Scottish Independence

the playing mantis

no.

im not going to move to a country, and then preach hatred of that country and incite others to do harm to that country and not expect to remain in that country, so i dont need to be protected by the f acked up bit of the legislation that protects that god given right.

clearly the act has good parts but has serious problems that the hamza case higlights. f *ck the one eyed pri ck

MattC59

the playing mantis wrote:

no.

im not going to move to a country, and then preach hatred of that country and incite others to do harm to that country and not expect to remain in that country, so i dont need to be protected by the f acked up bit of the legislation that protects that god given right.

clearly the act has good parts but has serious problems that the hamza case higlights. f *ck the one eyed pri ck

+1

You make your bed, you lie in it.

GiantMike

MattC59 wrote:

the playing mantis wrote:

no.

im not going to move to a country, and then preach hatred of that country and incite others to do harm to that country and not expect to remain in that country, so i dont need to be protected by the f acked up bit of the legislation that protects that god given right.

clearly the act has good parts but has serious problems that the hamza case higlights. f *ck the one eyed pri ck

+1

You make your bed, you lie in it.

Quite a feat with one eye and a hook. I bet the duvet was a nightmare.

secretsam

If I'm reading this right, Alex Salmond's version of "independence" means that Scotland gets to do its own thing but:
- Keeps the pound and economic unification with the rest of the UK
- Keeps the BBC
- Keeps the oil

ie it's independence with all the risk taken out and all the good bits kept in?

Errrr...I think, Alex, if it's independence you want, that's what you get. Find your own bloody currency, sort your own flaming telly and as for the oil - you're welcome to it. But you can pay us to suck it out of the ground for you.

If it's "Freedom" you want, then that's what you get - with all that it entails. Otherwise, given that you have your own courts, your own NHS, your own laws, frankly what do you gain?

PS: close the door on the way out.

secretsam

PS: on the Hamza thing, if he'd tried the same trick in (say) France, no doubt they'd have sorted it out with an unfortunate "accident"/etc. They are so much more pragmatic than us

secretsam

Quick question: if Scotland voted "Yes", surely the SNP would no longer have any real function? But at the same time, there would be no organised opposition, as the political parties are all run outside of Scotland. So it would be a one party state. So Alex Salmond would be the unchallenged leader, forever.

Just wondering...

markhewitt1978

SecretSam wrote:

Quick question: if Scotland voted "Yes", surely the SNP would no longer have any real function? But at the same time, there would be no organised opposition, as the political parties are all run outside of Scotland. So it would be a one party state. So Alex Salmond would be the unchallenged leader, forever.

Just wondering...

No I doubt it. Following independence the SNP will have to reinvent itself as a party which campaigns for issues other than independence. But remember that Labour, Liberals et al, will also reform themselves and come out fighting. Remember Scotland had a Labour majority administration for a good while before the SNP got in. It may well return to that, or you may see entirely new political parties establishing themselves.

neeb

As an expat Scot living in Finland (with a postal vote) and as yet undecided on the issue, all I can say is that having seen the amount of uninformed bigotry and trivialization of the issue displayed on the first few pages by some English contributors, I am a couple of iotas closer to a yes vote. Of course, that may the intention of some posters.

As it happens it's Independence Day in Finland today. I'm certainly glad I'm living here and not in Russia, as I would effectively have been 96 years ago. Hyvää itsenäisyyspäivä.

confused@BR

The thought crossed my mind; if Scotland votes for Independence next year and the U K votes to leave the E U the following year, will they be out of the E U because they are independent or out of the E U because the U K is out? Or if they are out of the U K can they stay in the E U?

The Spanish government is very keen to have no truck with "independent" statelets being allowed access to the E U but why should 'Dave' please them? what with all this Gibraltar nonsense.

neeb

confused@BR wrote:

The thought crossed my mind; if Scotland votes for Independence next year and the U K votes to leave the E U the following year, will they be out of the E U because they are independent or out of the E U because the U K is out?

On the face of it, whichever is implemented first I suppose (not just voted on). The SNP plan that if there was a "yes" vote in 2014, Scotland would become independent in 2016. I don't know what the proposed timetable is for the UK leaving the EU if there is a referendum in 2015 and the UK votes to leave.

Or if they are out of the U K can they stay in the E U?

It seems that an independent Scotland would need to reapply for membership.

confused@BR wrote:

The Spanish government is very keen to have no truck with "independent" statelets being allowed access to the E U but why should 'Dave' please them? what with all this Gibraltar nonsense.

Not quite sure what you are getting at here - a fully independent Scotland would be just that, it would have nothing in common with Gibraltar, which is a British Overseas Territory (colony, effectively), and would certainly not be a "statelet".

daviesee

confused@BR wrote:

The Spanish government is very keen to have no truck with "independent" statelets being allowed access to the E U but why should 'Dave' please them? what with all this Gibraltar nonsense.

The main reason the Spanish fear Statelets being allowed access to the EU is that they fear Catalonia following the example.

Escadrille Ecosse

SecretSam wrote:

Quick question: if Scotland voted "Yes", surely the SNP would no longer have any real function? But at the same time, there would be no organised opposition, as the political parties are all run outside of Scotland. So it would be a one party state. So Alex Salmond would be the unchallenged leader, forever.

Just wondering...

Alexi Salmonella, President for Life.

neeb wrote:

As an expat Scot living in Finland (with a postal vote) and as yet undecided on the issue, all I can say is that having seen the amount of uninformed bigotry and trivialization of the issue displayed on the first few pages by some English contributors, I am a couple of iotas closer to a yes vote. Of course, that may the intention of some posters.

Nah, as a Scot living in Scotland, Alexi manages to trivialise the debate himself pretty well with his somewhat hectoring assertions of what others must do to make his plans work and his habit of of calling anyone who puts forward a properly argued counter discussion point as being "anti Scottish".

As it happens it's Independence Day in Finland today. I'm certainly glad I'm living here and not in Russia, as I would effectively have been 96 years ago. Hyvää itsenäisyyspäivä.

They've been Swedish and Russian (if that's not an oxymoron) before actually becoming Finnish and what's more managed to pay back punitive war reparations (for having the temerity to defend themselves) and still develop a tolerant, socially progressive and highly successful country. Mad as box of frogs though.

Stevo_666

neeb wrote:

As an expat Scot living in Finland (with a postal vote) and as yet undecided on the issue, all I can say is that having seen the amount of uninformed bigotry and trivialization of the issue displayed on the first few pages by some English contributors, I am a couple of iotas closer to a yes vote. Of course, that may the intention of some posters.

Possibly, but it's much less of a big deal for the English to lose Scotland than it is the other way round. That's maybe why we don't take it as seriously. In the end you do what you want - I believe in self determination - but I reckon it'll be bad for Scotland and good for England. Take your pick.

neeb

Escadrille Ecosse wrote:

As it happens it's Independence Day in Finland today. I'm certainly glad I'm living here and not in Russia, as I would effectively have been 96 years ago. Hyvää itsenäisyyspäivä.

They've been Swedish and Russian (if that's not an oxymoron) before actually becoming Finnish and what's more managed to pay back punitive war reparations (for having the temerity to defend themselves) and still develop a tolerant, socially progressive and highly successful country. Mad as box of frogs though.

Yup, I'm often pointing out to Finns (who almost universally assume that as a Scot I should automatically be in favour of independence) that the Scottish and Finnish situations are in some ways opposites. The Finns have been a culturally and linguistically distinct people for thousands of years, but until about 100 years ago were always part of another nation (at least since nations existed), first Sweden and then Russia. Finally in 1917 they achieved political independence, and have justifiably done whatever was necessary to maintain that ever since. The Scots however have been a politically distinct nation for about 1000 years and for the majority of that time have been wholly politically independent, only joining England as part of a truly United Kingdom in 1707 and maintaining a number of separate legal and administrative institutions. Scotland played as large a part as England (relative to its population at least) in creating the British Empire and defining the concept of Britishness, but has never been under any threat of cultural dominance by England. So the possibility of independence for Scotland in 2014 is a case of a choice between two different types of self-determination and national political identity, not a chance to escape from a colonial overlord as it was for the Finns in 1917.

neeb

Stevo 666 wrote:

neeb wrote:

As an expat Scot living in Finland (with a postal vote) and as yet undecided on the issue, all I can say is that having seen the amount of uninformed bigotry and trivialization of the issue displayed on the first few pages by some English contributors, I am a couple of iotas closer to a yes vote. Of course, that may the intention of some posters.

Possibly, but it's much less of a big deal for the English to lose Scotland than it is the other way round. That's maybe why we don't take it as seriously. In the end you do what you want - I believe in self determination - but I reckon it'll be bad for Scotland and good for England. Take your pick.

Well, England has a population about 10x as large, so obviously it's going to have less of an impact economically and culturally (whatever that impact is) for England if it's no longer part of a union with Scotland than the other way around. However (and having spent a substantial number of years living in both Scotland and England), I think England benefits far more than it realises from the union with Scotland. Apart from the fact that the economic sums about net contributions ignore the completely different demographics (the majority of the Scottish landmass is much less densely populated, but the entire UK benefits from Scotland's natural resources in a lot of more intangible ways than the obvious North Sea oil), I also think that culturally, Scotland helps to keep England in check and to maintain a balanced social and political outlook. For all I know you might like to live in a country where the two major parties eventually end up being the Tories and UKIP, but I know a lot of English people wouldn't.

littledove44

If the Scots go their own way they will end up with a day called "Independence Day".

Are the English allowed to reciprocate and call it "Thanksgiving"?

Stevo_666

neeb wrote:

Well, England has a population about 10x as large, so obviously it's going to have less of an impact economically and culturally (whatever that impact is) for England if it's no longer part of a union with Scotland than the other way around. However (and having spent a substantial number of years living in both Scotland and England), I think England benefits far more than it realises from the union with Scotland. Apart from the fact that the economic sums about net contributions ignore the completely different demographics (the majority of the Scottish landmass is much less densely populated, but the entire UK benefits from Scotland's natural resources in a lot of more intangible ways than the obvious North Sea oil), I also think that culturally, Scotland helps to keep England in check and to maintain a balanced social and political outlook. For all I know you might like to live in a country where the two major parties eventually end up being the Tories and UKIP, but I know a lot of English people wouldn't.

Independence will mean that England will no longer be financing Scotland while a lot of the benefits to England of Scotlands natural resources, culture etc will carry on because they don't depend on there under the same separate administration. In the same way as we enjoy going to France as it's close by and a nice place with a bit of culture. Like I said, England will be better off if it happens.

And yes, I'd be over the bloody moon politically, as it would probably keep Labour out of power for generations and consign the Lib Dems back to where they belong as the 'Roger Irrelevant' of politics. Vote Yes...

neeb

Stevo 666 wrote:

Independence will mean that England will no longer be financing Scotland while a lot of the benefits to England of Scotlands natural resources, culture etc will carry on because they don't depend on there under the same separate administration. In the same way as we enjoy going to France as it's close by and a nice place with a bit of culture. Like I said, England will be better off if it happens.

Wait until the oil runs out (I mean globally, not just the North Sea stuff), climate change has progressed a bit and you are looking for large-scale renewables, water, safe places to build nuclear power stations and dispose of the waste, and room to house an ever expanding population from an irresistible refugee influx from an increasingly agriculturally unproductive and economically/politically collapsing southern Europe. I wouldn't take any bets on who will be financing who in 50 or 100 years time.

Stevo 666 wrote:

And yes, I'd be over the bloody moon politically, as it would probably keep Labour out of power for generations and consign the Lib Dems back to where they belong as the 'Roger Irrelevant' of politics. Vote Yes...

Fortunately you don't represent all of your compatriots in that respect, otherwise I'd take your advice in an instant...

finchy

Stevo 666 wrote:

And yes, I'd be over the bloody moon politically, as it would probably keep Labour out of power for generations and consign the Lib Dems back to where they belong as the 'Roger Irrelevant' of politics. Vote Yes...

As I've pointed out already, this is highly unlikely to happen. The economic cycle will just keep on going as it did before, we'll have booms, we'll have busts and if we did have the Tories in for x years, there would be no more hiding behind the old "blame Labour/Tories" game for what is a part of capitalist economics.

Also, should the Tories get let off the leash to carry out all their really batcrap mental policies (such as Michael Gove is at the moment) feeling confident that there will be no public backlash, they'll be in for a nasty surprise when the electorate decide they don't like what they see.

Stevo_666

johnfinch wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

And yes, I'd be over the bloody moon politically, as it would probably keep Labour out of power for generations and consign the Lib Dems back to where they belong as the 'Roger Irrelevant' of politics. Vote Yes...

As I've pointed out already, this is highly unlikely to happen.

Why not? If you remove 40-odd labour seats from the parliamentary maths, the Tories do better, end of. If the last election had been held with an independent Scotland out of the equation, cameron would have had a small overall majority.

Better batshit Tory policy than batshit Labour policy. At least the former is affordable

finchy

Stevo 666 wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

And yes, I'd be over the bloody moon politically, as it would probably keep Labour out of power for generations and consign the Lib Dems back to where they belong as the 'Roger Irrelevant' of politics. Vote Yes...

As I've pointed out already, this is highly unlikely to happen.

Why not?

For the reasons I gave after my first sentence.

Stevo_666

johnfinch wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

And yes, I'd be over the bloody moon politically, as it would probably keep Labour out of power for generations and consign the Lib Dems back to where they belong as the 'Roger Irrelevant' of politics. Vote Yes...

As I've pointed out already, this is highly unlikely to happen.

Why not?

For the reasons I gave after my first sentence.

Not very good reasons. You can't change the fact that it tilts the numbers towards the Tories in the parliamentary maths. Also you are assuming the people won't like Tory policies just because you don't like them, which is not a very reliable basis - we know you are in the 'Roger Irrelevant' camp

finchy

Doesn't bother me which of the main parties get in, they all have more or less the same policies anyway. But let's imagine how the last 15 years would have turned out with a Tory administration. We would have had an Iraq War, because the Tories supported that. We would have had a banking crisis, because the Tories supported the policies which led to it and even thought they didn't go far enough - our current cretinous chancellor actually wanted to emulate the Irish (I don't know whether to , or :roll: ). We would have had sky high house prices and rent and the Tories are now, unbelievably, trying to re-inflate that bubble with their Help-to-buy-votes scheme. In other words, we'd be in exactly the same mess as Labour left us in, but this time the Tories would be copping a load of flak from the electorate.

Nairnster

And of course today, there has been a study by some University boffins who have stated the Scottish oil and gas industry wont generate as much income as first thought for an Independant Scotland, and so they wouldnt be as well off as they think.

Escadrille Ecosse

Nairnster wrote:

And of course today, there has been a study by some University boffins who have stated the Scottish oil and gas industry wont generate as much income as first thought for an Independent Scotland, and so they wouldn't be as well off as they think.

Especially if Shetland get their way and decide on becoming independent from an independent Scotland. Although Alexi has already said they wouldn't be allowed to do that if he's in charge.

Stevo_666

Escadrille Ecosse wrote:

Nairnster wrote:

And of course today, there has been a study by some University boffins who have stated the Scottish oil and gas industry wont generate as much income as first thought for an Independent Scotland, and so they wouldn't be as well off as they think.

Especially if Shetland get their way and decide on becoming independent from an independent Scotland. Although Alexi has already said they wouldn't be allowed to do that if he's in charge.

Just a touch hypocritical from Salmonella? (We have to have independence from England, but you can never be independent from us....)

Maybe we should grant Shetland independence now to save them from the oppressive tyranny of the smarmy double-chinned tw@t?

GiantMike

neeb wrote:

...I also think that culturally, Scotland helps to keep England in check and to maintain a balanced social and political outlook. For all I know you might like to live in a country where the two major parties eventually end up being the Tories and UKIP, but I know a lot of English people wouldn't.

One minute the Scots are being trodden-upon by an uncaring Westminster, the next the Scots are apparently defining the direction of English politics. That's the trouble with the Independence 'debate', people choose their arguments to prove their entrenched opinion rather than seriously looking at the facts and basing a decision on that.

I have said it before, I hope Scotland gets what it wants, I just wish they'd shut the f*ck up whingeing about the English and about being ruled from Westminster.

daviesee

GiantMike wrote:

I have said it before, I hope Scotland gets what it wants, I just wish they'd shut the f*ck up whingeing about the English and about being ruled from Westminster.

If they get what they want then they will.
In the meantime, they are correct about Westminster.

neeb

GiantMike wrote:

neeb wrote:

...I also think that culturally, Scotland helps to keep England in check and to maintain a balanced social and political outlook. For all I know you might like to live in a country where the two major parties eventually end up being the Tories and UKIP, but I know a lot of English people wouldn't.

One minute the Scots are being trodden-upon by an uncaring Westminster, the next the Scots are apparently defining the direction of English politics. That's the trouble with the Independence 'debate', people choose their arguments to prove their entrenched opinion rather than seriously looking at the facts and basing a decision on that.

I have said it before, I hope Scotland gets what it wants, I just wish they'd shut the f*ck up whingeing about the English and about being ruled from Westminster.

It's pretty bizarre that you are directing that at me GiantMike, given that I clearly don't have an entrenched opinion (still haven't decided how I'm going to vote). Not to mention that nearly all of the "whingeing" on this thread has been from English people and directed at the Scots. If you want to organise a movement in England to gain independence from the union you are free to do so - good luck.

The Mechanic

This may not be 100% relevant to this debate but I have recently had surgery for cancer. I went to England for the surgery because I could choose from 47 hospitals in England and Wales that have Da Vinci robotic surgery machines which make the operation more accurate and reduce the potential for undesirable after effects.

In Scotland, there are none! And before anyone starts blaming the oppressive Englanders, NHS Scotland has been a devolved responsibility since day one of the Scottish parliament. According to my consultant (in a Scottish hospital) the Scottish government believe that free prescriptions, eyesight tests and university education are more important and will not pay for surgical robots.

On the subject of tax, I note that the Independence White Paper makes a point of the fact that there will be no increase in the Basic Rate of Income Tax. This, in politician speak, means that higher rates will go up thus aligning Scotland with such nations as Norway and Denmark, where income tax is considerably higher than the UK. You pays your money and you takes your choice.