[Sp5]

(09-04-2014 04:25 AM)Deluge Wrote:  

I don't think there's been a single point throughout this entire drawn out saga where the Yes vote has had a majority.

If Scotland does win independence though, this will have a huge political impact on the rest of the British Isles:

a. There is only Tory seat in Scotland out of 59, without a huge lurch to the right Labour could only ever win an election in a 90's Tony Blair level landslide, they would essentially be in political abyss for at least a generation. Also 1/5 of Lib Dem seats are in the Highlands, losing them could be a terminal blow considering how much their support has collapsed since they joined the current coalition government.

b. If even Scotland has left the U.K it makes even less sense to Republicans for Northern Ireland to remain. It's worth noting Northern Ireland's Protestants descend mostly from Scots and feel more attached to Scotland then anywhere else outside Ulster, Scottish secession would trigger a crisis in their British identity. The best case scenario is the Loyalist paramilitaries start agitating a little, but a similar referendum does not come about. The worst case scenario is that renewed pressure from Republicans leads to a referendum, and everyone knows what will happen in Belfast then...



EDIT: I don't personally care either way whether Northern Ireland is part of the U.K or the Republic of Ireland, but nobody wants to see a repeat of the Troubles and the suffering and loss of life that would ensue, and for the foreseeable future at least that is what will happen if Northern Ireland tries to leave.

Hmmm, all kinds of odd things could happen.

You are right that the Protestants descend from Scots - but the Scots themselves also descend from Irish, who invaded or colonized Scotland in antiquity. That's why Irish Gaelic and Scots Gaelic are closely related languages.

The Ulstermen could pursue a union with an independent Scotland, and even with the Dublin government in some kind of Gaelic confederation.

It would be odd, but if they were all in the EU together or separate, these nationalist projects don't mean as much as they used to beyond cultural identity.

[Deluge]

(09-04-2014 09:26 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  

(09-04-2014 04:25 AM)Deluge Wrote:  

b. If even Scotland has left the U.K it makes even less sense to Republicans for Northern Ireland to remain. It's worth noting Northern Ireland's Protestants descend mostly from Scots and feel more attached to Scotland then anywhere else outside Ulster, Scottish secession would trigger a crisis in their British identity. The best case scenario is the Loyalist paramilitaries start agitating a little, but a similar referendum does not come about. The worst case scenario is that renewed pressure from Republicans leads to a referendum, and everyone knows what will happen in Belfast then...



EDIT: I don't personally care either way whether Northern Ireland is part of the U.K or the Republic of Ireland, but nobody wants to see a repeat of the Troubles and the suffering and loss of life that would ensue, and for the foreseeable future at least that is what will happen if Northern Ireland tries to leave.

Hmmm, all kinds of odd things could happen.

You are right that the Protestants descend from Scots - but the Scots themselves also descend from Irish, who invaded or colonized Scotland in antiquity. That's why Irish Gaelic and Scots Gaelic are closely related languages.

The Ulstermen could pursue a union with an independent Scotland, and even with the Dublin government in some kind of Gaelic confederation.

It would be odd, but if they were all in the EU together or separate, these nationalist projects don't mean as much as they used to beyond cultural identity.

Northern Ireland joining Scotland could never happen unless something crazy were to occur like an ethnic cleansing of Catholics. The Catholics would never let themselves be joined to Scotland instead of Ireland if they were to break free of the U.K. A Gaelic Confederation between Ireland and Scotland would be even more insane considering the history of Irish independence. Basically, any change to the political status of Northern Ireland would result in sectarian violence.

Protestants and Catholics in Belfast still live segregated lives from each other. They live in separate neighbourhoods, send their children to separate schools and rarely marry out (15% intermarriage rate). The borders between Protestant and Catholic neighbourhoods are even separated by walls called "peace lines". A majority of people from both sides don't even go to church, rather's its nationality that drives the divide. Protestants see themselves as British, and Catholics see themselves as Irish. Any change to the status quo reached at the Good Friday Agreement will lead to violence unless the two communities truly integrate, which is just not happening so far.

[Foolsgo1d]

(09-04-2014 07:39 AM)Deluge Wrote:  



You do know that Ireland is it's own country right?

Also, Scotland pays 9.1% of the U.K's tax revenue, despite only having 8.3% of the U.K's population. If anything Scotland props the rest of the U.K, not the other way around. Scotland's GDP per capita is higher than Wales, Northern Ireland and even England outside of London.

Referring to Northern Ireland.

And Scotland props up England now? Funny. I thought it was the City which props the entire UK up. The Germans want to get rid of it because it is too powerful in its ability to deal and be the playground of the super rich.

Scotland does not strike me as a land of rich opportunity. Such business leaders like Michelle Mone will leave because she admits it is a basket country waiting to fall.

When the Bank of England stops writing your cheques you will notice inflation creeping up.

On the subject of butthurt. Nothing makes me smile more than seeing Wales, Scotland or Ireland try to whine about English history or the country itself.

It shows them for what they are. A bunch of whinging children out to play big daddy when in fact they would get kicked all over on the world stage. The EU does not care one bit about the UK, what makes you think they'd give a shit about any individual country?

I'll say again, what currency will the Scots have? Euro or £? Most likely the £ because they're dumb hypocrites and scared of the Euro.

[bojangles]

They can't have the £, because then they would not be economically independent as the Bank Of England dictate the £.

Scotland may contribute 9.1% of our tax revenue but England has bailed them out time and time again, notably when it's 2 biggest retail banks went bust - RBS and HBOS.

Of course the Scottish are only in union with the English because of Darien. (to cut a long story short, England bailed out Scotland)

[Faust]

Yeah, but that was like... 300 years or so ago, right? To argue that they're obligated to stay in the union because of something that happened two centuries before anybody had worked out what a "light bulb" was seems silly.

[rangman2000]

(09-04-2014 01:25 PM)bojangles Wrote:  

Of course the Scottish are only in union with the English because of Darien. (to cut a long story short, England bailed out Scotland)

Scotland was in financial trouble after Darien. But the real "to cut a long story short" version is that England bribed the Estates of Scotland to vote in favour of union (against the will of the Scottish people) to secure their northern border.

[rangman2000]

(09-04-2014 10:31 AM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  

I'll say again, what currency will the Scots have? Euro or £? Most likely the £ because they're dumb hypocrites and scared of the Euro.

An independent Scotland would use the pound initially. Who knows what the medium to long term would hold.

[rangman2000]

(09-04-2014 01:25 PM)bojangles Wrote:  

They can't have the £, because then they would not be economically independent as the Bank Of England dictate the £.

Given that Scotland currently makes up a small fraction of the total UK population, do you really think the Bank of England currently sets policy with Scotland in mind?
A post independence use of the pound would leave us in the same situation we are currently in.

(09-04-2014 01:25 PM)bojangles Wrote:  

Scotland may contribute 9.1% of our tax revenue but England has bailed them out time and time again, notably when it's 2 biggest retail banks went bust - RBS and HBOS.

For what it's worth, about 4/5th of the losses stemmed from the City of London based operations.

[rangman2000]

(09-04-2014 05:56 AM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  

Personally, I hope they do leave. We should rebuild Hadrians Wall and charge them through the nose to come visit here. No more free university either or healthcare.

The ill feeling about free university and free prescriptions stems from a lack of understanding about the Scottish budget.

Scotland gets a block grant from Westminster. Scotland then decides where to spend that money - i.e. more money spent on one thing means less left over to spend elsewhere. The Scottish Parliament has prioritised free higher education and free prescriptions, but that means we have spent less in other areas. We're not getting additional freebies. As has been pointed out earlier in this thread, Scotland is a net contributor to UK tax revenue.

[rangman2000]

(05-16-2014 01:28 PM)cardguy Wrote:  

Back in 1979 - Scotland voted against devolution.

False, Scotland voted FOR devolution in 1979. However, turnout was lower than the 40% minimum for the result to be considered valid.

[rangman2000]

(05-16-2014 03:16 PM)Haig Wrote:  

Scotland is a very Left Wing country...

Not true.

From the end of WWII until the late 80s Labour and the Conservatives drew a roughly equal share of the vote in Scotland.

The decline in support for the Conservatives came about when Margaret Thatcher trialled the Poll Tax on Scotland. This sparked riots, forced her out of office and ultimately the tax was abolished.

The Conservative Party has never recovered from that in Scotland, but many policies which are in line with Conservative ideology are now policy of the Scottish National Party - the most obvious being their plan to lower corporation tax if they get into power in the event of a Yes vote in the referendum.


So, there isn't a lack of support for centre and right wing parties. There is a lack of support for the Conservative Party.

[scotian]

(09-04-2014 08:21 AM)FrenchCanadian Wrote:  

As a French Quebecer, I have a personal hatred for the Queen & monarchy as a whole.
But furthermore, I understand what it's like - having people constantly tell you: ''You ain't shit without us, & if you leave you'll be bankrupt anyways''. It's something that most anglo-canadians/Brits - sadly cannot understand.

Fuck 'em all I say. Get free or die trying.

Of course us Anglo Canadians can't understand, we won the war, fuck ya!

[TheSlayer]

(09-04-2014 08:21 AM)FrenchCanadian Wrote:  

As a French Quebecer, I have a personal hatred for the Queen & monarchy as a whole.
But furthermore, I understand what it's like - having people constantly tell you: ''You ain't shit without us, & if you leave you'll be bankrupt anyways''. It's something that most anglo-canadians/Brits - sadly cannot understand.

Fuck 'em all I say. Get free or die trying.

Except for the fact that Quebec has constantly leveraged the threat of separating to get more money from the Federal government and get special treatment while acting like it has been oppressed or something. Quebec is treated exceptionally well in Canada. Most people in Canada wouldn't even have that attitude towards Quebec if it weren't for separatists in the province always whining about something.

[Statsi]

I'm currently working with the Yes campaign in Scotland and am getting very confident in there being a result for Yes. Currently polls have it within the margin of error, however since traditional polls favour traditional voters, and we are expected a massive voter turn out of around 80%, there looks to be a strong majority for yes.

Even the bookies have cut odds for a yes vote to evens in scotland now. Far more bets are being placed on yes than no, and bookies don't tend to fuck around.

[Faust]

Statsi-

I'm curious. Why is Scottish independence important enough to you to make you want to devote your time to it?

[bojangles]

(09-04-2014 05:04 PM)rangman2000 Wrote:  

(09-04-2014 01:25 PM)bojangles Wrote:  

They can't have the £, because then they would not be economically independent as the Bank Of England dictate the £.

Given that Scotland currently makes up a small fraction of the total UK population, do you really think the Bank of England currently sets policy with Scotland in mind?
A post independence use of the pound would leave us in the same situation we are currently in.

(09-04-2014 01:25 PM)bojangles Wrote:  

Scotland may contribute 9.1% of our tax revenue but England has bailed them out time and time again, notably when it's 2 biggest retail banks went bust - RBS and HBOS.

For what it's worth, about 4/5th of the losses stemmed from the City of London based operations.

I don't think so you need to read up on what the Bank of England actually does. If you have money flow issues within an independent Scotland, the Bank of England is not going to help you with easing.

And yes the losses stemmed from the City of London based operations, however all the rules of their work were dictated from Edinburgh.

(09-04-2014 04:54 PM)rangman2000 Wrote:  

(09-04-2014 01:25 PM)bojangles Wrote:  

Of course the Scottish are only in union with the English because of Darien. (to cut a long story short, England bailed out Scotland)

Scotland was in financial trouble after Darien. But the real "to cut a long story short" version is that England bribed the Estates of Scotland to vote in favour of union (against the will of the Scottish people) to secure their northern border.

Because you were broke, i.e bailed you out. You call it a bribe, I call it saving your ancestors from bankruptcy, ruin and hunger. Unfortunately you guys have never been adept at colonialism nor money management.

[Statsi]

(09-04-2014 10:22 PM)Faust Wrote:  

Statsi-

I'm curious. Why is Scottish independence important enough to you to make you want to devote your time to it?

In principle I'd argue that any unique people should have their own unique country, however there is some personal motivation. I expect a newly independent Scotland to provide new political and business opportunities, as well as have a political system that more closely reflects my own beliefs. The only time there's any real social mobility is when new markets emerge, for instance the internet created a bunch of new elites, Scotland should have the same potential.

[rangman2000]

(09-05-2014 04:21 AM)bojangles Wrote:  

(09-04-2014 05:04 PM)rangman2000 Wrote:  

(09-04-2014 01:25 PM)bojangles Wrote:  

They can't have the £, because then they would not be economically independent as the Bank Of England dictate the £.

Given that Scotland currently makes up a small fraction of the total UK population, do you really think the Bank of England currently sets policy with Scotland in mind?
A post independence use of the pound would leave us in the same situation we are currently in.

(09-04-2014 01:25 PM)bojangles Wrote:  

Scotland may contribute 9.1% of our tax revenue but England has bailed them out time and time again, notably when it's 2 biggest retail banks went bust - RBS and HBOS.

For what it's worth, about 4/5th of the losses stemmed from the City of London based operations.

I don't think so you need to read up on what the Bank of England actually does. If you have money flow issues within an independent Scotland, the Bank of England is not going to help you with easing.

And yes the losses stemmed from the City of London based operations, however all the rules of their work were dictated from Edinburgh.

Your point is that an independent Scotland would not be considered when the Bank of England sets policy. My point is that it generally isn't considered currently anyway due to Scotland only making up a small percentage of the total UK population.

However, you are correct that in times of crisis it would have no obligation to help an independent Scotland. I can only hope that if Scotland does become independent then the lessons of the recent financial crash are learnt. It is also worth remembering that ~£7bn was loaned to Ireland during the recent crash, but I sincerely hope an independent Scotland would not rack up huge debts.

[rangman2000]

(09-05-2014 04:21 AM)bojangles Wrote:  

(09-04-2014 04:54 PM)rangman2000 Wrote:  

(09-04-2014 01:25 PM)bojangles Wrote:  

Of course the Scottish are only in union with the English because of Darien. (to cut a long story short, England bailed out Scotland)

Scotland was in financial trouble after Darien. But the real "to cut a long story short" version is that England bribed the Estates of Scotland to vote in favour of union (against the will of the Scottish people) to secure their northern border.

Because you were broke, i.e bailed you out. You call it a bribe, I call it saving your ancestors from bankruptcy, ruin and hunger. Unfortunately you guys have never been adept at colonialism nor money management.

Let me expand a little more on the history of the Act of Union. Scotland tried to establish a colony which failed (the Darien Scheme). This caused financial trouble in Scotland. England exploited this trouble for political gain. First they introduced an embargo on Scottish imports into England and all English colonies. This turned the financial trouble into a financial crisis as 50% of Scottish exports were now blocked. Then the English exploited this crisis by bribing the Scottish MPs to vote in favour of the Act of Union (against the will of the Scottish people) as the English wanted to secure their northern border. The whole crisis was engineered and exploited by England for political advantage.

Let me provide an imaginary scenario to help me make my point. Imagine a medieval city is being besieged by an army. The army cuts off all trade into and out of the city. Slowly the city inhabitants starve to death. Once there are too few of them left alive to defend the city the besieging army offers them a deal - give us the keys to the city and we will give you food and let you live.
If this is your definition of a bailout then you have no understanding of the term.



I'm not sure what point you are trying to make about how Scotland has "never been adept at colonialism". However, I shall attempt an answer. If you mean colonising land then there are significant populations of descendants of Scottish colonialists in Northern Ireland, Canada, USA, Australia and New Zealand. Presumably that would count as being "adept"? If you are talking about running empires, then it is widely acknowledged that Scots had a disproportionately large influence on the British Empire in areas such as administration, medicine, education, missionary work, surveying, conservation, engineering etc. along with providing Prime Ministers and other cabinet ministers.
However, I've no idea what any of this has to do with the referendum debate given that not a single pro independence campaigner is calling for an independent Scotland to attempt to establish colonies.

As for your other claim that Scotland has "never been adept....at money management", what is this based on? If it is the Darien Scheme then I've already answered that above. If it is the recent financial crash then, as I stated in a previous post, almost all the losses were accumulated in London by English bankers. The crisis also affected English banks as well as banks around the world.



You are peddling stereotypes, misinformation and scare tactics.

[rangman2000]

A brief history of the last few years for anyone who is interested:

At the start of 2011 there were no calls for independence in Scotland. It wasn't seriously debated anywhere and wasn't a political issue. It has came out of no where.

To avoid the Scottish National Party ever getting a majority (and thus triggering an independence referendum) the devolved Scottish Parliment was set up in 1999 with Additional Member System voting which was supposed to guarantee minority government or a coalition every time. However, in the 2011 elections the Scottish National Party did get a majority due to support for the "big 3" UK political parties declining.

As I have said earlier in this thread, Scottish support for the Conservatives had never recovered from the Poll Tax, closing the mines etc.
Scottish support for the Liberal Democrats dropped due to their reneging on a promise not to increase university tuition fees (even though this policy did not affect Scotland).
Scottish support the the Labour party began to drop for Scottish elections for the following reason: Due to the Conservaties having no support in Scotland, Labour were guaranteed many seats. Therefore, in order for Labour to win a Westminster election they had to chase votes in Middle England. This made many traditional Labour voters feel the party no longer represented them as they became more interested in wooing the middle class rather than the working class.

The result of all this was that votes for the Scottish National Party went through the roof. Some out of hoping independence could improve their lot, but most out of protest at the big 3 parties.

Now, the Scottish National Party have always wanted a referendum, but they didn't want it right now. They wanted it on their own terms when Scotland was in a massive econmoic boom (e.g. oil discoveries) or when Westminster had commited some great injustice upon Scotland (e.g. Poll Tax). What they actually had was a situation when we were in a financial crash and where the situation of the average Scot was comparable to the rest of the UK. However, a referendum was in their manifesto so they had to go ahead with it.

Early on, it looked like there would be three options on the ballot paper. "Yes", "No" and "Devo Max". Devo Max is shorthand for Maximum Devolution. This meant that Scotland would have full financial control (it already had control of Law, Education and Health) and would only defer to Westminster on issues of Defense, Foreign Policy etc.

The polls showed that support was overwhelmingly in favour of Devo Max. However, the Scottish National Party and Westminster agreed to remove this option from the ballot paper. The Scottish National Party wanted it removed as they figured that if it were there, many potential Yes voters would choose Devo Max as the safer option. Westminster wanted Devo Max removed as they figured that most Devo Max voters would now vote No and look to gain Devo Max over the long term.

When Devo Max was removed as an option, opinion polls initially showed a large support for No. However, that has slowly gone and now No only has a very slight majority in the polls. In my option swing has come about for three reasons. Firstly, the No campaign has been a negative one and focused on Doom and Gloom predictions. Secondly, the No campaign has used threats, e.g. no currency union. And thirdly, the No campaign has used "don't be silly, you'll never manage without us" scare tactics. These three tactics have made many Scots want to show everyone that we can manage just fine without the UK and the Yes campaign has ridden this wave with a positive and optimist campaign.

The No campaign has tried to arrest this slide by dangling the carrot of more devolved financial powers for Scotland if they vote No. However, the promises are to increase the level of financial control from its current level of ~7% to ~20% of total. To many voters this has a feeling of too little too late and trust of UK polititians is low at the moment.


So that is how we have gone in three years from practically no support for independence to independence being a distinct possibility.

[bojangles]

(09-05-2014 09:16 AM)rangman2000 Wrote:  

You are peddling stereotypes, misinformation and scare tactics.

I don't understand what your point is, I'm not voting for scottish independence, I support it, all of what I've shared is known facts. You are just showing a Scottish representation of those events, I could call it turd polishing.

This isn't the propaganda page for the Scottish 'Yes' campaign.

[rangman2000]

(09-05-2014 11:51 AM)bojangles Wrote:  

(09-05-2014 09:16 AM)rangman2000 Wrote:  

You are peddling stereotypes, misinformation and scare tactics.

I don't understand what your point is, I'm not voting for scottish independence, I support it, all of what I've shared is known facts. You are just showing a Scottish representation of those events, I could call it turd polishing.

My point is that all of what you've shared are NOT "known facts", as I have tried to demonstrate with my replies.

Anyway, we've both made our points. Let's leave it at that.

[Mac Chicken]

(09-04-2014 08:21 AM)FrenchCanadian Wrote:  

As a French Quebecer, I have a personal hatred for the Queen & monarchy as a whole.
But furthermore, I understand what it's like - having people constantly tell you: ''You ain't shit without us, & if you leave you'll be bankrupt anyways''. It's something that most anglo-canadians/Brits - sadly cannot understand.

Fuck 'em all I say. Get free or die trying.

Vive le Québec libre !

[zaqan]

I fully support this and hope they succeed. Its going to be close, which is said to be a blow for the Unionists. What I dont understand is the conservatives who oppose this. Getting rid of Scotland would release a large portion of left wing votes, and also set a precedent to jettison other leftwing areas. I really hope it passes. We need a western precedent of devolution/secession and everyone will be better off if countries are split apart.

[Sp5]

The Queen's going to come up and visit on the eve of the vote, that will kill it.