what currency would they use? Seems unlikely to be the £ at the moment. Perhaps monetary union with Norway?
I would normally avoid a thread such as this like the plague.
The flippancy of some of our posters regarding the enormity of this decison has been breathtaking.
Salmonds black Wednesday has come as some relief, but a known gambler with an ability to use and manipulate his own people will use every trick and promise to drag his preferred want over the finishing line.
The reason for my particular U turn in joining this debate came in the form of a phone call from relatives in Scotland now extremely worried Salmond may have convinced enough 16 year olds and assorted others to follow his narrow nationalistic agenda.
The phone call confirmed all funds and shares have been withdrawn from their Scottish bank and liquidated into English currency.
If other well educated folk take the same option it will lead to a run on the pound and evermore panic withdrawals.
Next Thursday's vote is enormously important for all the UK, let's hope the silent majority will prevail and our partner for over 300 years remains as part of the UK.
Whatever happens, it will change things for the worse. We will end up in England wanting more independents pushing for more independence. More bureaucracy run by little hitlers all with their own cause to push.
United we stand, divided we fall.
This has never been a United Kingdom and never will be, I would prefer England to be Independent, and have our own Parliament, at present the Scots have their cake and eat it, at out expense. We just have to make sure we build Hadrians Wall a dam sight higher next time.
Quote from: Woolly Mammoth on September 11, 2014, 01:35:00 AM
This has never been a United Kingdom and never will be, I would prefer England to be Independent, and have our own Parliament, at present the Scots have their cake and eat it, at out expense. We just have to make sure we build Hadrians Wall a dam sight higher next time.
Perhaps a little narrow in perspective, though I agree generally it has not been so much a United Kingdom as much as a commonwealth. Scotland's independence has been on the cards for a long time, and now someone up there has taken out from the chattering classes into a movement of some kind. Would it be better for England? Not too sure about that.
This as been an interesting distraction from the FFC woe. Being that I am neither Scottish or English I feel I can not really give an educated opinion on this subject. However in the case of a yes vote, as some have pointed out here, I too would feel for those who do not want independence from the UK.
Excellent 'political' thread everyone. See it can be done.
It seems to me that the real debate has only begun over the past few days as the facts have started to come out. In the event of a "yes" vote, England would lose political clout but the consequences for Scotland would be much worse. I suspect they'd want to come back after the truth emerged but it couldn't be like that. But if they stay with us they'll never know and the idealistic rumblings would continue.
Regional identity within the greater whole is the best way in my view. It works in other countries - and the same goes for Europe but that's another topic!
If it does end up in "Devo-max", the issue of Scottish votes in Westminster over English/Welsh/N.I. affairs would have to be urgent addressed.
Another question. If Yes loses, will that be the end of the independence debate?
Quote from: Peabody on September 11, 2014, 07:44:56 AM
Another question. If Yes loses, will that be the end of the independence debate?
hopefully for the time being, because we then need to move on to our eu referendum that we have been promised for years by 3 different pm's.
Quote from: Logicalman on September 10, 2014, 05:49:16 PM
Quote from: FFC1987 on September 10, 2014, 03:54:59 PM
Quote from: Logicalman on September 10, 2014, 03:31:45 PM
Quote from: MasterHaynes on September 10, 2014, 08:24:35 AM
Quote from: Forever Fulham on September 09, 2014, 07:33:34 PM
If they aren't prepared to issue their own currency, I don't see how independence will work. I've heard the arguments, and I just don't see an economic benefit. This is a vote of the heart, not the head.
What I don't understand about this whole currency argument is that I thought any country that now joins the EU has to take on the Euro. Why would Scotland be exempt from this requirement if they claim they can rejoin the EU as a separate entity within a year? At the same time I don't understand why no one has challenged Salmond on his claims of all the benefits gaining independence from Llondon, where the Scottish MPs do hold sway on many decisions yet at the same time selling the fact they will get immediate entry into the EU which will again cede control even further away to Brussels where they will hold no influence on law making or the infamous Fishery & CA policies which have a huge impact on Scotland
Can they enter the EU in just a year? I'm not too sure of that claim, even so, what do they do for that gap year? Dollars sounds good.
He quoted 'we can do what Panama did...' end of debate.
In the current climate, joining the EU means you join the euro. No country in the last 15-20 years have been able to avoid it and I can't see Scotland being any different. They can use the pound but will be heavily subsidized for the privilege.
No logic on an economical basis.
What on earth was he talking about.
The only thing I have read/heard is his threat to withhold Scotland share of UK debt unless the other three agree to a monetary union of some kind. I guess he has set the tone for what Scotland will be should it become independant - just threaten other countries to bend to its will (where have we heard that before?).
problem is he has no leverage with the therat, so what we keep hold of the debt but as creditor we keepp hold of the assets, e.g Rail track, all the railways on Scotland will be owned by the UK taxpayer, RBS is owned by the Uk taxpayer, so not just the HO moves to UK but all the jobs move, North Sea Oil revenue will come directly to our exchequer until the debt is paid off not Scotland. He needs to understand that if he plays hard ball then don't be surprised when the other party does it. As for joining the EU does he really think he will get a better deal for his fishermen? the EU will grab more of the allowed catch and access to all areas as condition of joining, the EU don't need Scotland but they need the EU.
Quote from: Woolly Mammoth on September 11, 2014, 01:35:00 AM
This has never been a United Kingdom and never will be, I would prefer England to be Independent, and have our own Parliament, at present the Scots have their cake and eat it, at out expense. We just have to make sure we build Hadrians Wall a dam sight higher next time.
Haha and I suppose anyone Nth of Watford would not be part of little England, in fact why stop there? Let's limit the future England to London and the home counties. On the basis of this logic there is no end to this shrinking perception of what makes up our nation. Come on, of course there has always been a United Kingdom, there are internal rivalries but so there are in England between the red and white rose or effete Southerners and the North. None of this diminishes the value of our United Kingdom and celebrating our differences is one of the aspects I am proudest of.
Quote from: Fernhurst on September 11, 2014, 12:08:07 AM
I would normally avoid a thread such as this like the plague.
The flippancy of some of our posters regarding the enormity of this decison has been breathtaking.
Salmonds black Wednesday has come as some relief, but a known gambler with an ability to use and manipulate his own people will use every trick and promise to drag his preferred want over the finishing line.
The reason for my particular U turn in joining this debate came in the form of a phone call from relatives in Scotland now extremely worried Salmond may have convinced enough 16 year olds and assorted others to follow his narrow nationalistic agenda.
The phone call confirmed all funds and shares have been withdrawn from their Scottish bank and liquidated into English currency.
If other well educated folk take the same option it will lead to a run on the pound and evermore panic withdrawals.
Next Thursday's vote is enormously important for all the UK, let's hope the silent majority will prevail and our partner for over 300 years remains as part of the UK.
To be fair, apart from 1 or 2, overall everyone's been very respectful. Its a big decision and I for one, can't seem to understand whether the UK will benefit from it.
The one thing I will say is....The way the Yes voters have campaigned, fear mongered and lied to its people is mind boggling. Its been a huge slur from the off. Violence has erupted in parts where No voters have been bullied and alienated as unpatriotic. This has become dangerous and I hope its not contagious!
As almost everyone points out nowadays, there are so many unanswered questions and so many unresolved issues to be addressed in case the "yes" vote prevails. The big (mainly City) law firms will be engaged for months and years to consult and draft the required agreements. Politicians from both sides of the border will use the asset/finance issues to their advantage and will play each other on rhetorics without hurrying to implement changes. I predict that for a very long time nothing will materially change as a result of a possible "yes" vote. It appears that the "yes" voters would expect changes to take place overnight and when impatience sets on, then trouble may arise.
The Spanish have already said they will veto any application from Scotland to join the EU. So they won't be joining the EU if they vote yes anyway.
Quote from: Hurby on September 11, 2014, 09:11:08 AM
As almost everyone points out nowadays, there are so many unanswered questions and so many unresolved issues to be addressed in case the "yes" vote prevails. The big (mainly City) law firms will be engaged for months and years to consult and draft the required agreements. Politicians from both sides of the border will use the asset/finance issues to their advantage and will play each other on rhetorics without hurrying to implement changes. I predict that for a very long time nothing will materially change as a result of a possible "yes" vote. It appears that the "yes" voters would expect changes to take place overnight and when impatience sets on, then trouble may arise.
forget the yes voters, if they decide they have had enough of us, I want them cut off over night.
Quote from: fulhamben on September 11, 2014, 10:59:49 AM
Quote from: Hurby on September 11, 2014, 09:11:08 AM
As almost everyone points out nowadays, there are so many unanswered questions and so many unresolved issues to be addressed in case the "yes" vote prevails. The big (mainly City) law firms will be engaged for months and years to consult and draft the required agreements. Politicians from both sides of the border will use the asset/finance issues to their advantage and will play each other on rhetorics without hurrying to implement changes. I predict that for a very long time nothing will materially change as a result of a possible "yes" vote. It appears that the "yes" voters would expect changes to take place overnight and when impatience sets on, then trouble may arise.
forget the yes voters, if they decide they have had enough of us, I want them cut off over night.
Has anyone checked out the start up costs for currency changes and tax changes etc. from the financial times? Expected to cost in excess of £750m (based on a recent changer) but Scotland will undoubtedly cost more. Already the yes voters are saying this is 'fear mongering'....
Here's an opinion piece by Nobel Prize winning (Economics) Paul Krugman in the NY Times about Scotland's quixotic bid for "independence": http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/08/opinion/paul-krugman-scots-what-the-heck.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/08/opinion/paul-krugman-scots-what-the-heck.html)
Quote from: Forever Fulham on September 11, 2014, 12:40:42 PM
Here's an opinion piece by Nobel Prize winning (Economics) Paul Krugman in the NY Times about Scotland's quixotic bid for "independence": http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/08/opinion/paul-krugman-scots-what-the-heck.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/08/opinion/paul-krugman-scots-what-the-heck.html)
Thanks for this. very interesting piece, one which I subscribe to.
I've already seen 'yes' voters respond to this as 'propaganda from a man on the take' and 'fear mongering from Wasteminster'. These are the kind of people who are driving Scotland into a disaster. I feel for the No voters and welcome them over if the yes wins.
Quote from: blingo on September 11, 2014, 09:13:38 AM
The Spanish have already said they will veto any application from Scotland to join the EU. So they won't be joining the EU if they vote yes anyway.
Yes, because an independent Scotland would give the Basques ideas, so the Spanish would want to squash the new state as thoroughly as they could to ensure everyone sees it is a bad idea to leave the mother country. I had not, until now, considered that part of the subject, so excellent point made, Mr B.
Quote from: Rupert on September 11, 2014, 01:19:40 PM
Quote from: blingo on September 11, 2014, 09:13:38 AM
The Spanish have already said they will veto any application from Scotland to join the EU. So they won't be joining the EU if they vote yes anyway.
Yes, because an independent Scotland would give the Basques ideas, so the Spanish would want to squash the new state as thoroughly as they could to ensure everyone sees it is a bad idea to leave the mother country. I had not, until now, considered that part of the subject, so excellent point made, Mr B.
After the Basques (which would also include a bit of France, which would not make them happy) then Catalunya.
The UK is by no means the only European country that is an amalgamation of former kingdoms, principalities and duchies - what next? Prussia? Piedmont?
Quote from: Rupert on September 11, 2014, 01:19:40 PM
Quote from: blingo on September 11, 2014, 09:13:38 AM
The Spanish have already said they will veto any application from Scotland to join the EU. So they won't be joining the EU if they vote yes anyway.
Yes, because an independent Scotland would give the Basques ideas, so the Spanish would want to squash the new state as thoroughly as they could to ensure everyone sees it is a bad idea to leave the mother country. I had not, until now, considered that part of the subject, so excellent point made, Mr B.
Spot on Rupert. The Catalans are watching this with baited breath and praying for a yes vote, even though their election will be illegal. The grass is always greener, until you take off the polarised lenses. :008:
Quote from: Forever Fulham on September 11, 2014, 12:40:42 PM
Here's an opinion piece by Nobel Prize winning (Economics) Paul Krugman in the NY Times about Scotland's quixotic bid for "independence": http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/08/opinion/paul-krugman-scots-what-the-heck.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/08/opinion/paul-krugman-scots-what-the-heck.html)
Very reasoned piece.... But I need to ask why the yes voters are not influenced by reason??
Salmond has whipped his sheeplikes with powerful rhetoric over time and whoever wins next week will be left with a former opponent smouldering with discontent which may take generations to heal.
Dangerous, dangerous man who everybody should vote for wholeheartedly if he manages to gain his goal. Why????...... Because he must be held to account when the economic realities start to kick in. He must not be allowed to walk away.
Love Scotland...love the Scots, hate Salmond and what he's done to the Anglo-Scot relationship and now the long term damage caused to his own countrymen.
Quote from: Holders on September 11, 2014, 07:13:21 AM
It seems to me that the real debate has only begun over the past few days as the facts have started to come out. In the event of a "yes" vote, England would lose political clout but the consequences for Scotland would be much worse. I suspect they'd want to come back after the truth emerged but it couldn't be like that. But if they stay with us they'll never know and the idealistic rumblings would continue.
Regional identity within the greater whole is the best way in my view. It works in other countries - and the same goes for Europe but that's another topic!
If it does end up in "Devo-max", the issue of Scottish votes in Westminster over English/Welsh/N.I. affairs would have to be urgent addressed.
Sad person that I am I have already written to my MP on the West Lothian situation, so if there is a NO vote need to watch this and I would urge everyone to write to their MP and David Cameron that it must be a condition of devo max that any Scottish MPs do not take part in debates that does not effect Scotland.
Quote from: Fernhurst on September 11, 2014, 02:39:30 PM
Quote from: Forever Fulham on September 11, 2014, 12:40:42 PM
Here's an opinion piece by Nobel Prize winning (Economics) Paul Krugman in the NY Times about Scotland's quixotic bid for "independence": http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/08/opinion/paul-krugman-scots-what-the-heck.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/08/opinion/paul-krugman-scots-what-the-heck.html)
Very reasoned piece.... But I need to ask why the yes voters are not influenced by reason??
Salmond has whipped his sheeplikes with powerful rhetoric over time and whoever wins next week will be left with a former opponent smouldering with discontent which may take generations to heal.
Dangerous, dangerous man who everybody should vote for wholeheartedly if he manages to gain his goal. Why????...... Because he must be held to account when the economic realities start to kick in. He must not be allowed to walk away.
Love Scotland...love the Scots, hate Salmond and what he's done to the Anglo-Scot relationship and now the long term damage caused to his own countrymen.
Problem is Mr F that Salmond won't be held accountable, he will wash his hands of politics if it all goes pear shaped and simply walk away making multiple excuses as to why this that or the other failed in his eyes, and that he tried his best. He will then probably move to Spain on a fat salary from the Spanish government to explain to the Catalans why independence is a bad idea lol.
Salmond is a very clever operator and will no doubt have many reasons to blame others over the coming years if he does not get his way. Should it happen, I very much suspect that the Scots would soon regret separation but would never get to know what it would entail unless it should happen so he'll be able to argue for years to come.
Interesting that today North Korea came out in favour! With such friends, Mr. Salmond...
Another point of view from a respected U.S. jurist and author, Eric Posner:
Next week, Scottish voters will decide whether to declare independence from the United Kingdom. Scottish secession once seemed like a bizarre lost cause, but polls have tightened, setting off alarms in England and throughout the world. Critics outside Scotland think that Scottish independence is a crazy idea for the Scots and a bad example for the world, encouraging other separatist movements in less peaceful regions, with turmoil and financial ruin the sure result. But the commentators are wrong. Scotland should go free if that's what the Scots want.
The brief against independence is, at first sight, strong. The Scots already enjoy a great deal of autonomy within the United Kingdom. Although the U.K. parliament is the supreme source of law throughout Great Britain, the Scottish legislature makes many of the laws that govern Scotland, and Scottish courts enforce them. Unlike many secessionists, Scottish nationalists can't complain that they're being forced to learn someone else's language or that they have no control over how their children are educated. Scotland receives more money from the U.K. than its citizens pay out in taxes. And a Scottish divorce would be a messy, lengthy process that would distract political leaders for years.
The benefits of a large country are of diminishing significance in a world of free trade and relative peace.
Moreover, independence for Scotland will leave lots of victims in its wake. The many Scots who oppose independence will be forced to live in an independent Scottish state they reject, or move to England. They won't be able to start their own state and secede from Scotland. The English population will also lose the benefits of living in a larger country. Larger countries tend to be richer and safer. Smaller countries get pushed around. Although the Scottish population is a small fraction of the current U.K. population, the Scottish economy is not negligible, and Scottish territory represents a large fraction of the U.K..
We in the U.S. could also be hurt by Scottish secession. The United Kingdom has been a loyal and powerful ally of the United States in many international conflicts—against Communists, Islamic terrorists, and other foreign ogres. A disunited kingdom, embroiled for years in negotiations over the division of the country, would be a weak and distracted ally.
In the face of such arguments, some commentators blame the secessionist impulse on childish resentment at England, which is widely if falsely perceived as a bully, and emotional appeals to nationalist sentiment by scheming politicians.
But while it's true that Scottish nationalists often make mystical arguments (as nationalists always do), the case for independence is based on serious policy considerations. Some Scots believe that independence would give Scotland sole ownership of valuable oil deposits off its coast in the North Sea. Although those resources may well be almost depleted, it is possible that advances in oil-extraction technology would enable Scotland to create an oil-financed welfare state like Norway's.
More importantly, if Scotland were independent, Scots would control the whole array of policy instruments that Scotland now shares with the rest of the U.K.—above all, taxing and spending. The Scots would be able to govern themselves however they want—and that includes putting into place the more generous welfare state that the more right-leaning English public has denied them.
Against the real benefit of greater autonomy, the costs of leaving the U.K. seem abstract. In general, bigger countries are safer than small countries, but there is no serious threat to states of comparable size, or smaller, to a new Scottish state—including Switzerland, Norway, Denmark, and tiny Iceland. Unlike Ukraine and Georgia, Scotland has nothing to fear from its neighbors. And because Scotland will continue to enjoy free trade with Britain, Europe, and the rest of the world, it—like Switzerland, Norway, Denmark, and Iceland—will continue to prosper.
Both nationalists and their critics have obscured the stakes by presenting the question of Scottish independence as either/or when in fact it is a matter of degree. As noted, Scotland already enjoys a fair amount of autonomy within the United Kingdom. Recently, the British government offered Scotland more autonomy—more control over taxes and spending—if it remains in the United Kingdom. If Scotland declines this offer, it will almost certainly be allowed to join the European Union, and so remain a peer of the U.K. in that larger supra-national entity. Scotland will probably be able to remain in a currency union with the U.K. despite English threats to expel it; if not, Scotland could join the euro or, as Paul Krugman advises, go it alone.
No one plans to build a fence around Scotland. Trade and investment will continue as before. Very likely free movement across the border between England and Scotland will continue as it does among most of the sovereign states of Western Europe. There is a sense—an irony not lost among the anti-secessionists in light of the nationalist rhetoric—that Scotland is not so much declaring independence as abandoning its status as vassal to the U.K. so that it can become a vassal to the EU.
This might really seem crazy. Why exchange one overlord for another? The population of the EU is 13 times that of England and Wales, and so the influence of the Scots on EU policy will be commensurately smaller. But the move actually makes sense. In lying to the left of England, Scottish political sentiment is closer to the continent's. European policies will be closer to Scots' preferences than the English policies that they currently reject. Scotland and France have enjoyed a centuries-long dalliance that England repeatedly thwarted; perhaps the advance of communication and transportation technology finally will allow the two countries to consummate their relationship.
If independence is in the self-interest of the Scots, critics can argue that independence is selfish rather than crazy. Many people worry that Scottish independence would inspire other secessionist movements to redouble their efforts, and in other parts of the world national divorces are less pretty than what we are seeing in the U.K. Secessionist groups have a nasty habit of complaining that they are deprived of self-determination and then, once they have their own state, expelling or repressing their own ethnic minorities. The logic of secession seems to portend an unraveling of the state system until the world consists of a billion sovereign households that are constantly at war with each other.
But it is most unlikely that Scottish independence will plant an idea into the heads of nationalists that is not already there. Scotland's secessionist movement fits into a larger trend of state fragmentation that goes back more than a half century. Since World War II, the number of states worldwide has increased from about 70 to almost 200. Much of this was due to the collapse of empires, but in the last 20 years numerous states have hatched simply because people no longer wanted to live with each other. Five countries rose from the ashes of Yugoslavia in the early 1990s, and 15 from the Soviet Union; since then, additions include Eritrea, East Timor, Kosovo, and South Sudan. The Czech Republic and Slovakia split, as did Serbia and Montenegro. Secessionist movements have also made headway in Spain, Italy, and Belgium, and can be found in numerous other countries throughout the world.
The explanation for this trend is that the benefits of a large country—mainly, security and a large internal market—are of diminishing significance in a world of free trade and relative peace. Under these conditions, nationalist movements based on ethnic and linguistic difference, and cultural values, are likely to flourish. Countries split apart but they remain relatively secure (unless your name is Ukraine or Georgia), and able to trade with each other and others.
The size of a state reflects an equilibrium between constantly shifting centrifugal and centripetal forces. People at once want the economic and security advantages of being part of a large country, and chafe at the loss of political control. How these forces play out in particular regions is too complex for outsiders to understand. Where national aspirations are heartfelt, you're not going to get far telling them that they can't start a new state because of the theoretical possibility that bad actors elsewhere in the world will imitate them. Let the Scots have their Scotland.
Eric Posner, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, is a co-author of The Executive Unbound: After the Madisonian Republic and Climate Change Justice.
There are a couple of assumptions in the above that don't ring true: 1. There is no guarantee that Scotland would be able to easily join the EU. 2. The border question. If Scotland separates from the UK and is outside the EU then we would need to establish border controls. If it joins it would be obliged to sign up to Schengen (which we opted out of but new members have to join); again, border controls.
Watch this. End of yes vote.
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=798709416847541&fref=nf (https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=798709416847541&fref=nf)
Quote from: blingo on September 11, 2014, 10:15:08 PM
Watch this. End of yes vote.
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=798709416847541&fref=nf (https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=798709416847541&fref=nf)
It's good to see sense spoken instead of Salmond's pie in the sky.
Scottish independence may seem a good idea to some after a few pints and the usual English bashing with a few verses of "Flower of Scotland", but in the real world sticking to the Act of Union has got to be the best bet for all of us.....and who knows, perhaps our future
together will be a more prosperous one outside that dreadful super bureaucracy just a Channel away ..........?
Quote from: blingo on September 11, 2014, 10:15:08 PM
Watch this. End of yes vote.
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=798709416847541&fref=nf (https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=798709416847541&fref=nf)
Thanks Blingo, all Jim states is very true and has been self evident for the entire campaign, however, Svengali Salmond has managed to purport a dream of utopia to the more gullible Scots electorate who hopefully within the last week have woken up to his pipe dream.
Beautifully spoken.
This bloke should be wheeled out all over Scotland this week.
A lot of things are assumed in that article as stated above. The oil for instance. What if it is depleted enough that it creates a shortfall. This is 60% of the Scots budget. It holds it together. The yes vote has failed on numerous occasions to address what happens in such a shortfall. Where the cuts take place is anyone's whim.
I'm literally sick to the teeth of the arrogance of the yes voters now. The heckling in debates, the false wisdom associated to Salmond and the utter recklessness that any argument for No is fear mongering or said by someone on the take it breath taking. Eve if its a No, this debate isn't over and will hold serious counter movements after. As someone else stated, do we get a referendum on whether we want them after all this?
If it goes "no", the "yesses" will continue whinging and no-one will ever know how bad it would have been for them.
Maybe it would be best for them to go and we can start saving money. Trouble is, they'll all be coming here for work.
Quote from: Holders on September 12, 2014, 09:22:50 AM
If it goes "no", the "yesses" will continue whinging and no-one will ever know how bad it would have been for them.
Maybe it would be best for them to go and we can start saving money. Trouble is, they'll all be coming here for work.
Apart from the interim period, won't they have to get visa's etc?
I would hope they see independence is the best way forward for Scotland, instead of being the first place for Westminster to bring in an experimental scheme. It may also lead to the break up of the flawed bureaucratic EU and a return to governance of the people by the people.
People vote their pocketbook. Promise them two cars in every garage, and a chicken in every pot, and they'll vote your way. It's the same everywhere, isn't it?
Quote from: Forever Fulham on September 12, 2014, 03:10:35 PM
People vote their pocketbook. Promise them two cars in every garage, and a chicken in every pot, and they'll vote your way. It's the same everywhere, isn't it?
True. Just felt more frustrated than usual with the lying slur campaigns on this occasion.
Quote from: Fernhurst on September 12, 2014, 02:44:13 AM
Quote from: blingo on September 11, 2014, 10:15:08 PM
Watch this. End of yes vote.
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=798709416847541&fref=nf (https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=798709416847541&fref=nf)
Thanks Blingo, all Jim states is very true and has been self evident for the entire campaign, however, Svengali Salmond has managed to purport a dream of utopia to the more gullible Scots electorate who hopefully within the last week have woken up to his pipe dream.
Salmond made sure he had plenty of Gullible voters by extending the votes to include 16 & 17 year olds, how Cameron agreed to this I don't know, clearly he never went through a utopian socialist phase like most 16 year olds except the young William Hague.
Prof Eric ignores a key point when assuming that currency union will take place, having had all the politicians say absolutely not and Salmond grinning back saying Oh yes you will, will be the building resentment of the English in this whole process who have had no say. Any political party that effectively underwrites Scotlands debts and allows them to raise money cheaply at our expense will soon see the backlash at the Polls. I'm sure young Nigel is waiting in the wings to gather in the anti Scots votes as well as the anti EU votes
Oh how I wish the poll was tomorrow and we were spared Wee Eck's closing FREEDOM speech.
Let's get it on and begin the endless recriminations.
Scotland is a beautiful country.... There are bad parts as there is with everywhere, but there is a lot more good.
If Scotland vote Yes it will be a complete disaster for them and the rest of the UK.I think the "don't know" will come out in force and vote no, and in the end it will be around 57 43 in terms of no, but it is a bit too close at the moment.
Woe, woe and thrice woe.
Quote from: blingo on September 11, 2014, 10:15:08 PM
Watch this. End of yes vote.
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=798709416847541&fref=nf (https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=798709416847541&fref=nf)
Wow he should have done the debate instead of Darling Darling, he really makes sense 0001.jpeg 0001.jpeg 0001.jpeg 0001.jpeg
I think Krugman's argument is sound. No good can come from separation. Scotland takes more from the treasury than it contributes. That North Sea oil is a finite resource. Last how long? Giving minors a vote seems insane to me.
Quote from: Woolly Mammoth on September 12, 2014, 08:51:53 PM
Enough of Scotland, I am sick of hearing about it. It was pathetic to watch the 3 Stooges lump up there telling them they love them like a brother. Well I don't, I look at them like a mother in law, best kept at a healthy distance. If I had an opportunity to vote now, I would vote for an Independent England, and an English Parliament, free from the need to subsidise every Scot to the tune of, and in excess of £1,600 English Pounds per head, free from the professional irritant Alex Salmond, and free of the mob of yes voters who think Monopoly money is the way ahead. I would love to see RBS move their HQ down to England, I would laugh when the SNP public spending promises were broken, and I would delight in sight Salmond begging for forgiveness from the mardy bunch of Scots who listened to his lies, like some sad ex begging you to take her back, well England are playing their lot in a football match in November. And we will give them another bloody nose, just like we did at the Battle of Culloden in 1746, I know I was there.
So, if it goes through, are you on board with England becoming the 51st US state? :hook:
I thought we were.
Quote from: Woolly Mammoth on September 12, 2014, 09:37:02 PM
I would rather lick an angry Wasp than be the 51st State, not if I can help it, the only thing the yanks have offered the world is loud mouth American tourists. Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck and Goofy. Hot Dogs, Chewing Gum, American bloody football, Lucille Ball & Desi Arnaz, Knots Landing and Quincy.
Nice to know that we are hated as much as the Scots.
As I expected....
Quote from: blingo on September 11, 2014, 02:20:54 PM
Quote from: Rupert on September 11, 2014, 01:19:40 PM
Quote from: blingo on September 11, 2014, 09:13:38 AM
The Spanish have already said they will veto any application from Scotland to join the EU. So they won't be joining the EU if they vote yes anyway.
Yes, because an independent Scotland would give the Basques ideas, so the Spanish would want to squash the new state as thoroughly as they could to ensure everyone sees it is a bad idea to leave the mother country. I had not, until now, considered that part of the subject, so excellent point made, Mr B.
Spot on Rupert. The Catalans are watching this with baited breath and praying for a yes vote, even though their election will be illegal. The grass is always greener, until you take off the polarised lenses. :008:
A point I made 15 posts before blingo.
While I'm on here, if they vote Yes, will what's left of Great Britain be henceforth known as Little Britain?
And what about our flag? My vote would be for St George flag combined with St David (yellow cross over Black background). Apologies if someone else has already posted about these aspects of the debate.
...it is up to the Scots to decide their own fate, at least they have a right to make the decision on their own countries future.
I don't particularly like Salmond as I think he is doing this for his own profile not for Scotland, but then again the same can be said for all the Westminster party leaders. Nobody can categorically prove one way or another whether in the long or short term the Scots leaving will be a long-term financial disaster, for one or both parties, only results in the fullness of time will determine who is/was right.
If the Scottish vote with their hearts and fierce pride of identity, and it all goes wrong, no doubt the English and Welsh will have to bail them out and welcome them back like the prodigal son (despite what politicians say to the contrary.
I hope whatever the result, everyone prospers based on their respective determination to succeed...
Quote from: LBNo11 on September 12, 2014, 11:42:34 PM
...it is up to the Scots to decide their own fate, at least they have a right to make the decision on their own countries future.
I don't particularly like Salmond as I think he is doing this for his own profile not for Scotland, but then again the same can be said for all the Westminster party leaders. Nobody can categorically prove one way or another whether in the long or short term the Scots leaving will be a long-term financial disaster, for one or both parties, only results in the fullness of time will determine who is/was right.
If the Scottish vote with their hearts and fierce pride of identity, and it all goes wrong, no doubt the English and Welsh will have to bail them out and welcome them back like the prodigal son (despite what politicians say to the contrary.
I hope whatever the result, everyone prospers based on their respective determination to succeed...
Would be ok if that was the case Ed but Scots are not all being allowed to vote.If you are Polish and live in Scotland you can vote but if you are Scottish and now reside in any other country you cannot!
Quote from: YankeeJim on September 12, 2014, 09:50:53 PM
Quote from: Woolly Mammoth on September 12, 2014, 09:37:02 PM
I would rather lick an angry Wasp than be the 51st State, not if I can help it, the only thing the yanks have offered the world is loud mouth American tourists. Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck and Goofy. Hot Dogs, Chewing Gum, American bloody football, Lucille Ball & Desi Arnaz, Knots Landing and Quincy.
Nice to know that we are hated as much as the Scots.
As I expected....
Don't worry about it. We English are hated by everyone - the Welsh, the Scots, the Irish, the French, the Spanish, the Germans, the Indians, the Australians, the Argentines... even the Icelandic. In fact I think Belgium might be the only ones to have a good word to say about us.
You just have to accept it.
Quote from: Big Martin Jol on September 12, 2014, 11:58:53 PM
Quote from: YankeeJim on September 12, 2014, 09:50:53 PM
Quote from: Woolly Mammoth on September 12, 2014, 09:37:02 PM
I would rather lick an angry Wasp than be the 51st State, not if I can help it, the only thing the yanks have offered the world is loud mouth American tourists. Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck and Goofy. Hot Dogs, Chewing Gum, American bloody football, Lucille Ball & Desi Arnaz, Knots Landing and Quincy.
Nice to know that we are hated as much as the Scots.
As I expected....
Don't worry about it. We English are hated by everyone - the Welsh, the Scots, the Irish, the French, the Spanish, the Germans, the Indians, the Australians, the Argentines... even the Icelandic. In fact I think Belgium might be the only ones to have a good word to say about us.
You just have to accept it.
I haven't gotten over the White House. Not that you lot burnt it 1814 but that you haven't burnt the current one.
093.gif Sorry Mods. Someone has to pick the low hanging fruit. :Get Coat gif:
Quote from: Woolly Mammoth on September 12, 2014, 09:37:02 PM
I would rather lick an angry Wasp than be the 51st State, not if I can help it, the only thing the yanks have offered the world is loud mouth American tourists. Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck and Goofy. Hot Dogs, Chewing Gum, American bloody football, Lucille Ball & Desi Arnaz, Knots Landing and Quincy.
Now you've gone too far, Wooly. You can screw my wife, shoot my dog, hate on the Ugly American all you want. But never, I say, never, speak ill of Lucille Ball. I'm going to come over there and hit you with a two by four. That woman was a comic genius.
Another anti-independence article for your reading pleasure. This one from left-leaning online Slate Magazine (Microsoft):
With one week to go before the big referendum, it seems distinctly possible that Scotland will rock Europe by voting to declare independence from Great Britain. And like so many world-historic events of the past century, this one would have lots to do with oil.
Jordan Weissmann is Slate's senior business and economics correspondent.
Think of Scotland's most famous exports, and chances are that whiskey comes to mind, followed maybe by wool sweaters, bagpipes, and indie-rock bands. But the region's most valuable product is the crude oil that sits just offshore in the North Sea. In 2013, those wells yielded about 800,000 barrels of oil per day for Great Britain. That's not a ton of black gold in the global scheme of things—North Dakota, by comparison, produces more than a million barrels per day—but it's valuable, yielding billions of pounds in tax revenue every year. If Scotland were to file for geo-political divorce, the consensus is that it would walk away with the rights to more than 90 percent of those oil resources, along with 47 percent of the U.K.'s natural gas.
Even without its oil revenues, Scotland would be quite a rich country.
Those hydrocarbons look awfully tantalizing to Scotland's nationalists. Politically, golf's ancestral homeland is more liberal than the rest of Great Britain, and its voters especially dislike the ruling Conservative Party led by Prime Minister David Cameron. (In an emotional speech, Cameron himself begged his countrymen not to vote for independence just to "give the effing Tories a kick.") In its economic case for independence, the Scottish National Party–led regional government—which is charged with handling much of Scotland's internal affairs—spends page upon page protesting growing income inequality in Great Britain, as well as the Cameron government's austerity budgets and cuts to the safety net. Post-secession, the nationalists picture Scotland following in the crude-drenched footsteps of Norway, which plows its princely oil revenues into a sovereign wealth fund designed to shore up its substantial welfare state.
Advertisement
It's a lovely vision, but there's a catch: Nobody is really sure how much oil and gas is left in the North Sea, where crude production peaked all the way back in 1999, and has been declining swiftly in recent years. Tax revenue from drilling fell from £12.4 billion in 2008-09 to £6.5 billion in 2012-13. As for the future, the predictions are all over the map. The Scottish National Party has optimistic estimates based on the assumption that investing in better technology will let the industry drill more oil out of the ocean. Sir Ian Wood, a billionaire Scottish oil executive, has called those predictions a "fantasy," and said that revenues from the North Sea "will simply not be there in 25 to 30 years' time." The U.K.'s Office for Budget Responsibility thinks output will be far lower than the nationalists hope.
As the Guardian soberly put it, "oil should be a crucial factor in weighing up how Scots vote on 18 September, but the scale and longevity of the country's fossil fuel wealth remains a matter of debate."
Many have pointed out that even without its oil revenues, Scotland would be quite a rich country. "If its geographic share of UK oil and gas output is taken into account, Scotland's GDP per head is bigger than that of France," Mure Dickey and Keith Fray noted in the Financial Times. "Even excluding the North Sea's hydrocarbon bounty, per capita GDP is higher than that of Italy." The country is highly educated and has a strong finance industry along with some advanced manufacturing. Meanwhile, those Scotch exports aren't a joke.
The problem is taxes. Scotland already gets back more in spending from London than it pays to the government, meaning its revenue base would actually have to grow a bit after independence to avoid running up its deficit or cutting spending. (Letting the deficit pile up isn't really an option, since the pro-independence movement wants to stay on the British pound.) A major drop in fossil fuel profits would leave a gaping hole in the budget. Over the last few years, oil and gas receipts amounted to a full 16 percent of the region's tax base, on average. By comparison, the United States only collects about a tenth of its revenue from its entire corporate income tax. Today's Great Britain gets less than 2 percent of its taxes from oil and gas. The nationalists point out that Scotland would rely less on fossil fuels for revenue than Norway, but that's cold comfort.
If the crude doesn't keep flowing the way nationalist politicians hope, it could mean higher taxes, lower spending on social programs, and weaker growth. Worse yet, oil is ultimately just one of many of economic unknowns that could dictate Scotland's future on its own. (Paul Krugman has already railed on its plans for monetary policy.) Which is why this referendum really is a gamble. In the end, oil money really is as crucial to Scotland's independence hopes as peat smoke is to its booze—without it, much of the rationale just disappears.
That is where you are wrong, Scotlands biggest earner and export is financial services not oil, watch the guy talking sense, https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=798709416847541&fref=nf (https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=798709416847541&fref=nf)this is something you across the pond are not used to
Most of my relatives work in the financial service sector in Edinburgh and they are all very worried
Quote from: epsomraver on September 13, 2014, 09:04:32 AM
That is where you are wrong, Scotlands biggest earner and export is financial services not oil, watch the guy talking sense, https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=798709416847541&fref=nf (https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=798709416847541&fref=nf)this is something you across the pond are not used to
Though, if the rbs leak does pan out, would that lead to a deterioration in that financial sector base? I guess the question as to whether the Scottish fs is really an overflow from the London fs, or truly its own sector.
Tony, the RBS was run by a total idiot and had to be bailed out by the whole of the Uk to the tune of billions of pounds,Salmond cannot just walk away from that debt
If Scotland were to file for geo-political divorce, the consensus is that it would walk away with the rights to more than 90 percent of those oil resources, along with 47 percent of the U.K.'s natural gas.
Even without its oil revenues, Scotland would be quite a rich country.
And the multi national oil companies are just going to sit back and let an Independent scotland cream it all off? I don't think so!
Quote from: epsomraver on September 13, 2014, 09:04:32 AM
That is where you are wrong, Scotlands biggest earner and export is financial services not oil, watch the guy talking sense, https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=798709416847541&fref=nf (https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=798709416847541&fref=nf)this is something you across the pond are not used to
And Scottish WHISKY is not spelt WHISKEY. That is how the Irish spell it.
Next weekend it will be Mebyon Kernow's turn - they are the Cornish nationalist party and want independence from the rest of us. Where will it end?
The Channel Islands have the best deal: self governing and out of the EU.
Well, it's now only two days away.
If it comes off, we'll have to change the flag and the remnant won't be able to be called "Britain" as that's the whole island and excludes the N. Irish. There will have to be border posts, different passports, they'll lose the BBC and must not get a currency union. There must be no way back - as Cameron said, this is a divorce not a trial separation. Their citizens will have to leave the Armed Services, MoD, GCHQ and other sensitive institutions. Let all their industry come to us and I shall avoid Scottish products.
I would hope that the England football team would eventually remove the Scottish blue from their kit. It's been too long.
The reaction would send England well to the Right.
On the other hand, if it goes "no", we'll have to put up with them whinging for the next 300 years. If the result is narrow, Salmond will want another one (despite what he says) until he gets what he wants. He wants to go down in history as the next great "martyr" of the underdogs, like Wallace and other terrorists.
I was talking to Scottish and Cornish friends at the weekend. The Scots can't see beyond the end of their haggises and the Cornish are far too sensible.
Quote from: Holders on September 16, 2014, 05:32:44 AM
Well, it's now only two days away.
If it comes off, we'll have to change the flag and the remnant won't be able to be called "Britain" as that's the whole island and excludes the N. Irish. There will have to be border posts, different passports, they'll lose the BBC and must not get a currency union. There must be no way back - as Cameron said, this is a divorce not a trial separation. Their citizens will have to leave the Armed Services, MoD, GCHQ and other sensitive institutions. Let all their industry come to us and I shall avoid Scottish products.
I would hope that the England football team would eventually remove the Scottish blue from their kit. It's been too long.
The reaction would send England well to the Right.
On the other hand, if it goes "no", we'll have to put up with them whinging for the next 300 years. If the result is narrow, Salmond will want another one (despite what he says) until he gets what he wants. He wants to go down in history as the next great "martyr" of the underdogs, like Wallace and other terrorists.
I was talking to Scottish and Cornish friends at the weekend. The Scots can't see beyond the end of their haggises and the Cornish are far too sensible.
I'm sure we can still call the remainder of the British Isles "Britain". After all, in historic terms, only Wales and Cornwall (Perhaps even Brittany !) can be called by that name, because the Romans drove the Ancient Britons to those places....and the Picts and Scots originally came from Ireland anyway.....
Quote from: Woolly Mammoth on September 12, 2014, 09:37:02 PM
I would rather lick an angry Wasp than be the 51st State, not if I can help it, the only thing the yanks have offered the world is loud mouth American tourists. Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck and Goofy. Hot Dogs, Chewing Gum, American bloody football, Lucille Ball & Desi Arnaz, Knots Landing and Quincy.
my name's win-dup, not yours
Not being Scottish this hooha doesn't exercise me overmuch. I don't get a say in the matter anyway, which, seeing as I am as much a member of the UK as Ross McCormack, has always struck me as odd.
One thing I am fairly sure about is that the whole thing is as fine a cock-up as you will find outside of Fulham FC (see how I slipped in the compulsory whinge there?).
The 'Yessers', don't really seem to have thought through the full ramifications of independence beyond having a nice flag, a song and a place for some position-inflating politician at the International tables of power.
On the 'No' side, our (ie Westminster) politicians have been, unsurprisingly, totally derelict. Presumably thinking that a 'No' was a certainty they have kept well out of it until they have at last woken up to the idea that it is an important issue for them and have made themselves look foolish by suddenly gracing Scotland with their collective presence, mouthing a load of platitudes - with tearful accompanyment, and offering what seems to be a load of bribes (which is, of course, their stock in trade). Pathetic. Lord Palmerston would have sent a gunboat up the Clyde at the first sound of 'Scotland the Brave.'
Quote from: ron on September 16, 2014, 09:42:36 AM
Quote from: Holders on September 16, 2014, 05:32:44 AM
Well, it's now only two days away.
If it comes off, we'll have to change the flag and the remnant won't be able to be called "Britain" as that's the whole island and excludes the N. Irish. There will have to be border posts, different passports, they'll lose the BBC and must not get a currency union. There must be no way back - as Cameron said, this is a divorce not a trial separation. Their citizens will have to leave the Armed Services, MoD, GCHQ and other sensitive institutions. Let all their industry come to us and I shall avoid Scottish products.
I would hope that the England football team would eventually remove the Scottish blue from their kit. It's been too long.
The reaction would send England well to the Right.
On the other hand, if it goes "no", we'll have to put up with them whinging for the next 300 years. If the result is narrow, Salmond will want another one (despite what he says) until he gets what he wants. He wants to go down in history as the next great "martyr" of the underdogs, like Wallace and other terrorists.
I was talking to Scottish and Cornish friends at the weekend. The Scots can't see beyond the end of their haggises and the Cornish are far too sensible.
I'm sure we can still call the remainder of the British Isles "Britain". After all, in historic terms, only Wales and Cornwall (Perhaps even Brittany !) can be called by that name, because the Romans drove the Ancient Britons to those places....and the Picts and Scots originally came from Ireland anyway.....
The Picts were original inhabitants in historic times, the Scots came from Ireland and it was the English who pushed the Welsh and Cornish back not the Romans - and also other Welsh into Northern Gaul (or Francia, if you prefer), now called Brittany.
"Britain" is the island, not the southern two-thirds of it. UK is a more inclusive term anyway as it includes N.Ireland who must get pretty miffed to be described as "team GB" when competing in the Olympics etc.
Quote from: win-dup on September 16, 2014, 10:18:47 AM
Quote from: Woolly Mammoth on September 12, 2014, 09:37:02 PM
I would rather lick an angry Wasp than be the 51st State, not if I can help it, the only thing the yanks have offered the world is loud mouth American tourists. Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck and Goofy. Hot Dogs, Chewing Gum, American bloody football, Lucille Ball & Desi Arnaz, Knots Landing and Quincy.
my name's win-dup, not yours
Well put. :beer:
I have strong and well-considered opinions on Scotland and the UK.
I'm keeping them to myself.
You're welcome.
Quote from: HatterDon on September 17, 2014, 12:32:33 AM
I have strong and well-considered opinions on Scotland and the UK.
I'm keeping them to myself.
You're welcome.
OK.
Quote from: Forever Fulham on September 13, 2014, 02:43:36 AM
Quote from: Woolly Mammoth on September 12, 2014, 09:37:02 PM
I would rather lick an angry Wasp than be the 51st State, not if I can help it, the only thing the yanks have offered the world is loud mouth American tourists. Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck and Goofy. Hot Dogs, Chewing Gum, American bloody football, Lucille Ball & Desi Arnaz, Knots Landing and Quincy.
Now you've gone too far, Wooly. You can screw my wife, shoot my dog, hate on the Ugly American all you want. But never, I say, never, speak ill of Lucille Ball. I'm going to come over there and hit you with a two by four. That woman was a comic genius.
I thought Lucille Ball was a man in drag.
Quote from: Woolly Mammoth on September 17, 2014, 02:13:27 AM
Quote from: Forever Fulham on September 13, 2014, 02:43:36 AM
Quote from: Woolly Mammoth on September 12, 2014, 09:37:02 PM
I would rather lick an angry Wasp than be the 51st State, not if I can help it, the only thing the yanks have offered the world is loud mouth American tourists. Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck and Goofy. Hot Dogs, Chewing Gum, American bloody football, Lucille Ball & Desi Arnaz, Knots Landing and Quincy.
Now you've gone too far, Wooly. You can screw my wife, shoot my dog, hate on the Ugly American all you want. But never, I say, never, speak ill of Lucille Ball. I'm going to come over there and hit you with a two by four. That woman was a comic genius.
I thought Lucille Ball was a man in drag.
Woolly, while I contemplate your untimely death, I leave you with this big of comic genius:
Vitameatavegamin (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AZK2-Tfc84#)
Interesting article:
GLASGOW, Scotland—Something strange is happening in Scotland, and it has little to do with nationalism. On streets that are normally lined only with chain shops, budget shoppers, and retail workers, there are now noisy crowds with drums and megaphones, impromptu dancing, and trestle tables stacked with political literature that keep shedding leaflets into the wind.
The trestle tables are everywhere: rickety, colorful little embassies of something messy, grounded, and different, all parked haphazardly below the giant identikit glass-fronted retail windows that are the familiar backbone of every British high street, and all drawing crowds. They are run by groups with names like Women for Independence, Scottish Pensioners for Independence, and Scots Asians for Yes. Security guards keep coming out of the shops and politely warning those manning these stalls that their banners and volunteers are encroaching on what is technically private land. Those in the street take no notice. They are too many in number, and too high in passion, to be corralled back into sanctioned spaces now.
The Scottish referendum is a story about a generation that displays little instinctive faith in the status quo.
The story of Scotland's forthcoming referendum on independence, which takes place on Thursday, is about many different things—the majority of which have received very little attention from a mainstream press determined to interpret the debate through a tired prism of establishment parties, establishment politicians, and establishment narratives. One of those things is about what happens when big, nominally social-democratic political institutions—in Britain's case, the pro-union Labour Party—sign up to the prevailing economic orthodoxy, leaving those who feel excluded by a doctrine of free-market fundamentalism with no one to represent them. Another is about the cracks that open up when an era of widespread, popular disillusionment with authority coincides with a vote in which almost every organ of authority—be it political, financial, or editorial—is advocating on one side of the argument, while all the popular momentum lies with the other.
Perhaps most importantly though, it's a story about the emergence of a generation that has big and radical thoughts, at a time when all the ideological questions that matter are supposedly long-settled and when big, radical thoughts are distinctly out of fashion. To the alarm of just about everyone else, it's a story about a generation that displays little instinctive faith in the status quo.
"We've changed the terms of engagement," said Scottish hip-hop artist Darren "Loki" McGarvey, when I asked him why the highest-support for a yes vote to independence is consistently found among the youngest, 16–34, age bracket. "We no longer have to apologize for looking at life through a moral lens. We no longer have to apologize for having our own ideas about how society works. We've stopped thinking like consumers, and started thinking like citizens."
* * *
From Glasgow's Queen Street train station, the X19 bus wends east through the city and out onto the M80 motorway. From here, the busy thoroughfares of the town center melt away and are replaced by wide-open spaces dotted with neat grids of pebbledash-terraced housing and the occasional clump of residential tower blocks. These traditionally working-class areas are the Britain that Thatcherism left behind; from their streets the dizzying "success" of the City of London, the United Kingdom's citadel of high finance, looks pretty distant, and the warnings of division from the independence no camp sound pretty hollow. "Britain's already divided between rich and poor," says John Daley, a 57-year-old fisherman working at the Barras Street market in Glasgow's East End. "You drive toward the edge of any major city and the place is a desert. On my way up to the lochs to fish, all I can see is just one ruined industrial estate and one ruined farm after another."
People like John Daley were once Labour Party voters, and places like Easterhouse, where the X19 ends, were once Labour party strongholds. As one of the country's statistically poorest neighborhoods, residents here are accustomed to being used as static backdrops for government policy announcements on welfare and social mobility, but the carefully staged visits of big-name politicians have done little to persuade locals of the merits of formal politics. At the last elections, barely one-third of eligible local voters turned up at the ballot box.
Photo by Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images Yes placards adorn the walls of the Lucky Break Snooker Club in Glasgow.
On the day I went to Easterhouse, though, it looked very far from apathetic. Flags and posters for the referendum campaign filled house windows—from a pretty unscientific survey, I'd say the ratio stood at about 10-to-1 in favor of independence—and a Yes Scotland public meeting at a local community hall was so full that people were squeezing in to stand at the back. I found Robin McAlpine, who was due to speak at the event, sitting on the hood of his Vauxhall Astra in Easterhouse station's parking lot. Between frantic bouts of activity on his phone he waved me into the vehicle and apologized for the wrappers and crumbs littering the seat. "I'm a feckin' shambles!" he grinned, as we drove off for a coffee.
Like so many of the activists pounding the streets in support of a yes vote, McAlpine—who is one of the figures behind the Common Weal project, a series of reports exploring what a different kind of Scotland, with a different kind of politics, could become—has nothing to do with the Scottish National Party. Despite the repeated framing of the referendum as a slugfest between the SNP and Westminster, one of the most startling aspects of the yes campaign is how much of it has been waged outside of formal political structures. McAlpine, who has spoken at nearly 250 public meetings and clocked up to 1,000 miles in his Astra, calls the grassroots yes movement a "butterfly rebellion," armed with little more than infographics, humor, and personal contact. "What happened is that outside the realm of what would normally be called permitted political discourse, without any permission, of any description, by any institution, we have just headed out and done it anyway," he claimed.
Some of the support picked up by the pro-independence campaign in places like Easterhouse can be traced back to growing working-class disillusionment with the Labour party; in 2011, Labour recorded its worst election results across Scotland in 80 years. Having largely accepted the neoliberal paradigm—before she died, Margaret Thatcher called Tony Blair's New Labour Party her "greatest achievement"—Labour leaders have been left with little room to maneuver in the battle to persuade voters that there is a road within the union that leads to a reduction of inequality and meaningful improvements in ordinary people's lives. On this reading Labour's drift to the right has simply left a void in the political spectrum for SNP leaders to occupy and style themselves, however opportunistically, as warriors for social justice—ferrying "old Labour" voters toward nationalism in the process. As Alex Bell, chair of the renegade Labour for Independence group told me, "[Labour leader] Ed Miliband came up here a month ago and said this referendum will be fought on Labour values. It is, and he's going to lose."
But although that might explain some of the yes momentum, on its own it doesn't account for the bigger picture: all those public meetings, all those trestle tables, the organic flowering of political discourse from below. Something else is going on here too, something that speaks very specifically to the political configuration we are living under, and its vulnerabilities.
Neoliberalism, in Britain and elsewhere, has not just hived off collective resources into private hands; it has also hollowed out liberal democratic governments, placing large areas of political debate under the sole purview of dispassionate, spreadsheet-wielding technocrats, beholden only to the markets. The result is an ever-shrinking arena for the rest of us to thrash out ideas. Under this type of politics, most of the political landscape becomes ossified and uncontested. We can squabble over whether the government should implement temporary energy price freezes, but never ask why energy production shouldn't be in public ownership altogether. We can ponder the finer details of banker bonuses, but never discuss why it is that a mammoth, rentier financial industry is allowed to gamble every day with the world's economic future—pocketing all the profits when it wins and socializing all the risk when it loses. Amid an orgy of material choice, our political horizons have narrowed to near zero.
The message of the pro-union Better Together campaign—which started out with a seemingly insurmountable poll lead, before hemorrhaging support in recent months—has been grounded firmly within those narrow horizons, concentrating on fear of the unknown and the amorphous risk of structural change. While initiatives like Common Weal were going around asking Scots "if you could do anything, what would you do?" slogans on the other side have included "I love my family, I'm saying no thanks," and, "If you don't know, vote no." It's a narrative calculated to appeal to an electorate uncertain of their capacity to change the world around them, a population content to allow those wielding power under the existing political model to define the safe, limited routes to change within it. "Their whole campaign has been predicated on the idea that people are basically stupid and not interested in politics," argues McAlpine. "The message is, 'We know what's good for you, don't ask questions.' "
Crucially though, that's not how things have panned out—which is why the pro-union campaign have had to change tack at the 11th hour, insisting, somewhat unconvincingly, that a vote for no could actually be a vote for radical change after all. The three main party leaders in London have now all promised a fresh round of devolution to Scotland if independence is rejected—transferring more powers to Edinburgh, including some control of taxes—and even signed a joint declaration on the matter which appeared on the front page of a Scottish newspaper on Tuesday morning. The yes camp claim it is a sign of panic, and that no one in Scotland will buy into this last-ditch effort.
The fact is that Scots have been asking lots of questions for themselves and getting clued up in the process—grappling with the implications for energy, currency, international treaties, and constitutional reform. With those questions has come a steep decline in deference toward those who claim to speak with expert authority on such matters. Each dire warning of financial disaster issued by a major bank, business leader, or politician seems to have only hardened support for independence; last week, when Deutsche Bank declared that a yes vote could trigger another Great Depression, many Scots I spoke to literally laughed. The irony—of financial institutions who exploited the current system to cause economic doom, now doom-mongering themselves over any prospect of systemic change—was lost on no one.
What the Scottish independence referendum has exposed, unexpectedly but enthrallingly, is not so much a vein of support for nationalism, or even for independence in its own right, but rather a vein of political imagination that upends everything we're usually told about politics today. It's exposed a rejection of gradualism in favor of more ambitious, and even radical visions of change. As young musician Becci Wallace puts it, "it's opened up so many people's minds and given them a voice they didn't even know they had."
The hope for many is that regardless of the referendum outcome, this mental gear shift could seep across the border; as indicated by the rise in England of the self-styled "anti-establishment" U.K. Independence Party, which tacks firmly to the right, a hunger for alternatives to the political status quo can be discerned right across the British Isles. "The campaign for independence is actually about reconnecting people to decision-making and breaking a political consensus that's not just more right-wing than I'd like, but fundamentally doesn't serve the common good," Patrick Harvie, a member of the Scottish parliament for the pro-yes Green Party, told me. "It serves big business interests, the City of London. I think we've got a broken political system, I think the connection between people and power is broken, and the same outrage and anger about that exists north and south of the border."
Should a yes vote prevail, it seems highly likely that an independent Scotland would boast a political center to the left of Westminster. Many of the decisions that the country could take, like removing the U.K.'s Trident nuclear weapons program or renationalizing the postal service, would inevitably prize open meaningful debates in the rest of the U.K. as well; desiccated swathes of the political landscape could suddenly become sites of battle once again. "I honestly believe an independent Scotland—proving there's another way than neoliberalism—is going to produce a political earthquake across these islands," insists Alex Bell. "Dreams are back on the table."
* * *
On one of my final days in Scotland, I managed to push through a scrum of television cameras on Glasgow's Sauchiehall Street to reach John Reid, a former New Labour minister and leading light of the Better Together campaign. He had spent hours fielding questions on currency unions, capital flight, and national credit ratings. When I asked him whether the real story of this referendum was the story of Labour's failure to offer an alternative to neoliberalism, he did a double take before reeling off a quick-fire list of Labour achievements in office. "That's not a failure of social democracy," he concluded, as his media handlers ushered him away before I could ask a second question.
A bit further down the hill, a massive throng of yes voters had gathered to sing songs and make each other laugh. Three teenage girls, just old enough to go to the polls on Thursday (the eligible voting age is 16), had set up microphones and guitars and were providing the entertainment. "I don't see a reason to vote no," said Margaux Durand-Watson. "People say independence is a risk, but why?" added her friend, Vendela Gebbie. "We're a rich country, but most of the kids in my class are on free school meals, and that's not right. I don't trust the politicians, and I don't trust adults who tell us we're too young to be involved. We look things up. We research the issues for ourselves. We're used to the way things are now but no one has told us why the way things are now make sense."
Whether the yes camp triumphs on Thursday or not, Scotland's independence referendum has brought into sharp relief the generational chasm between John Reid on the one side and Margaux and Vendela on the other. For the latter, who were born after Tony Blair came to power and have never associated the Labour Party with left-leaning politics or progressive change, passively accepting the contours of political debate that have been handed down from above is simply not an option.
When it came to independence, they might have been persuaded to support the union if someone, anyone, had tried to make a positive, forward-looking case for it. But Better Together never bothered to do that; the pro-union strategy was projecting fear of the unknown, and John Reid's message is that the best way that Margaux and Vendela can fight for social justice is to vote for Labour once every five years. It's a tired and paltry vision of change, and set alongside the possibilities that independence might throw up, it comes across to the teenagers as no real vision at all.
Regardless of Thursday's vote, Margaux, Vendela, and dozens of other young people and activists I spoke with in Scotland have used this campaign to probe a different sort of politics—and that, rather than Tartan flag-waving or increased cross-border financial transaction costs is what custodians of the old politics fear most of all. The pro-union strategy was designed to exploit the cramped nature of democratic thinking under neoliberalism; instead, among the Scots who have the most to lose or gain from independence, it has only revealed and exploded the limitations of such thinking altogether. "The books we read as we're growing up always tell us that fortune favors the brave, and optimism usually wins the day," observed 21-year-old yes campaigner Josephine Sillars. "Why did they ever think we'd be afraid of ourselves?"
Jack Shenker in a journalist based in London and Cairo. His book on Egypt's revolution will be published by Penguin and Allen Lane next year.
God bless and Good luck Scotland.
WHATEVER, TOGETHER
Yes I must admit my mind has been more on that than football this last week.
Please stay with us Scotland, since I've discovered you through Mr B I want to be part of you
Anyone want to guess the 'score'? I reckon 46% yes, 54% no.
I think, am afraid Yes, my husband who is Scottish thinks No
Got an awful feeling the yessers are going to shade it and produce gigantic problems for both countries we are not even aware of yet.
Let's hope against hope I am wrong.......
Quote from: Fernhurst on September 18, 2014, 08:11:15 AM
Got an awful feeling the yessers are going to shade it and produce gigantic problems for both countries we are not even aware of yet.
Let's hope against hope I am wrong.......
I fear you are right
The people will see sense and the NO voters will be out in force.
They've voted no.
Whatever the result, we are gonna wake up to a different country.
Here's hoping for the no.
Pollsters reckon a NO and not as close as the BBC have been trying to paint
My husband is going to stay up, so are my in-laws in Scotland
how does this actually work? is it like our election where you win councils or is it more fairer and say if one million vote you need five hundred thousand and one vote to win
It's which ever of the Yes or No has the most votes. It's not like Council voting or Constituencies. I presume that each voter still has to go to a polling station in their area but I guess the yes and no are just totally added together countty wide
Quote from: fulhamben on September 18, 2014, 11:05:11 PM
how does this actually work? is it like our election where you win councils or is it more fairer and say if one million vote you need five hundred thousand and one vote to win
Majority vote to win, however votes will be counted and viewed to see how people voted within areas, such as Edinburgh North and South.
Quote from: Berserker on September 18, 2014, 11:17:53 PM
It's which ever of the Yes or No has the most votes. It's not like Council voting or Constituencies. I presume that each voter still has to go to a polling station in their area but I guess the yes and no are just totally added together countty wide
cheers. at least thats fair. really annoys me one somone gets in even though the others had more votes but in less areas
Stay up with Mr B Berserker even if it affects your work tomorrow..... Far too important for sleep.
Wee Eck has spent a huge slice of the SNP budget on persuading Glasgow to vote yes and the intimidation has been at its most frenetic, highlighted by a polling station being daubed with " Vote Yes or else"
We can only hope for a huge silent majority.
Good vibes coming from postal vote we hear.... Comfortable NO majority
If we're guessing scores I reckon 51% "no", 49% "yes" (50-50 at half time).
Quote from: Holders on September 18, 2014, 11:27:39 PM
If we're guessing scores I reckon 51% "no", 49% "yes" (50-50 at half time).
well lets hope they havent got felix in for a half time talk or it will be a landslide
Quote from: fulhamben on September 18, 2014, 11:29:06 PM
Quote from: Holders on September 18, 2014, 11:27:39 PM
If we're guessing scores I reckon 51% "no", 49% "yes" (50-50 at half time).
well lets hope they havent got felix in for a half time talk or it will be a landslide
Laughed too hard at this
First result of the night....
A win for Staying together....... Long long way to go, Clackmannanshire very small sample. Glasgow might decide it
Massive vote for staying with the UK from the Orcadians
Up Hella!!
A very downcast John Swinney (SNP Minister) being interviewed in Perth as he surveys a 60% to 40% reverse for the Yes vote........
Things are going so well ( BBC reporting West Lothian has voted No) I might grab some sleep!
If this continues, time for Salmond to resign ....... :Get Coat gif:
Quote from: fulhamben on September 18, 2014, 11:21:07 PM
Quote from: Berserker on September 18, 2014, 11:17:53 PM
It's which ever of the Yes or No has the most votes. It's not like Council voting or Constituencies. I presume that each voter still has to go to a polling station in their area but I guess the yes and no are just totally added together countty wide
cheers. at least thats fair. really annoys me one somone gets in even though the others had more votes but in less areas
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29263022 (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29263022)
This link will give you more idea and yes as Berserker said it's total votes not counties or constituencies which I think is better than the UK system.
On the link there is another link "Results in detail" under the NO/YES on the right.
This really gives an idea as to how it all works.
At the moment it's a spanking, something like 65%/35%
McCormack won't need a passport !
Salmond and Magath out within the same 24 hours.
More results, Fife, Falkirk and Midlothian voting NO.
Well done Scotland ..... Did not buckle under arrogant SNP campaign and has proved so many people wrong (including me) who thought the man and his party were doing a lot better than they actually were.
Canny Scots ....... So pleased.....Night night sleep soundly.
wow dundee have evened this right up
Quote from: Fernhurst on September 19, 2014, 03:21:49 AM
Salmond and Magath out within the same 24 hours.
More results, Fife, Falkirk and Midlothian voting NO.
Well done Scotland ..... Did not buckle under arrogant SNP campaign and has proved so many people wrong (including me) who thought the man and his party were doing a lot better than they actually were.
Canny Scots ....... So pleased.....Night night sleep soundly.
where are you getting results from? midlothian only just declared live on the bbc nearly an hour later
this gonna be close. interestingly the mp for shetlands has said that they will be holding talks about whether it will be in there interest to break away from scotland if its a yes vote
i reckon the rejected vote has a chance of winning this
The No vote seems to be running away with it sp far but theres still a lobg way to go.
glasgow in, its in favour of yes but not enough to dent the no
looks like a win for no. sky predicting a final result along the lines 55-45 in favour of staying in the union.
(http://www-static.escapestudios.com/assets/Uploads/_resampled/VideoPlayer480270-unionjack.gif)
Quote from: Pie and mash on September 19, 2014, 06:07:49 AM
(http://www-static.escapestudios.com/assets/Uploads/_resampled/VideoPlayer480270-unionjack.gif)
0001.jpeg
This is a victory for common sense. There must be a good number of people who voted "yes" with their hearts who are secretly breathing a sigh of relief.
The markets and £ will be up today.
From what Cameron said this morning, this could work out well for England as well - and not before time. Bring it on.
I'm so relieved
Can England now vote for independence from Scotland and Wales?
