Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 150
Like Tree6Likes

Thread: Independent Scotland

  1. #1 Independent Scotland 
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    The Scottish independence referendum

    Nobody is really quite sure of what the possible ramifications could or indeed would be should the people, currently living in Scotland, decide to vote for independence from England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Currently the ruling party in Scotland the SNP (Scottish National Party) have put forth plans for holding a referendum about whether or not Scotland should remain part of the current United Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland. But the simple truth of the matter is that there is nobody within the whole of the UK that fully understands how this would work or what it would really mean in practice.

    Whilst it's certainly true that many here in England wouldn't care or even notice whether Scotland becomes fully independent or not, what is also true is that the 750,000 plus Scots living in England are not eligible to take part in the referendum under the proposed SNP plans, which somewhat throws into doubt any real legitimacy that could be attached to the outcome of such a dubious referendum, but despite such question marks about the legitimacy and legalities the British Prime Minister David Cameron is committed to abide by the desicion of the referendum.

    Many people on both sides of the border believe that the real motivation behind the moves are for a push towards more devolved powers and greater indenpendence in over how Scotland is governed, rather than any real belief in the concept of a truely independent Scotland. This idea has been dubbed 'devo-max' and is a proposal that is generally considered far more palatable and more importantly possibly the plausible real outcome, this is because every opinion poll yet commisioned has shown that the greater majority of Scots wish to remain within the Union.

    There would also be major obstacles to be overcome before any split could actually take place, and negotiations that could potentially last years. At present Scotland has a very high percentage of workers that are employed by the Government or agencies of such, it is very unclear just what would happen over their jobs, questions over an Independent Scotland's place within the EU and whether that place would mean being forced to adopt the Euro. Questions over Scotlands long term ability to pay it's way in the world, without huge tax rises, when the revenues from North Sea Oil run out, and questions over the interest rates an Independent Scotland will be faced with over repaying it's share of the Union's £1 trillion plus national debt.

    These are just some of the serious issues that would need to resolved, then there is a question of the precedent that accepting such a referendum would set, because if this principle is indeed accepted then it would open the door for other parts of the UK, or indeed parts of Scotland, that desire their own independence to be given equally serious consideration.

    Despite the many potential problems the SNP have played a master stroke politically in playing towards Nationalistic feeling within many Scots, whilst it's fair to say many are not truely naive enough to really believe in an independent Scotland as a reality but the idea still appeals, meaning they are making great political capital out of the whole issue and thus deflecting scrutiny and criticism from their record in office.

    So will we really see an Independent Scotland? Only time can answer this question, but the odds are stacked very much against.



    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Reminds me of the talk of Texas seceding from the USA that was going on a few months ago. I wonder what makes Scottish people think they'd be able to do better for themselves alone? Not saying they wouldn't. Just curious what the specific reasons are?


    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Reminds me of the talk of Texas seceding from the USA that was going on a few months ago. I wonder what makes Scottish people think they'd be able to do better for themselves alone? Not saying they wouldn't. Just curious what the specific reasons are?
    Well the arguments for independence are quite simple, at least according to many from the yes campaign, but I'm not in favour and probarbly not the best person to present the case so instead I'll give you a quote from the Guardian "There is no reason why Scotland cannot control its own destiny, become equal to England, and take its place in the world. Scotland and England would remain firm friends."

    Other Guardian quotes include "Someone born in Scotland: it should mean a greater direct say over one's government and more political freedom and more differences with England."

    So it seems to be suggesting that independence is about national identity and the ability to steer and shape Scotland's destiny.

    As someone with vested interests, I have a large extended family with relatives living in both Scotland and England, ironically some born in Scotland now living England and vise versa, I have a strong view on this issue and great desire for Britain to remain united, but this being said I'm also strongly in favour of greater devolution and more powers of self determination being granted to the Scottish Parliment.

    For some historical background about Scotland's relationship with England:

    Scotland's relations with its larger neighbour have often been difficult, none more so than in the "wars of independence" 700 years ago led by William Wallace and then Robert the Bruce. He defeated Edward II, then attempting to subjugate Scotland, at Bannockburn in 1314. After other cross border disputes, including Scotland's defeat at Flodden by the English in 1513, the Scottish and English crowns were unified in 1603 when King James VI of Scotland became overall monarch of the British isles.

    In 1707, that union was cemented by Scotland and England's political union, forced on Scotland in part by a financial crisis following the abject failure of its colony in Panama, the so-called Darien adventure. All political power moved to London, but Scotland retained its own legal system, churches and universities. In 1745, the pretender to the British throne, Bonnie Prince Charlie, led the Jacobite revolt against Hanoverian rule by London. Despite reaching as far south as Derby, that ended in crushing defeat at Culloden in 1746.

    In the 1800s, Scotland's economy strengthened, its cities boomed and its citizens took a leading role in the British empire. But proposals to give Scotland some form of "home rule" within the UK have been live since William Gladstone's era as Liberal leader in the 1880s. After several failed attempts at Westminster, notably in 1913 and 1979, a Scottish parliament was finally reestablished in 1999 in Edinburgh with wide-ranging policy making and legal powers but dependent on a direct grant from London.

    In May 2011, Salmond and the SNP unexpectedly won an historic landslide victory giving the nationalists majority control of the Scottish parliament, enabling the first minister to demand that independence referendum.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    No one likes to be treated with indifference. The arguments for independence are just as much about identity and pride as they are about economics. I shall vote Yes come the referendum, certain it will enahnce our identity and hopeful that it will improve our economy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    No one likes to be treated with indifference. The arguments for independence are just as much about identity and pride as they are about economics. I shall vote Yes come the referendum, certain it will enahnce our identity and hopeful that it will improve our economy.
    As I said previously I do think the odds are stacked againsted the SNP being able to gain full independence for Scotland, but what I will say is if anyone can do it then it probarbly will be Alex Salmond, I think I remember reading one of your comments on a post about him being the most intelligent man from Scotland or similar words to that effect, whilst I would have to disagree with you on that as I happen to think Sir Alex Ferguson should have that title, what is certainly clear is he is very intelligent and has undoubtedly changed the face of Scottish politics, eclipsing all three of the major parties in the process.

    But what concerns me is not about identity or self determination, it's about the hardships and problems that a total split could cause to people's everyday lives and the uncertantity and fear that it is causing. So it for this reason why I would like the Union to remain in tact, but other than this point of keeping together the shared institutions and commonalities such as Government and agency jobs etc..., I can't see any reason why Scotland and indeed the Scottish Parliment shouldn't make all it's own desicions which to me would be the best solution all round.

    But also just going on a historical basis, whilst ever Scotland and England were seperate their was always wars and tensions between them, yet was after they were united that both enjoyed their most prosperous periods, so to me all the more reason for keeping the Union in tact.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    893
    I'm not sure how I will vote in the referendum.
    Right now I would probably favour a situation where Scotland remained part of the UK with foreign policy and defence left to the UK government, in London, and all other decisions being taken in Edinburgh. I'm not certain that would work in practice if, for example, the pound was to be retained as the common currency.
    I sometimes wonder what would have happened if the Nationalists had achieved independence in the 1930's. Would they have stood on the sidelines rather than take part in the war against Fascism? The Scottish National Party (SNP) have recently ditched, altho' not by a large majority, their 30 year anti-NATO policy. They did not want to join the defence alliance set up by the democracies of Western Europe and North America. I would argue that hostility to NATO remains and that the policy change was largely determined by electoral considerations.
    There is also, within Scotland, a section of nationalist opinion that is anti-English to an extent I find disturbing. It is not an attractive trait. I don't blame the SNP for this attitude and perhaps it is almost inevitable when a small country, in terms of population, is the neighbour of a much larger one.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    But what concerns me is not about identity or self determination, it's about the hardships and problems that a total split could cause to people's everyday lives .
    But it would not be a total split. We would still be united within Europe. Most day to day commercial and social exchanges would continue as before. Hardships would be as likey ot diminsh as ot increase.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    ..... and the uncertantity and fear that it is causing.
    Enahnced sense of identity can remove much fear. Lookat how positive everyone was in the UK during the Olympics when we realised we hadn't completely lost the ability to do things well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    ..... But also just going on a historical basis, whilst ever Scotland and England were seperate their was always wars and tensions between them, yet was after they were united that both enjoyed their most prosperous periods,
    The English (I'm English when it suits me, Scottish when it suits me, British when it suits me and European when it suits me.) , the English never understood the violence at the annual England-Scotland football match, discontinued after the last time the Scots took Wembley to pieces. This is because th English thought it was a football match. The Scots knew it was a continuation of centuries of warfare.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Ph.D. Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cumbria UK
    Posts
    882
    My father is Scottish, born and bred in Wick. I was born in England, and have lived here ever since. I was up in Thurso last summer visiting relatives, some are Scottish, some are English incomers. I had a look at some properties for sale, in one of the estate agents in Thurso. The lady in the office said I would be called a "White Settler " if I bought a property in this area.
    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Wilson View Post
    My father is Scottish, born and bred in Wick. I was born in England, and have lived here ever since. I was up in Thurso last summer visiting relatives, some are Scottish, some are English incomers. I had a look at some properties for sale, in one of the estate agents in Thurso. The lady in the office said I would be called a "White Settler " if I bought a property in this area.
    I kind of think they might have been pulling your leg a little, and I think at times the whole Scotland - England rivalry is played up to much, really it's just about jokes and sport. The Scots make jokes about the English, but so does virtually every other country, Ireland, Wales, Australia, France you name them most of them make jokes about the English and the English make jokes about them in the same spirit of fun, but there's no malice behind it and it's always given and taken in the spirit of fun. Now when it comes to sport the English and Scots do have a rivalry but it's always just like a derby game, you always want to beat your local rivals. When it comes to hospitality I've never had any trouble in Scotland and always found them to be really friendly and welcoming, also I badly broke my wrist a few years back and had to spend time in Elgin Hospital and they were really friendly and probarbly provided better service than an English Hospital. So I guess to me all this talk of a split seems doubly daft, Scotland is a country in it's own right and respected as such and now with it's own Parliment making it's own decisions I just don't see the need or expense and problems with trying to dissolve the Union.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    I kind of think they might have been pulling your leg a little, and I think at times the whole Scotland - England rivalry is played up to much, really it's just about jokes and sport. The Scots make jokes about the English, but so does virtually every other country, Ireland, Wales, Australia, France you name them most of them make jokes about the English and the English make jokes about them in the same spirit of fun, but there's no malice behind it and it's always given and taken in the spirit of fun. Now when it comes to sport the English and Scots do have a rivalry but it's always just like a derby game, you always want to beat your local rivals. When it comes to hospitality I've never had any trouble in Scotland and always found them to be really friendly and welcoming, also I badly broke my wrist a few years back and had to spend time in Elgin Hospital and they were really friendly and probarbly provided better service than an English Hospital. So I guess to me all this talk of a split seems doubly daft, Scotland is a country in it's own right and respected as such and now with it's own Parliment making it's own decisions I just don't see the need or expense and problems with trying to dissolve the Union.
    I don't know anything about a rivalry between England and Scotland. It is certainly not played up much on this side of the pond. However, it could be there more than you suspect. I imagine it might be like the attitude of some Southerners who still resent Yankees. Most Northerners don't even think about the Civil War any more, but that doesn't mean it's the same down south.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    But what concerns me is not about identity or self determination, it's about the hardships and problems that a total split could cause to people's everyday lives .
    But it would not be a total split. We would still be united within Europe. Most day to day commercial and social exchanges would continue as before. Hardships would be as likey ot diminsh as ot increase.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    ..... and the uncertantity and fear that it is causing.
    Enahnced sense of identity can remove much fear. Lookat how positive everyone was in the UK during the Olympics when we realised we hadn't completely lost the ability to do things well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    ..... But also just going on a historical basis, whilst ever Scotland and England were seperate their was always wars and tensions between them, yet was after they were united that both enjoyed their most prosperous periods,
    The English (I'm English when it suits me, Scottish when it suits me, British when it suits me and European when it suits me.) , the English never understood the violence at the annual England-Scotland football match, discontinued after the last time the Scots took Wembley to pieces. This is because th English thought it was a football match. The Scots knew it was a continuation of centuries of warfare.
    Apologies for taking a few days to respond, I wasn't really sure how to answer your post. It just seems you have your opinion and I have mine. I would guess we both just really want to see what is best for everyone concerned in the long run and you are perhaps far more optimistic than I about how independence would work in practice. I have absolutely no real ideological objections to independence and if everything could be worked out without people losing their jobs or anybody else being seriously disadvantaged then I wouldn't have any real problems at all. I just do not see how it could be acheived without all the problems though and it is for this reason why I am against independence.

    I guess in the long run history will prove both our opinions irrelevant, as what will be will be, and then our job, along with everyone else's, will be to make the best of it.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    I kind of think they might have been pulling your leg a little, and I think at times the whole Scotland - England rivalry is played up to much, really it's just about jokes and sport. The Scots make jokes about the English, but so does virtually every other country, Ireland, Wales, Australia, France you name them most of them make jokes about the English and the English make jokes about them in the same spirit of fun, but there's no malice behind it and it's always given and taken in the spirit of fun. Now when it comes to sport the English and Scots do have a rivalry but it's always just like a derby game, you always want to beat your local rivals. When it comes to hospitality I've never had any trouble in Scotland and always found them to be really friendly and welcoming, also I badly broke my wrist a few years back and had to spend time in Elgin Hospital and they were really friendly and probarbly provided better service than an English Hospital. So I guess to me all this talk of a split seems doubly daft, Scotland is a country in it's own right and respected as such and now with it's own Parliment making it's own decisions I just don't see the need or expense and problems with trying to dissolve the Union.
    I don't know anything about a rivalry between England and Scotland. It is certainly not played up much on this side of the pond. However, it could be there more than you suspect. I imagine it might be like the attitude of some Southerners who still resent Yankees. Most Northerners don't even think about the Civil War any more, but that doesn't mean it's the same down south.
    It tends to be one of those things played up by the English and Scottish media whenever there is a sporting contest on between, or dispute or such, the two countries and then occasionaly you get the odd nut job or hooligan that takes the idea of patriotism way to far, but most normal people don't pay to much attention really.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    I have many Scottish friends, they are very anti-England it seems to be part of Scottish culture. If Scotland wants to be independent that's fine, but independence always classes me as separatism, there are people in Cornwall England who want to be separate too from England full stop. The way I see it the more you separate and get your own way you'll end up with split-personalities as there will be nothing else left to divide by.

    Frankly people that want to separate what already works for the sake of whatever it is they want to for, is childish and ignorant. If it works and there is no oppression what's the problem?
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Back in the 70s I went to a bar (dating myself again, dangit) which was known for hosting radical left type folk singers. There was a group of Welsh separatist folk singers there and they were trying to raise money for the cause. Apparently, these people were serious. They seemed angry. I wondered what the heck they were on about.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Anti-English/British opinions are quite strong in the UK and Ireland, the terroism by the IRA in the 70s, is a strong example of this. My father was in the armed forces during the 70s and posted in Ireland and he encountered a lot of negative attitudes. This hatred comes in quite often with Scottish and the Welsh and I am being Enlgish myself at a complete loss as to why it is there, all I can speculate is that when the English did take advantage back in the day, there are still resentment attitudes being passed on from generation to generation, but the odd thing is is that all the lesser populated regions of Britain, Scotland, Wales and Northern Island all gain support from England and tax generated revenue by English citizens, the ratio of population of the countries are as follows relative to England:

    England:Scotland - 10:1
    England:Wales - 18:1
    England:Northern Island - 29:1

    It isn't in the best interest for any of these members of the United Kingdom to separate, their infrastructure would be tested. No doubt Northern Island would be fine, but Wales and Scotland would have a very tough time without England helping out. I always ignore the individual labeling and have always called us Great Britain/UK. What's worse is that there are English with the same attitudes of separatism and frankly it make no sense, yet another manifestation of an insecure public blaming nations of other countries for their own problems or to make themselves feel better. I would think after all the UK has been through and all has gone on on these islands, we'd be over it all by now. Apparently not
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Sophomore Peter Dow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Aberdeen, Scotland
    Posts
    164
    I have a website about Scottish politics from my Scottish republican perspective which I have named, the Scottish National Standard Bearer website.

    The topic is titled "Independent Scotland" and as scientists we ought to carefully identify what is meant by that and what is the difference between an "Independent Scotland" and "Independent Scots". I have attempted to clarify that point in one page of my website which I will quote here because it is certainly on topic.

    Political Independence for Scots

    "Independent Scots" or "an independent Scotland"?

    The land mass of Scotland is never going to float out into mid-Atlantic to prove its independence. The land sits there on the tectonic plate and under the sky and it is not going anywhere, independently or under the Queen's direction. Scotland is staying put.

    That which could be independent or not, is people. What should be the concern of a Scottish National Standard Bearer and is the concern of all good Scottish nationalists, socialists, republicans, liberals and democrats is the independence of the people, the nation, the Scots, us.

    The land we stand on wouldn't know what to do with independence. We Scots are the ones who need independence rather than continue to be enslaved by the Queen, her ministers and her officers.

    Therefore please support national independence. Please don't talk endlessly about the independence of the land, "an independent Scotland" because you'd be parroting a verbal trick royalists use to confuse the issue.

    By "an independent Scotland" royalists mean the Queen is the one who gets to be independent, whereas we Scots get no independence whatsoever if royalists get the "independent Scotland" they want. Under a royalist "independent Scotland", a Scottish Kingdom, we who are allowed to live and who are not killed by the Queen's officers will live as subjects of the Queen and there would be no Scottish national independence.

    The phrase "independent Scotland" out of the mouths of royalists is worm-tongue language for Scots under subjugation. So any time you hear Salmond use that deceptive phrase, ask yourself, 'well what actual people will be independent under Salmond's "independent Scotland"- the Scottish people or the Queen and himself Salmond as the Queen's First Minister of Scotland'?

    Salmond wants his own independence for himself, to rule as a dictator which the Queen would allow because she almost never contradicts her ministers or her officers. Salmond cares nothing for an independent Scottish nation guaranteed by our freedom to rule ourselves with our personal freedoms as citizens to speak out and to protest defended by our own elected president upholding a written republican constitution guaranteeing the rights of the people. Salmond likes the status quo when the Queen's officers keep the opposition unnaturally quiet and respectful.

    Out of the mouth of Salmond and other SNP royalists, when, as they do, they claim to speak for the interests of the Scottish nation, their continual reference to an "independent Scotland" and hardly ever a word about "an independent Scottish nation" is a lie.

    SNP royalists like Salmond are liars and by repeating their "Independent Scotland!" squawk SNP supporters are parroting their lies like wee royalist lackeys the Queen would be happy with.

    So yes to "independent Scots" and only when an "an independent Scotland" clearly means "independent Scots" with our national independence guaranteed by a republican constitution then fine, that would be "an independent Scotland" worth having.



    The For Freedom Forums - scot.tk/DEBATE
    Last edited by Peter Dow; January 24th, 2013 at 11:49 PM.
    Peter Dow
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    The queen? Really, Peter? Even I know that the queen doesn't have any real political power.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    I think consistency merits a degree of admiration even when the consistency is a display of deep illogic.

    On a lighter note the boundary between Scotlane and England runs more or less along the Iapetus suture, the closing line of the Iapetus Ocean which ceased to exist by the end of the Silurian. So the division between Scotland and England is of a long standing and fundamental nature.

    Edit: Just to be clear, I was not directing the first sentence at Harold.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post

    Edit: Just to be clear, I was not directing the first sentence at Harold.
    Don't worry we know exactly what you mean lol.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    The queen? Really, Peter? Even I know that the queen doesn't have any real political power.
    In fact you are quite correct Harold, although in theory everything is done in the name of the queen in practice she never really exercises any of the power she has as this would lead to a constitutional crisis.

    Peter is correct about us(Brits, English & Scots) being subjects of the queen, but again in reality this makes very little difference as we are also EU citizens, and the EU has far more power over the average person.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21 Really! 
    Forum Sophomore Peter Dow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Aberdeen, Scotland
    Posts
    164
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    The queen? Really, Peter?
    Yes really. All of us are
    • really not allowed to elect any president whatsoever to be president as head of any state whatsoever with commander in chief powers to wage war on the Queen and her judiciary & police who subjugate us,
    • really not allowed to elect a British president,
    • really not allowed to elect a Scottish president,
    • really not allowed to elect an Aberdeen president or a president of any city, town or district in the land
    • really not allowed to elect a president of republicans of a republican state in a 2-state solution.
    Really. This Queen is forced upon us and nobody is allowed to lead us to war against her, no matter how much we consider her our enemy. Even if we loath her more than any other life form in the cosmos we are stuck with her as head of state.

    It is real - I know because I was imprisoned in Her Majesty's Prison.

    The Queen's judge and officers had real power to put me in prison and I had no power to be free. I know where real political power lies.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Even I know that the queen doesn't have any real political power.
    If you are choking on a pretzel, the pretzel is the problem, even if it doesn't "have any real political power".

    So to speak, we are choking on the Queen. We can't breath political freedom without a president to lead us to war and in victory eliminate the oppressor state and we can't get a president while the Queen is blocking our constitutional windpipes.

    The kingdom's ministers and officers use the Queen occupying the role of head of state so as to frustrate any nation establishing a republic.

    I don't just mean the Scots. I want to join any nation whatsoever who will wage war on this Queen.

    I am a proud Scot but I would happily join any nation which would deliver me freedom against the enemy Queen, her courts and her police.

    Harold, you sit there in Pennsylvania, as I understand it, a place full of historical import in the American revolution against this kingdom, or its predecessor.

    Do you scoff at the founding fathers for wanting and fighting to be free of King George?

    How dare you then scoff at me?

    (Oh, you are the moderator - you can scoff here at any person under subjugation).

    Come on then Harold - here is the Queen's police killing us and only Russian TV (Russia Today - RT) reports it. American TV prefers to worship the enemy Queen.



    You have your freedom and your ever more perfect union.

    We have subjugation and death at the whim of the oppressor state.

    But never you mind.
    Peter Dow
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Dow View Post
    Really. This Queen is forced upon us and nobody is allowed to lead us to war against her, no matter how much we consider her our enemy.
    Do you actually read what you write?
    Or have you any idea what you sound like?
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Sophomore Peter Dow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Aberdeen, Scotland
    Posts
    164
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Dow View Post
    Really. This Queen is forced upon us and nobody is allowed to lead us to war against her, no matter how much we consider her our enemy.
    Do you actually read what you write?
    Yes. I ought to, to try to spot and remove typos, if for no other reason.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Or have you any idea what you sound like?
    Yes. I also sound and look like this.

    Peter Dow
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Peter, relax. I'm English and I don't like the bloody Monarch either but there is no slavery. If you want to point a finger, point them at the global bankers. I won't see Britian divided, it isn't a queen ruling over Scotland its a union of two peoples who shared an island together and fought off numerous invasions together over time on our own battles. Although the Union of Scotland and England was forced by the monarch at the time it is ancient history and should be forgotten.

    What shall I start doing? Claim the queen dominates my people and that Derbyshire should be free? Get real. I don't get your whole point Peter and frankly it sickens me. There are no countries, there are no divisions of people. We are all human and on another planet all humans would treat each other as brothers; why not on our own.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Dow View Post
    Harold, you sit there in Pennsylvania, as I understand it, a place full of historical import in the American revolution against this kingdom, or its predecessor.

    Do you scoff at the founding fathers for wanting and fighting to be free of King George?

    How dare you then scoff at me?
    I have no idea about your dispute with the British government. It just seems odd to direct your rage against a figurehead. Maybe you need to figure out who the real problem is.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,308
    I'm somewhat suspicious of calls for independent sovereignty, especially when it's to separate from relatively benevolent, representative governments with well established systems to protect fundamental rights enforced with rule law such as the UK, or US. Political division is the wrong direction to ensure general prosperity, peace and ability to absorb and recover from regional natural and other disasters.

    And sorry Peter, RT is among the least reliable and biased sources for News available.
    Ascended likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    I can't understand any beef with the monarchy from a Scottish perspective as it was King James VI of Scotland who united the English and Scottish crowns in 1603, when he inherited the English throne. This really means that if anyone is entitled to have a beef with the monarchy it should the English who effectively have the descendant of the Scottish royal family as their head of state. So really if you get your way Peter then it is us English who should be giving you back your royal family and it would be the English becoming a republic.
    But I would certainly not support such a foolish notion, the Queen is our head of state and will remain so until her passing, she is the rightful monarch of both England and Scotland. This will not change whether Scotland votes for independence or not.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Sophomore Peter Dow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Aberdeen, Scotland
    Posts
    164
    Quote Originally Posted by Quantime View Post
    Peter, relax. I'm English and I don't like the bloody Monarch either
    Well if and when the English make an attempt to oust the Queen, with a view to establishing an English republic, count me in - then I want to be as English as you, one of the many welcome English living in Scotland. I'd proudly wave my St. George's Cross as the Queen sets sail for Queen-Elizabeth-Land, the Antarctic, never to darken this green and pleasant land again.

    Quote Originally Posted by Quantime View Post
    but there is no slavery.
    If you are a scientist and they force you to do menial work or they will cut or stop your benefits, it is slavery, of a kind.


    Quote Originally Posted by Quantime View Post
    If you want to point a finger, point them at the global bankers.
    That would be the global bankers protected by the UK, head of state, Queen Elizabeth. Global bankers without police officers to arrest us when we disregard their authority are paper tigers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Quantime View Post
    I won't see Britian divided,
    It is divided now, between those whose rights are respected by the state, and those whose rights are disregarded by the state.




    Quote Originally Posted by Quantime View Post
    it isn't a queen ruling over Scotland
    It's Queen's ministers, Queen's judges, Queen's police and all secured by a Queen's army ruling us. Exactly as elsewhere in Britain.

    Quote Originally Posted by Quantime View Post
    its a union of two peoples who shared an island together and fought off numerous invasions together over time on our own battles.
    Oh, the people and nations are fairly united with each other and I have no issue with that. Indeed I am happy to assert dual nationality, both Scottish and British and I am content when I see the union flag flying as a symbol of British nationality and us standing together when needs be.



    Quote Originally Posted by Quantime View Post
    fought off numerous invasions together over time on our own battles.
    Yes and the scientist - Alan Turing - who did most to defeat our worst enemy - Nazi Germany - was driven to suicide by the treacherous UK state which oppresses all the nations of this island.



    Quote Originally Posted by Quantime View Post
    Although the Union of Scotland and England was forced by the monarch at the time it is ancient history and should be forgotten.
    Some of us are still being forced to do things we don't want to.

    Quote Originally Posted by Quantime View Post
    What shall I start doing? Claim the queen dominates my people and that Derbyshire should be free? Get real.
    It really is the Queen's ministers, judges and officers who call the shots, in Derbyshire and Aberdeenshire.

    Quote Originally Posted by Quantime View Post
    I don't get your whole point Peter and frankly it sickens me.
    If you can't see the whole point of a republic you ought to look at the many more successful republics in the world.

    Quote Originally Posted by Quantime View Post
    There are no countries, there are no divisions of people.
    Certain people live closer to each other. Certain people speak the same language as each other. There are natural groupings called nations which people adopt to organise themselves. It's nature. It's scientific to recognise that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Quantime View Post
    We are all human and on another planet all humans would treat each other as brothers; why not on our own.
    Well there are some very nasty humans that the decent people need protecting from and that takes good organisation, better organisation than the kingdom is offering right now, as this video showing the murder of a medical student in London demonstrates.

    Peter Dow
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Sophomore Peter Dow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Aberdeen, Scotland
    Posts
    164
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Dow View Post
    Harold, you sit there in Pennsylvania, as I understand it, a place full of historical import in the American revolution against this kingdom, or its predecessor.

    Do you scoff at the founding fathers for wanting and fighting to be free of King George?

    How dare you then scoff at me?
    I have no idea about your dispute with the British government.
    The UK government is anti-British. The so-called "British Transport Police" once arrested me for daring to fly a British flag in Aberdeen train station to observe a 5 minute silence in respect of the victims of the London bombing on 7/7.

    The Queen's evil police make a point of crushing any Briton who dares to imagine there's no royalist, fascist, police state.

    So I don't have any dispute with the "British" government, just with the anti-British UK state government.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    It just seems odd to direct your rage against a figurehead.
    You must be so puzzled as to why the founding fathers on the declaration of American independence did not immediately acclaim King George III as America's figurehead head of state.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Maybe you need to figure out who the real problem is.
    Oh I know the real problem is we don't have a president and republican constitution to defend to make the state decent competent and fair and I have figured out we can't get a president and a republic while the Queen remains as a figurehead head of state.
    Peter Dow
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Sophomore Peter Dow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Aberdeen, Scotland
    Posts
    164
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    I'm somewhat suspicious of calls for independent sovereignty,
    If you are suspicious of the Queen's First Minister of Scotland, Mr Salmond of the SNP, who actually wishes independence and the prospect of exercising sovereignty for himself, in the name of the Queen, in the name of the Scots (but for himself, not for the Scots) knowing that is a power he could abuse, then I share your suspicions.

    If you are suspicious of any nation wishing national independence and the democratic sovereignty of the people, then I do not share your suspicions but rather I am suspicious of your politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    especially when it's to separate from relatively benevolent, representative governments with well established systems to protect fundamental rights enforced with rule law such as the UK, or US.
    Well the UK judges do not support fundamental rights such as freedom of expression - they prefer libel or defamation laws whereby they can jail anyone for life for defying a court order not to criticise someone because the judge does not agree with the criticism.

    We have no government which is representative of republicans who wish to fight to establish freedom and a republic.

    The rule of law in practice is disregarded by the Queen's judges who just do what they like and the police will jail any innocent person on a judge's order regardless. So long as the judges believe themselves safe and secure they can do whatever they like, law or no law.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Political division is the wrong direction to ensure general prosperity, peace and ability to absorb and recover from regional natural and other disasters.
    Wrong. Only political division against those who rule us now, the Queen's ministers, judges and police can improve the status quo significantly. We need genuine civil and academic freedoms to boost the economy and allow those who can contribute to that to do so without the oppressive state locking them up for daring to try.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    And sorry Peter, RT is among the least reliable and biased sources for News available.
    I am sorry if you think that RT paid some Russian agents to march to the gates of Downing Street in that video and that the Queen's police are not killing people here.

    I've personally been tortured and unjustly jailed by these Queen's police thugs so I don't doubt the RT news story for a second. I've been reading about such deaths in custody for oh 30 years.
    Peter Dow
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,308
    Just wow. You aren't making a good case for yourself, cherry picking through a couple cases of wrong in a nation of tens of millions and dredging up some alleged abuse of a mathematician more than half a century ago by a family with no actual political power.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Sophomore Peter Dow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Aberdeen, Scotland
    Posts
    164
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    I can't understand any beef with the monarchy from a Scottish perspective as it was King James VI of Scotland who united the English and Scottish crowns in 1603, when he inherited the English throne. This really means that if anyone is entitled to have a beef with the monarchy it should the English who effectively have the descendant of the Scottish royal family as their head of state. So really if you get your way Peter then it is us English who should be giving you back your royal family and it would be the English becoming a republic.
    But I would certainly not support such a foolish notion, the Queen is our head of state and will remain so until her passing, she is the rightful monarch of both England and Scotland. This will not change whether Scotland votes for independence or not.
    Clearly you do not support the Scots or English having the independence to elect a president as head of state - that the Queen is to be imposed on any and all nations on these islands.

    No problem. This will not stop a republican army from assassinating the Queen and family.
    Peter Dow
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Sophomore Peter Dow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Aberdeen, Scotland
    Posts
    164
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Just wow. You aren't making a good case for yourself, cherry picking through a couple cases of wrong in a nation of tens of millions and dredging up some alleged abuse of a mathematician more than half a century ago by a family with no actual political power.
    Except the power to stop us having a president as commander in chief of a republican army to shoot all the Queen's rotten police officers, judges etc.
    Peter Dow
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Dow View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    I can't understand any beef with the monarchy from a Scottish perspective as it was King James VI of Scotland who united the English and Scottish crowns in 1603, when he inherited the English throne. This really means that if anyone is entitled to have a beef with the monarchy it should the English who effectively have the descendant of the Scottish royal family as their head of state. So really if you get your way Peter then it is us English who should be giving you back your royal family and it would be the English becoming a republic.
    But I would certainly not support such a foolish notion, the Queen is our head of state and will remain so until her passing, she is the rightful monarch of both England and Scotland. This will not change whether Scotland votes for independence or not.
    Clearly you do not support the Scots or English having the independence to elect a president as head of state - that the Queen is to be imposed on any and all nations on these islands.

    No problem. This will not stop a republican army from assassinating the Queen and family.
    Sorry Peter but I simply don't believe you. Your beef is with the Monarchy because you see it as a source authority. You would eventually come to feel the same way about any republican leadership. We live in a democracy where the people choose by election who it is that will govern, they are then the ones who make the laws, not the queen or monarchy.

    If Scotland was changed to a republic it would still have people chosen by the majority to govern on their behalf so where is the difference? There isn't any, who ever is in charge will always be a problem for you because your real problem is authority.
    Lynx_Fox, Quantime and John Galt like this.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    I have to share a city with this charlatan.

    (Not you Ascended.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post

    (Not you Ascended.)
    Lol
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Sophomore Peter Dow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Aberdeen, Scotland
    Posts
    164
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Dow View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    I can't understand any beef with the monarchy from a Scottish perspective as it was King James VI of Scotland who united the English and Scottish crowns in 1603, when he inherited the English throne. This really means that if anyone is entitled to have a beef with the monarchy it should the English who effectively have the descendant of the Scottish royal family as their head of state. So really if you get your way Peter then it is us English who should be giving you back your royal family and it would be the English becoming a republic.
    But I would certainly not support such a foolish notion, the Queen is our head of state and will remain so until her passing, she is the rightful monarch of both England and Scotland. This will not change whether Scotland votes for independence or not.
    Clearly you do not support the Scots or English having the independence to elect a president as head of state - that the Queen is to be imposed on any and all nations on these islands.

    No problem. This will not stop a republican army from assassinating the Queen and family.
    Sorry Peter but I simply don't believe you. Your beef is with the Monarchy because you see it as a source authority. You would eventually come to feel the same way about any republican leadership. We live in a democracy
    Actually no, we live under the jackboot of an undemocratic kingdom. It is simply that many royalist politicians pay lip service to the word "democracy" by saying things like "This great parliamentary democracy".

    Democracy does not mean dictatorship by the parliament or by a government with the confidence of parliament or by judges with the confidence of the Prime or First minster of the government.

    Democracy means "government by all the people" and even though I am a person I can assure you that I am not in the government, having been tortured, threatened, arrested and jailed like no member of the government ever is.

    In fact most of the people are not part of the government. We don't govern. Her Majesty's Government governs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    where the people choose by election who it is that will govern, they are then the ones who make the laws,
    By a rigged election, with royalist candidates promoted in the media and republicans forced to disavow their republicanism or be banned from taking up their seats in parliament. The state offers a limited choice of royalist loyalists to pick from. That's not a free choice. Smaller nations are not allowed to opt out of the larger state. Republicans are not allowed a 2-state solution, a republican state in parallel with the kingdom. The kingdom offers a take it or get it choice of governments.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    not the queen or monarchy.
    The pretzel in your windpipe which you are choking on doesn't govern but it stops you governing yourself. Likewise with the Queen. Her imposition as head of state of everybody stops anybody electing their own head of state.

    It's a compulsory kingdom. I want out. I want my freedom.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    If Scotland was changed to a republic it would still have people chosen by the majority to govern on their behalf so where is the difference? There isn't any, who ever is in charge will always be a problem for you because your real problem is authority.
    I suppose the difference would be there would be a constitutional mechanism for me to campaign peacefully for a different president as head of state. Now, my only option is war against the kingdom and monarchy.
    Peter Dow
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Peter I've tried now on various occasions to explain to you, that you can't do anything without credibility. You need the support of other people to achieve anything and you're not going to get that by talking about republican armies assassinating the queen. Come on let's be sensible no one is, or can, take that seriously. Why don't you start talking about achievable goals where you can work together with like minded people.

    Is that you just like being the centre of attention or have you got some genuine political objectives?
    John Galt likes this.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Sophomore Peter Dow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Aberdeen, Scotland
    Posts
    164
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Peter I've tried now on various occasions to explain to you, that you can't do anything without credibility.
    Wikipedia: Lee Harvey Oswald

    as Kennedy's motorcade passed through Dallas's Dealey Plaza about 12:30 p.m. on November 22, Oswald fired three rifle shots from the sixth-floor, southeast corner window of the Book Depository, killing the President and seriously wounding Texas Governor John Connally
    Wikipedia: Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma

    on 27 August 1979 Mountbatten went lobster-potting and tuna fishing in a thirty-foot (10 m) wooden boat, the Shadow V, which had been moored in the harbour at Mullaghmore. IRA member Thomas McMahon had slipped onto the unguarded boat that night and attached a radio-controlled fifty-pound (23 kg) bomb. When Mountbatten was aboard en route to Donegal Bay, just a few hundred yards from the shore, the bomb was detonated.
    I sure hope that you don't have a job in VIP protection.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    You need the support of other people to achieve anything and you're not going to get that by talking about republican armies assassinating the queen. Come on let's be sensible no one is, or can, take that seriously.
    Why not? The Queen's courts talked seriously about jailing me for life and sectioning me in a mental hospital and subjecting me to compulsory brain damage for daring to express my own point of view.

    The kingdom is seriously threatening my life, health and freedom so I figure that this is a struggle between the head of state and myself where only one of us can survive and thrive and the other one must go or die - it is her, her family or me, and I hope it's them.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Why don't you start talking about achievable goals where you can work together with like minded people.
    Like minded people who have suffered loss at the hands of the kingdom. Sure.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Is that you just like being the centre of attention or have you got some genuine political objectives?
    I fail to understand your difficulty in appreciating my genuine desire to have a head of state who defends my liberties against the half-wits who run the state in Aberdeen and elsewhere in Scotland and Britain.
    Peter Dow
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    I have to share a city with this charlatan.

    (Not you Ascended.)
    I believe Paleoichneum is also from Charlotte. whistle.gif
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    I have to share a city with this charlatan.

    (Not you Ascended.)
    I believe Paleoichneum is also from Charlotte. whistle.gif
    That's funny I wouldn't have taken him for a charlatan.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,563
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    I have to share a city with this charlatan.

    (Not you Ascended.)
    I believe Paleoichneum is also from Charlotte. whistle.gif
    Lol, nope, never been to Charlotte ;D
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    I have to share a city with this charlatan.

    (Not you Ascended.)
    I believe Paleoichneum is also from Charlotte. whistle.gif
    Lol, nope, never been to Charlotte ;D
    See, I have a bunch of you guys on Facebook and can never remember which is which!
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    728
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Dow View Post
    Why not? The Queen's courts talked seriously about jailing me for life and sectioning me in a mental hospital and subjecting me to compulsory brain damage for daring to express my own point of view.

    The kingdom is seriously threatening my life, health and freedom so I figure that this is a struggle between the head of state and myself where only one of us can survive and thrive and the other one must go or die - it is her, her family or me, and I hope it's them.
    You stalked, harassed, abused, slandered and threatened your professors for failing your dissertation. This occurred at not just one university, but at another at least. You also harassed students and disrupted people's classes and lectures. Plus you also dress up in a dickie self designed uniform and walk around holding placards and speak of assassinating a head of state.

    And you are surprised at threats of prison, a mental hospital and psychiatric care?

    Really?
    John Galt likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Strangely after watching a recording of the BBC's Question Time, I found myself some what agreeing with the SNP chap. At least in as much as I think their should have been an option to give the Scottish Parliment more powers over Scotland, rather than just this over simplistic single question of whether or not Scotland should become independent.
    Ok yes according to the latest opinion polls support for Scottish independence is at a record low of only 23% but the thing is that these things can change in a heart beat and we haven't even really seen the yes campaign get going yet.

    In my view it would have been, and for that matter still is, better to have given the Scottish people more choice about how they want their future rather than just having them backed into a corner where they only have the choice of accepting the status quo or walking away completely, I just hope long term that decision doesn't come back to haunt us.

    I think the other important point to come out of the discussion was that for Scotland as an independant country trying to get back into the European Union wasn't going to be a cakewalk as several high profile members of the EU have already now pointed out they themselves cannot see Scotland being allowed to immediately rejoin. So the long term ramifications of this also need to be considered, though in some ways it was always a little bit strange that the SNP wanted Scotland to be independent from England and english oversight but still wanted to be part of the EU, which to a large degree had a far bigger say in the everyday lives of Scotts than England now does, so no doubt there will be those who think a Scotland independent of the EU as well is a very good thing.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Ok well it seems the 670 page document produced by the SNP to outline their case for Scottish independence has already been thrown completely into turmoil after a series of body blows in the days since it was released.

    Last night the Spanish Prime Minister came out and announced that countries breaking away from existing EU member states would have to apply to join from outside the Union, a clear signal to Scotland as an independent country that they wouldn't simply just be allowed to remain within the EU. Also given that conditions for EU membership are now much tougher than the current deal Scotland presently has, as part of the UK, as a new candidate Scotland could well have to be required to implement the Schengen Agreement, which would require it to fully open up it's borders to other EU states. Given that the rest of the UK doesn't have open borders to countries outside the UK this could well mean the implementation of border controls to Scotland by England, Wales and Northern Ireland as a consequence.

    Other potential drawbacks of being only an EU candidate state could mean certain economic restrictions imposed, in order to meet stricter entry requirements, the adoption of the Euro and having to make a substantially higher contribution to the EU budget as they would no longer benefit from the rebate currently enjoyed by the UK.

    Further hammer blows to SNP plans include the UK governments reluctance to allow an Independent Scotland to continue using the British Pound, the government feels having the bank of England as lender of last resort to bankrole Scotland in such circumstances would be inappropriate and against UK national interests.

    Even more bad news for the SNP comes from the Ministry of Defence who have come out categorically and stated that joint defence procurement would not be an option, this would then result in the loss of thousands of Scottish jobs if independence does become a reality.

    Even before this series of setbacks for Independence plans many Westminster politicans had already branded the SNP's white paper as a work of fiction and certainly recent events have done much to reinforce this perception.

    Here is the link for anyone wishing to read the document in full:

    http://82.113.138.107/00439021.pdf
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Sophomore Peter Dow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Aberdeen, Scotland
    Posts
    164
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Dow View Post
    Why not? The Queen's courts talked seriously about jailing me for life and sectioning me in a mental hospital and subjecting me to compulsory brain damage for daring to express my own point of view.

    The kingdom is seriously threatening my life, health and freedom so I figure that this is a struggle between the head of state and myself where only one of us can survive and thrive and the other one must go or die - it is her, her family or me, and I hope it's them.
    You stalked, harassed, abused, slandered and threatened your professors for failing your dissertation. This occurred at not just one university, but at another at least. You also harassed students and disrupted people's classes and lectures.
    I supposed I "harassed" 1200 students to sign a petition to the court supporting my right of freedom of expression? No, actually, they spoke to me voluntarily on the street and signed my petition.

    I attended publicly advertised meetings and spoke at them. I gave out leaflets on the street. Clearly, however, when a member of the public expresses views critical of university mismanagement, in defiance of an order of a Queen's ape judge not to do so, such a member of the public is to be threatened with jail for contempt of court.

    Everything I said and wrote was true or my opinion of the truth and my understanding of the law at the time. Now, however it is clear to me that the notion of "Scots law" is a fiction since we live under a Queen's ape judge judicial dictatorship which outlaws the expression of dissenting opinions.

    We have no constitutional rights in a kingdom. We live as subjects or slaves or we fight for our freedom. I choose to fight.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    Plus you also dress up in a dickie self designed uniform and walk around holding placards and speak of assassinating a head of state.
    It's not a "uniform" since it is an original outfit design, not uniformly the same as anyone else's.

    What it is, is an outfit in the style of military dress uniforms perhaps. And yes, when a state is imposing dictatorship then the only realistic option to achieve freedom is a military campaign to overthrow the state.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    And you are surprised at threats of prison, a mental hospital and psychiatric care?

    Really?
    I am not surprised that those who I am critical of would like to shut me up any way they can, no.
    Last edited by Peter Dow; November 28th, 2013 at 07:30 PM.
    Peter Dow
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Sophomore Peter Dow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Aberdeen, Scotland
    Posts
    164
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Reminds me of the talk of Texas seceding from the USA that was going on a few months ago. I wonder what makes Scottish people think they'd be able to do better for themselves alone? Not saying they wouldn't. Just curious what the specific reasons are?
    Well the arguments for independence are quite simple, at least according to many from the yes campaign
    The arguments from the vote "Yes" campaign are lies.

    For example, the "Yes" campaign is fronted by someone called "Blair Jenkins" who holds an Order of the British Empire.



    He claims that voting "Yes" would lead to "equality" in Scotland. Yet he himself is a strong believer in monarchy, the most unequal system of government. He is also an imperialist who holds an order of the British Empire (except of course that the UK empire is actually anti-British, same as it is anti-Scottish, anti-English, anti-Welsh and anti-Irish).

    Any empire which denies a nation, like the British nation or the Scottish nation, the right to elect our own head of state, is clearly anti the rights and interests of that nation.

    So the UK empire is anti-British. It has never been a truly "British" empire, it has always promoted the interests of the UK royal family and imperialist hangers on like Blair Jenkins, never the interests of the British people.


    Oh, and the "No" campaign has lies of its own as well. They put forward the lie that there is something better on offer for Scots, if only we vote "No".




    It's not true. Voting "no", like voting "yes" offers nothing better for Scots.

    The Queen's YES-Scotland and Better-Together contemptible media campaigns both seek support for independent Queen's kingdoms (Scotland or the UK) but with dependent, subjugated peoples.


    All nations can achieve for themselves a significantly better future only by discussing how we can secure real national independence by establishing republics and electing presidents to replace the monarchy.

    That applies to the British nation as much as to the Scots. The Britons are subjugated now, are not independent of the monarchy and kingdom now.

    Therefore Britons would be better seeking British national independence - from the UK. That's not being offered by a "No" vote.

    I'm not for waiting until the 18 September 2014. As a Scot, supporting Scottish national independence, I want the Queen and family banned from Scotland starting right now. Banning the royals will get any nation under the jackboot of this kingdom its independence faster than any other measure.

    As a Briton, supporting British national independence, I want the Queen and family banned from Britain. That will secure us British national independence from the UK.
    Last edited by Peter Dow; November 28th, 2013 at 08:14 PM.
    Peter Dow
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    so...there wouldn't be a Scotland yard!? bizarre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Dow View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Reminds me of the talk of Texas seceding from the USA that was going on a few months ago. I wonder what makes Scottish people think they'd be able to do better for themselves alone? Not saying they wouldn't. Just curious what the specific reasons are?
    Well the arguments for independence are quite simple, at least according to many from the yes campaign
    The arguments from the vote "Yes" campaign are lies.

    For example, the "Yes" campaign is fronted by someone called "Blair Jenkins" who holds an Order of the British Empire.



    He claims that voting "Yes" would lead to "equality" in Scotland. Yet he himself is a strong believer in monarchy, the most unequal system of government. He is also an imperialist who holds an order of the British Empire (except of course that the UK empire is actually anti-British, same as it is anti-Scottish, anti-English, anti-Welsh and anti-Irish).

    Any empire which denies a nation, like the British nation or the Scottish nation, the right to elect our own head of state, is clearly anti the rights and interests of that nation.

    So the UK empire is anti-British. It has never been a truly "British" empire, it has always promoted the interests of the UK royal family and imperialist hangers on like Blair Jenkins, never the interests of the British people.


    Oh, and the "No" campaign has lies of its own as well. They put forward the lie that there is something better on offer for Scots, if only we vote "No".




    It's not true. Voting "no", like voting "yes" offers nothing better for Scots.

    The Queen's YES-Scotland and Better-Together contemptible media campaigns both seek support for independent Queen's kingdoms (Scotland or the UK) but with dependent, subjugated peoples.


    All nations can achieve for themselves a significantly better future only by discussing how we can secure real national independence by establishing republics and electing presidents to replace the monarchy.

    That applies to the British nation as much as to the Scots. The Britons are subjugated now, are not independent of the monarchy and kingdom now.

    Therefore Britons would be better seeking British national independence - from the UK. That's not being offered by a "No" vote.

    I'm not for waiting until the 18 September 2014. As a Scot, supporting Scottish national independence, I want the Queen and family banned from Scotland starting right now. Banning the royals will get any nation under the jackboot of this kingdom its independence faster than any other measure.

    As a Briton, supporting British national independence, I want the Queen and family banned from Britain. That will secure us British national independence from the UK.

    Well you have to say hat's off to the SNP for the way they've shaped the whole independence debate, the issue of monarchy has hardly even been mentioned, also they've got the Yes campaign from barely 20% to nearly upto the magic 50% mark. You have to now feel that with this level of momentum independence is now an almost certainty.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Dow View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Reminds me of the talk of Texas seceding from the USA that was going on a few months ago. I wonder what makes Scottish people think they'd be able to do better for themselves alone? Not saying they wouldn't. Just curious what the specific reasons are?
    Well the arguments for independence are quite simple, at least according to many from the yes campaign
    The arguments from the vote "Yes" campaign are lies.

    For example, the "Yes" campaign is fronted by someone called "Blair Jenkins" who holds an Order of the British Empire.



    He claims that voting "Yes" would lead to "equality" in Scotland. Yet he himself is a strong believer in monarchy, the most unequal system of government. He is also an imperialist who holds an order of the British Empire (except of course that the UK empire is actually anti-British, same as it is anti-Scottish, anti-English, anti-Welsh and anti-Irish).

    Any empire which denies a nation, like the British nation or the Scottish nation, the right to elect our own head of state, is clearly anti the rights and interests of that nation.

    So the UK empire is anti-British. It has never been a truly "British" empire, it has always promoted the interests of the UK royal family and imperialist hangers on like Blair Jenkins, never the interests of the British people.


    Oh, and the "No" campaign has lies of its own as well. They put forward the lie that there is something better on offer for Scots, if only we vote "No".




    It's not true. Voting "no", like voting "yes" offers nothing better for Scots.

    The Queen's YES-Scotland and Better-Together contemptible media campaigns both seek support for independent Queen's kingdoms (Scotland or the UK) but with dependent, subjugated peoples.


    All nations can achieve for themselves a significantly better future only by discussing how we can secure real national independence by establishing republics and electing presidents to replace the monarchy.

    That applies to the British nation as much as to the Scots. The Britons are subjugated now, are not independent of the monarchy and kingdom now.

    Therefore Britons would be better seeking British national independence - from the UK. That's not being offered by a "No" vote.

    I'm not for waiting until the 18 September 2014. As a Scot, supporting Scottish national independence, I want the Queen and family banned from Scotland starting right now. Banning the royals will get any nation under the jackboot of this kingdom its independence faster than any other measure.

    As a Briton, supporting British national independence, I want the Queen and family banned from Britain. That will secure us British national independence from the UK.
    Monarchy hasn't had significant power in Britain for over three centuries. It has been a significant source of national identity and spirit during wartime and has generated enormous income from tourism.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Well here in England the monarchy are having a rude awakening, up until this point the idea of the Yes campaign winning wasn't actually being taken seriously, panic however is now setting in here with talk of Scots planning for a Scottish Republic after the Queen's reign has ended!

    Also the British government is put together emergency plans to protect people from riots and what it sees as a growing anti-English sentiment in Scotland prompted by the debate around independence. Fears are also emerging that about food hording prior to large prices rises in the shops over fears of the Scottish pounds exchangeability for British ones in the wake a yes vote. Recent activity has also seen a growing number of Scots swapping over their Scottish pounds and withdrawing money from Scottish banks sparked by fears of restrictions being placed on such transactions in the future.

    But don't think this is just going to effect the Scots as rumours are rife across the rest of the UK about a significant devalueing of the pound as the prospect of Scottish independence now looks ever more likely. Current speculation is that the UK pound will lose 10 to 15% of it's value with prices of all imported goods set to rise accordingly and prices of home grown or made products are set to rise still but at a smaller rate.

    This is like everyone in the UK getting a massive pay cut!
    Last edited by Ascended; September 7th, 2014 at 02:42 PM.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    874
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Well here in England the monarchy are having a rude awakening, up until this point the idea of the Yes campaign winning wasn't actually being taken seriously, panic however is now setting in here with talk of Scots planning for a Scottish Republic after the Queen's reign has ended!
    Yep, Elizabeth II - the last Queen of Scotland - replaced by President Salmond with his statue in Independence Square (or not).

    Also the British government is put together emergency plans to protect people from riots and what it sees as a growing anti-English sentiment in Scotland prompted by the debate around independence. Fears are also emerging that about food hording prior to large prices rises in the shops over fears of the Scottish pounds exchangeability for British ones in the wake a yes vote. Recent activity has also seen a growing number of Scots swapping over their Scottish pounds and withdrawing money from Scottish banks sparked by fears of restrictions being placed on such transactions in the future.
    If I had a bank account with RBS now I would consider closing it. The Scots will want to offload it with its £60 billion or so bailout debt funded by the UK taxpayer. rUK will not want it either. Why should they want a failed Scottish bank?
    A small amount of ethnic cleansing of English people has already happened in Scotland. Whichever way the vote goes this will increase.

    But don't think this is just going to effect the Scots as rumours are rife across the rest of the UK about a significant devalueing of the pound as the prospect of Scottish independence now looks ever more likely. Current speculation is that the UK pound will lose 10 to 15% of it's value with prices of all imported goods set to rise accordingly and prices of home grown or made products are set to rise still but at a smaller rate.
    Probably. I will consult my crystal ball.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,750
    I am starting the think that even if the vote is lost by the Yes camp then the die may have been cast. If a decent majority cannot be guaranteed for the Union then it looks like Scotland has no warmth for it .If there is no cordiality in the arrangement then what is the point?

    If the vote is lost it will just come again down the road so maybe the rest of the UK should have its own referendum in the aftermath and decide what it wants and avoid uncertainty in the future.

    I am surprised that a 50% vote was allowed to be the cutoff point- I thought it should have been higher.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Well here in England the monarchy are having a rude awakening, up until this point the idea of the Yes campaign winning wasn't actually being taken seriously, panic however is now setting in here with talk of Scots planning for a Scottish Republic after the Queen's reign has ended!
    Yep, Elizabeth II - the last Queen of Scotland - replaced by President Salmond with his statue in Independence Square (or not).

    Also the British government is put together emergency plans to protect people from riots and what it sees as a growing anti-English sentiment in Scotland prompted by the debate around independence. Fears are also emerging that about food hording prior to large prices rises in the shops over fears of the Scottish pounds exchangeability for British ones in the wake a yes vote. Recent activity has also seen a growing number of Scots swapping over their Scottish pounds and withdrawing money from Scottish banks sparked by fears of restrictions being placed on such transactions in the future.
    If I had a bank account with RBS now I would consider closing it. The Scots will want to offload it with its £60 billion or so bailout debt funded by the UK taxpayer. rUK will not want it either. Why should they want a failed Scottish bank?
    A small amount of ethnic cleansing of English people has already happened in Scotland. Whichever way the vote goes this will increase.

    But don't think this is just going to effect the Scots as rumours are rife across the rest of the UK about a significant devalueing of the pound as the prospect of Scottish independence now looks ever more likely. Current speculation is that the UK pound will lose 10 to 15% of it's value with prices of all imported goods set to rise accordingly and prices of home grown or made products are set to rise still but at a smaller rate.
    Probably. I will consult my crystal ball.
    Well to put things into perspective the pound lost 3.5% against dollar just on the last opinion poll result, major supermarkets are already trying to play down the full extent of the price rises that Independence would usher in.

    RBS is a posioned chalice that nobody seems to want, the problem will be just who gets sadled with it and how the UK government gets tax payers money back from it, somehow I can't see Scotland getting away from at least some responsibility towards RBS, but it can't, shouldn't and surely won't get stuck with the entire mess. This being said said though Scotland has been told again and again to forget about any claims to the bank of england, that's just never going to happen no matter how much the SNP want it to.

    As for a Scottish President I was under the impression Alex Salmond had said he was stepping down after the Independence vote, which could well mean by the time the Queen's reign is over it might be President Sturgeon
    Last edited by Ascended; September 8th, 2014 at 10:49 AM. Reason: typos
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    874
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    As for a Scottish Pesident I was under the impression Alex Salmond had said he was stepping down after the Independence vote, which could well mean by the time the Queen's reign is over it might be President Sturgeon
    Fishy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    As for a Scottish Pesident I was under the impression Alex Salmond had said he was stepping down after the Independence vote, which could well mean by the time the Queen's reign is over it might be President Sturgeon
    Fishy.
    Wouldn't he be the Sturgeon General?
    "MODERATOR NOTE : We don't entertain trolls here, not even in the trash can. Banned." -Markus Hanke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    874
    What I wish is this:
    Cameron had been more reasoned in his support for the Union, rather than just saying we want you to stay.
    Osborne had kept his mouth shut. (is he part of some conspiracy to let Scotland go?).
    Milliband had started to engage in the debate much sooner.
    I had a vote. I am part of the Union, but alas I am helpless.
    The Union stays together to face up the huge global challenges which lie ahead.

    I always believed this would be very close and it now seems to come down to which side makes a mistake and it could be a bigger mistake to lessen the risk and stay silent.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by shlunka View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    As for a Scottish Pesident I was under the impression Alex Salmond had said he was stepping down after the Independence vote, which could well mean by the time the Queen's reign is over it might be President Sturgeon
    Fishy.
    Wouldn't he be the Sturgeon General?
    Nice one

    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    What I wish is this:
    Cameron had been more reasoned in his support for the Union, rather than just saying we want you to stay.
    Osborne had kept his mouth shut. (is he part of some conspiracy to let Scotland go?).
    Milliband had started to engage in the debate much sooner.
    I had a vote. I am part of the Union, but alas I am helpless.
    The Union stays together to face up the huge global challenges which lie ahead.

    I always believed this would be very close and it now seems to come down to which side makes a mistake and it could be a bigger mistake to lessen the risk and stay silent.
    Yes I don't think Osborne helps matters in any way shape or form, as for Cameron I think he like most people assumed it would never happen and above this perhaps didn't wish to be percieved as a Tory interfering in Scotland as generally that doesn't go down well at all.

    As Labour leader Milliband is perhaps one of the few English politians who could have actually had more of an effect.

    I'm personally against the break up of Britain, hey I like to see things that have been built endure, but really more than this though is the way this is all being handled.
    The SNP haven't really got a scooby what will really happen if they get a yes vote, there are just so many things undecided that will really effect peoples lives, but you can't blame them for sticking to their principles as this is what they're about, everybody knew when they elected them and they are simply doing what they set out to acheive. In this respect I think perhaps more of the blame should fall upon Westminster for not being prepared, we can't turn around and blame the SNP for being better than we thought they were going to be!

    No but realistically this whole situation should have been handled much better by everyone involved. We shouldn't now all be looking into the void of the unknown wondering what is to come. If things had been handled correctly then both the Scottish Parliment and Westminster Parliment should have spent 10 to 15 years working through every aspect of a proper transition for Scotland to become independent in a safe way.

    It should have been a case of every detail being worked out years in advance and then presenting the Scottish people with all the facts an actual plan where everyone would know exactly what would happen after inpendence and that nobody on either side of the border would be left in the lurch.

    What we've ended up with is this mess where nobody can honestly say what the real benefits of negatives will be or how any of the really big issues will play out. Now that's on all the politians involved, both in England and Scotland!
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Sophomore pineapple007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    118
    Hopefully the greens fees don't go up !!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    On the eve of one of potentially the most important days in the history of the UK the polls still have the no vote prediction holding a steady 6 to 8% lead. The bookies are also making their opinions felt offering latest odds of: No to independence 2/9 whilst Yes to independence is at 19/5.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    On the eve of one of potentially the most important days in the history of the UK the polls still have the no vote prediction holding a steady 6 to 8% lead. The bookies are also making their opinions felt offering latest odds of: No to independence 2/9 whilst Yes to independence is at 19/5.
    I wonder if there will be outbreaks of patriotic rioting if the yes camp do not get their desires.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    On the eve of one of potentially the most important days in the history of the UK the polls still have the no vote prediction holding a steady 6 to 8% lead. The bookies are also making their opinions felt offering latest odds of: No to independence 2/9 whilst Yes to independence is at 19/5.
    ,
    I wonder if there will be outbreaks of patriotic rioting if the yes camp do not get their desires.
    Hope not, I hope whichever way the vote goes that people can sit down afterwoods and just get down to the nitty gritty of making the best of the situation for everybody in both Scotland and the rest of the UK. I can't see the no campaign having the same sort of celebrations as the yes camp, which is probably a good thing and would thus be less likely to incite trouble from nationalists.

    Either way though the vote goes though afterwoods the politians can actually get round to start and tell everyone the truth about what will really happen in the future with all the rose tinted glasses, we'll either find out the true price of independence for Scotland or the price for keeping the Union together.

    Does anyone really believe everything coming out of Westminster or that Alex Salmond will get everything he wants for his Utophia from England and the EU, you can bet there has been many many porky pies being told!
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    On the eve of one of potentially the most important days in the history of the UK the polls still have the no vote prediction holding a steady 6 to 8% lead. The bookies are also making their opinions felt offering latest odds of: No to independence 2/9 whilst Yes to independence is at 19/5.
    ,
    I wonder if there will be outbreaks of patriotic rioting if the yes camp do not get their desires.
    Hope not, I hope whichever way the vote goes that people can sit down afterwoods and just get down to the nitty gritty of making the best of the situation for everybody in both Scotland and the rest of the UK. I can't see the no campaign having the same sort of celebrations as the yes camp, which is probably a good thing and would thus be less likely to incite trouble from nationalists.

    Either way the vote goes though afterwoods the politians can actually get round to start and tell everyone the truth about what will really happen in the future without all the rose tinted glasses, we'll either find out the true price of independence for Scotland or the price for keeping the Union together.

    Does anyone really believe everything coming out of Westminster or that Alex Salmond will get everything he wants for his Utophia from England and the EU, you can bet there has been many many porky pies being told!
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    There are pluses and minuses to each side. So it would all depend upon whether people want change they have never had or stick to the status quo.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    There are pluses and minuses to each side. So it would all depend upon whether people want change they have never had or stick to the status quo.
    Hey I think that's right but the real issue is, and why the no campaign might actually get a win, is that nobody really knows what they are going to be. The SNP has come out and said things will be much better when Scotland can make all it's own decisions and will become more prosperous, but many people are really unsure what that will actually mean and who benefit. Supermarkets have have said food prices would rise after independence, businesses are planning to relocate to England, Spain's threaned to veto Scotland becoming a seperate EU from that of the rest of the UK, Spain doesn't want a precedent set that could then be exploited politically by basque separatists wishing to form their own country from parts of France and Spain, other EU countries are insisting Scotland must adopt the Euro if it wishes entry to the EU as a sperate member state than England, All the major parties of the UK government have insisted that the Bank of England will not back and independent Scotland as lender of last resort, as they see this as giving Scotland a green light to go a spending spree and are concerned about it's ability to meet financial commitments. Pensioners are worried that with banks heavily in debt and the UK government no longer protecting/insuring their savings things could go badly wrong also that if Scotlands money runs out their pensions might not get paid.

    Also some of the 200 major institutions that currently provide services to Scotland that are primarily UK wide, such as the DVLA are as yet to clarify their position with regard to whether theywould continue to provide the same function or how much Scots will be charged. Some insurance companies have already stated this could lead to some serious problems regarding claims, licensing issues - even going as far as to suggest Scots might have to retake their driving test and be issued with a seperate scottish driving licence if the English decide to play hard ball using the DVLA as negotiating tool. Though rather extreme perhaps, it seems likely that insurance companies will use the situation to hike up premiums and force Scots to pay more for their insurance.

    Also fears exist that with the powers of independence the Scottish government could then actually dip into savers savings if the government is running short or finding it difficult to raise money from the markets, unfortuantely this very same thing happened in Cyprus setting worrying example how governments can take peoples money should they choose to do so.

    Now add even just some of these concerns on to the fact that many of the islanders, upon whom's wishes an Independent Scotlands future oil tax revenue may be dependent, are rejecting the idea of Scottish independence in droves and of whom many are seeking their own freedom to leave an independent Scotland and rejoin a new union of England, Wales and Northern Ireland should Scotland actually become independent, a decision of course that would obviously be taken by and decided in London by the UK government.

    This is why so many people are concerned about the situation. If everything was clear and worked out and Scots really knew what to expect after independence then the Yes campaign would probably 95 to 5 ahead in the polls. The fact is they arn't because many just simply don't believe that every will work out as perfectly as the SNP have suggested and that will get their own way on everything, not at all helped by the complete refusal of the SNP to explain what they'll do for Scotland if things don't quite all go their own way.

    Also whole families are being devided by this situation, many people in England have Scots relatives and vice versa, with many Scots not being allowed to vote whilst other peoples from all over the world now living there ultimately deciding they can no longer be British is helping matters either.

    But this isn't about a flag, Scotland already has one, this isn't about a name again here Scotland, it's not about a country Scotland is one, this isn't about national pride Scotland has always been a proud and passionate nation, regardless of the vote that wont change. What this is really all about is taking away British citizenship from everybody born in Scotland so that the SNP can have the more power. Scots tommorow will decide whether they wish to pay the price for the SNP's vanity, after the vote they might just start find out how high they price could actually prove to be.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    874
    Today is the day when 4 million Scots will decide the future not only for themselves but the UK as a whole. I am glad the whole sickening debate is now over and polling has begun.

    If the Yes campaign is successful then I believe it shows weaknesses in democracy. I am part of the UK and yet I have no vote on whether it should split. It should not only be a case of whether they (the Scots) want us, but whether we (the rest) want them. Should there be a Yes vote then the UK splits forever. If a No vote then the SNP can try again within a generation.

    Of course I want them to stay because the UK has always been greater than the sum of its parts and I love Scotland. How many Scots ever say they love England?

    If they become a 'foreign' country to me I doubt if I will ever go there again.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,750
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post

    If the Yes campaign is successful then I believe it shows weaknesses in democracy. I am part of the UK and yet I have no vote on whether it should split. It should not only be a case of whether they (the Scots) want us, but whether we (the rest) want them
    I have heard this quite often but to me it doesn't stand up at all. Does that mean if the UK wants to leave the EU then the rest of the EU has to be consulted?

    I am just as saddened that so many Scots think so little of formal ties with the rest of the UK but there it is.

    (I am not against the rest of the UK having its own vote as to whether to keep links with Scotland if the vote is a narrow NO but that is a confusing area.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    I find it interesting, in a species whose success has been based on risk taking, as to how many posters here seem afraid of change.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,522
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    I find it interesting, in a species whose success has been based on risk taking, as to how many posters here seem afraid of change.
    That is a misrepresentation worthy of Alex Salmond. The issue, surely, is one of the cost, effort and distraction involved, in a separation that most people in the UK - and even most Scots - seem to think is quite unnecessary.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    874
    Quote Originally Posted by geordief View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post

    If the Yes campaign is successful then I believe it shows weaknesses in democracy. I am part of the UK and yet I have no vote on whether it should split. It should not only be a case of whether they (the Scots) want us, but whether we (the rest) want them
    I have heard this quite often but to me it doesn't stand up at all. Does that mean if the UK wants to leave the EU then the rest of the EU has to be consulted?
    UK = 300-400 years of peace.
    EU = 30-40 years of bickering.

    -> Argument out by a factor of 10.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,750
    Well if you don't like that argument is the rest of the UK supposed to forcibly prevent the Scots from seceding? Are they to be prevented from having an independent referendum on independence?

    Can the Scots by the same token deny the rest of the UK the right to split from them ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    874
    If there was suggested an independence vote for England I would oppose it on the grounds that I declare myself to be English but my country is the UK. I like England, Scotland, Wales and N.Ireland.
    The argument about the EU is different. Nobody declares their country to be the EU. The EU is a mish-mash of states which started to be formed in the austere aftermath of WW2. It has kept the peace up until now and broadly I support it. I do not want to see any more conflict anywhere and that includes Scotland and rUK.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,750
    If the rest of the UK demands a say in whether Scotland can be independent or not that may increase bad feeling very badly (apart from being completely unrealistic).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    I find it interesting, in a species whose success has been based on risk taking, as to how many posters here seem afraid of change.
    Not in politics. Not all change is for the better. Risk was precisely why Scotland went bankrupt in the first place.
    Last edited by Trivium; September 18th, 2014 at 12:22 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    The definition of risk includes the possibility of failure. So, I am not sure why you are stating the bloody obvious.

    Without change there is no improvement. With change there is always risk.

    I believe the long term benefits outweigh the risk. I think there is a high percentage probability that the changes that ensue from an independent Scotland will personally destroy my well-being, reduce my retirement to a nightmare and lead to an accelerated death. However, the benefits to the nation and indirectly to the rest of the UK, Europe and the world outweigh my personal inconvenience. I am leaving my house in fifteen minutes to vote Yes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Well if Scotland does vote Yes then every pamphlet, leaflet and UK document will have to be changed to to include the word "former", not exactly loving the idea of having to become a citizen of the "Former United Kingdom" either, even if only for the sake of the unfortunate acronym!!!
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Okay, you got me. I laughed.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Okay, you got me. I laughed.
    Hey we'd also end up with the Queen of " --- " as our monarch, lovely!!!
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,969
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    UK = 300-400 years of peace.
    EU = 30-40 years of bickering.
    Don't know if I'd call the Troubles "peace." And given that in the 1800's they were averaging about a war a _year_ I don't think that makes a very good argument for a peaceful society.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    The definition of risk includes the possibility of failure. So, I am not sure why you are stating the bloody obvious.

    Without change there is no improvement. With change there is always risk.

    I believe the long term benefits outweigh the risk. I think there is a high percentage probability that the changes that ensue from an independent Scotland will personally destroy my well-being, reduce my retirement to a nightmare and lead to an accelerated death. However, the benefits to the nation and indirectly to the rest of the UK, Europe and the world outweigh my personal inconvenience. I am leaving my house in fifteen minutes to vote Yes.
    It's you who is stating the obvious. You're using risk in a general sense, everything we do has risk, I could fall over and brake a hip when walking doesn't mean it's a good change in circumstances. You speak of long term benefits, what long term benefits? You cannot possibly conceive of any such things because of the law of unintended consequences, not to mention the fact there has been no understanding as to what could actually be gained or lost as a result of independence, only hypothetical scenarios from both leaders. Without change there may not be any improvement, but without change there is also no worse conditions, you people seem to think that things cannot be worse, when your retirement age is forced higher because you cannot afford to support the elderly, when your trade is stopped by not being in the EU and business moving to London (and not having a currency), when you need to access free medical care and you cannot affford to subsidise the NHS, then come back and talk to me about risk. Think about what you're doing, you're gambling perfectly fine conditions over what? You are typing on a computer at 7pm you're not oppressed.

    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    UK = 300-400 years of peace.
    EU = 30-40 years of bickering.
    Don't know if I'd call the Troubles "peace." And given that in the 1800's they were averaging about a war a _year_ I don't think that makes a very good argument for a peaceful society.
    With the exception of Ireland, a country who resent us for obvious historical reasons (ahem Cromwell) the Scottish formed a union out of their own consent and their quality of life has improved greatly because of it. There have been no domestic revolutions or widespread civil war type conflicts in the UK for 300 years give or take.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    It's OK Trivium. I get it. You are scared of the unknown. Now lets see how the chips fall. If it's Darien II we'll try again in three hundred years.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    It's OK Trivium. I get it. You are scared of the unknown. Now lets see how the chips fall. If it's Darien II we'll try again in three hundred years.
    It's not the unknown that scares me. It's the unfathomable idiocy of supporting a policy with no proven advantages that could have dire consequences. Why are people so willing to gamble the life they have for a utopian nationalist dream that has been shown on multiple occasions to have no real world potential? I do not claim to know what will happen. I can only make predictions based on the information I have available. It's ironic that such an unscientific attitude as dismissing the evidence in favour of the 'unknown' is being used by a moderator on a scientific forum.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    It's ironic that such an unscientific attitude as dismissing the evidence in favour of the 'unknown' is being used by a moderator on a scientific forum.
    I am getting tired of this. For the third time in 24 hours, I am not posting as a moderator unless I say I am posting as a moderator, with bold letters and pretty coloured font. Clear?

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    It's not the unknown that scares me. It's the unfathomable idiocy of supporting a policy with no proven advantages that could have dire consequences.
    It is also a policy that has no proven disadvantages; A policy whose dire consequences are, for the most part, formulated as scare tactics by the No campaign. On whose "dire consequences" can be managed by an astute people, revitalised by independence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    Why are people so willing to gamble the life they have for a utopian nationalist dream.....
    Strawman. No one is claiming a potential Utopia.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    ...... that has been shown on multiple occasions to have no real world potential? I do not claim to know what will happen.
    Lie.


    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    I can only make predictions based on the information I have available. .
    And of you cherry pick your information you will reach a foregone conclusion with the certainty you are trumpeting.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    It's ironic that such an unscientific attitude as dismissing the evidence in favour of the 'unknown' is being used by a moderator on a scientific forum.
    I have dismissed no evidence. I have carefully weighed the evidence and placed a low weight on the scaremongering data.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,750
    That 50% threshold feels so wrong to me .If you are to make a very strong change of course you need more certainty than that - and it also stores up potential bitterness after the result

    And the 16 year olds voting too ! (I don't know which way they broke but I have a shrewd guess).

    But the last minute "concessions" have to be honoured or things could get even worse. If they are worked through they should be an improvement for everyone. (have they been thought through though? - a linguistic tongue twister)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,522
    Quote Originally Posted by geordief View Post
    That 50% threshold feels so wrong to me .If you are to make a very strong change of course you need more certainty than that - and it also stores up potential bitterness after the result

    And the 16 year olds voting too ! (I don't know which way they broke but I have a shrewd guess).

    But the last minute "concessions" have to be honoured or things could get even worse. If they are worked through they should be an improvement for everyone. (have they been thought through though? - a linguistic tongue twister)
    Agree. Salmond has used every gerrymandering trick he could, from giving teenagers the vote to disenfranchsiing the three quarters of a million Scots (i.e. 15% of Scots) who do not currently live in Scotland, and who would mostly have voted No (Not one of the Scots I know in London was in favour).

    But in spite of all that, we now have a decisive result. What is good I think is that more autonomy will be devolved to Scotland and other regions who want it, while for me - born in Edinburgh though I was - the big prize is stopping Scots MPs voting on English affairs.

    So that arsehole Shrek may after all have done us a service, though I say so through gritted teeth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,750
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post

    Agree. Salmond has used every gerrymandering trick he could, from giving teenagers the vote to disenfranchsiing the three quarters of a million Scots (i.e. 15% of Scots) who do not currently live in Scotland, and who would mostly have voted No (Not one of the Scots I know in London was in favour).
    Didn't Westminster have to agree to the terms of the referendum ?If so why did they let that pass? I mean giving those young people the vote in this referendum didn't just skew the result (I guess) but ,to me they are just less qualified in that they are bound to be more short sighted, less experienced and more easily swayed.

    But maybe there is a constituency for allowing that age group to vote (in other elections) that I don't know about. Maybe it wasn't just a cynical ploy (it was very good to get their involvement after all )
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,522
    Quote Originally Posted by geordief View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post

    Agree. Salmond has used every gerrymandering trick he could, from giving teenagers the vote to disenfranchsiing the three quarters of a million Scots (i.e. 15% of Scots) who do not currently live in Scotland, and who would mostly have voted No (Not one of the Scots I know in London was in favour).
    Didn't Westminster have to agree to the terms of the referendum ?If so why did they let that pass? I mean giving those young people the vote in this referendum didn't just skew the result (I guess) but ,to me they are just less qualified in that they are bound to be more short sighted, less experienced and more easily swayed.

    But maybe there is a constituency for allowing that age group to vote (in other elections) that I don't know about. Maybe it wasn't just a cynical ploy (it was very good to get their involvement after all )
    Labour tried to change the rules to give teenagers the vote, too. In both cases it suits left of centre parties, since the youth tend to have left of centre views. But they are still kids. The age of majority is not set at 18 arbitrarily.

    You are right that Cameron agreed to this in the Edinburgh agreement. I think he was being a slack Old Etonian who thought Salmond was an irrelevance and the vote would never be remotely close, so he couldn't be bothered to fight over it. Someone like Maggie or Major would have worked more diligently on a fair franchise, I'm sure. But Cameron was vindicated in a sense, in that having got a decisive No even on the basis of the gerrymandering, the Scot Nats have no excuse whatsoever to demand a rerun.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    874
    Relieved but not celebrating at No result.
    55% No, 45% Yes. Turnout 84% (well done for both of those!).
    Highest No votes in Orkney and Southern Scotland.
    Highest Yes in Glasgow area and Dundee.

    Hero of the day? Gordon Brown for me - fairly good Chancellor, mediocre Prime Minister, saviour of the Union.

    As for me, I'll probably take a drive up to the Great Glen next week!

    And not forgetting the other momentous vote yesterday. Welcome to the 21st Century to the R & A for allowing women members at St. Andrews.

    But I haven't seen this result confirmed yet: http://lifeinhay.blogspot.co.uk/
    Last edited by ox; September 19th, 2014 at 04:14 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    Relieved but not celebrating at No result.
    55% No, 45% Yes. Turnout 84% (well done for both of those!).
    Highest No votes in Orkney and Southern Scotland.
    Highest Yes in Glasgow area and Dundee.

    Hero of the day? Gordon Brown for me - fairly good Chancellor, mediocre Prime Minister, saviour of the Union.

    As for me, I'll probably take a drive up to the Great Glen next week!

    And not forgetting the other momentous vote yesterday. Welcome to the 21st Century to the R & A for allowing women members at St. Andrews.

    But I haven't seen this result confirmed yet: Life in Hay
    a triumph of common sense over sophistry. Also to John (hahaha you lost) pointing out complications of leaving the union was not scaremongering. It's called weighing up the evidence and not dismissing anything that disagrees with your utopian fantasy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,750
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    Hero of the day? Gordon Brown for me - fairly good Chancellor, mediocre Prime Minister, saviour of the Union.
    Strange with the vilification of Tony Blair that he seemed to get blamed for the bad blood in the relationship between the two camps. Could it have been that Tony Blair was just as much at fault . Who would want a close relationship with someone who was so hard to put down?

    I agree he was the star this time around -and perhaps if he had started the campaign in the limelight it may not have gone so well for him. Was he a super sub?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    874
    Quote Originally Posted by geordief View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    Hero of the day? Gordon Brown for me - fairly good Chancellor, mediocre Prime Minister, saviour of the Union.
    Strange with the vilification of Tony Blair that he seemed to get blamed for the bad blood in the relationship between the two camps. Could it have been that Tony Blair was just as much at fault . Who would want a close relationship with someone who was so hard to put down?

    I agree he was the star this time around -and perhaps if he had started the campaign in the limelight it may not have gone so well for him. Was he a super sub?
    Sure was. His 'barnstorming' speech delivered the day before the vote: Gordon Brown's Better Together speech the day before the Scottish referendum - YouTube
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    a triumph of common sense over sophistry. Also to John (hahaha you lost) pointing out complications of leaving the union was not scaremongering. It's called weighing up the evidence and not dismissing anything that disagrees with your utopian fantasy.
    It has already been pointed out to you that no one expected independence to produce a Utopia. Your argument on that basis is a pure strawman. This has been pointed out to you. Repeating it now does you no credit.

    I have no trouble - and have never had any trouble - believing that the vast majority of voters wanted what was best for their country (whether they saw that as Scotland, or the UK). The decision has been made by the people of Scotland, who turned out in inspiring numbers to be counted. Those numbers showed that, while there was a clear majority who wished to remain in the Union, almost half of those who voted, voted for change.

    Change is coming, not just for Scotland, but for the entirety of the UK. It is to be hoped that this vote sparks the long needed constitutional reforms throughout the Kingdom. And that will require serious discussion, cooperation and compromise. In such a setting a gloating attitude, such as you displayed in your post, will not just be counterproductive. It will be despicable.

    I would like to think that other members, whatever their views, will fully accept all of this result. Those who favoured independence must now work unreservedly, not just to improve the economic and social welfare of Scotland, but to foster a Union wide enhancement of the quality of life, in part through radical reformation of a broken constitutional system, and to ensure that the UK's role in Europe helps to transform that behemoth into something much better and more responsive than it is today. And those who voted against, must accept how many of their fellows felt strongly there was a need for change and work with them, not against them, to achieve the same goals.

    In that regard I am disappointed in the reactions of some of my fellow countrymen in this thread, who are adopting a celebratory tone over the result. I hope on reflection, since you have been arguing for unity, that you will adopt an attitude that will encourage unity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,750
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    I hope on reflection, since you have been arguing for unity, that you will adopt an attitude that will encourage unity.
    Absolutely. I would argue for as many unities as there are going or on offer. Going one's own way is immature but we do have to work at keeping things together or they will inevitably fall apart.

    I would also be very disappointed if there was a mood of celebration at the defeat of the yes vote .I am sure there may be in some quarters though.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by geordief View Post
    Going one's own way is immature but we do have to work at keeping things together or they will inevitably fall apart.
    I hope you are not suggesting that the desire for independence was immature. That would be contrary to my plea for unity. The independence movement wished for that independence to be within the larger grouping of the EU and other global entities such as the UN. Nineteen of the twenty eight countries making up the EU are the same size, or smaller than Scotland.

    There is strength in diversity. That diversity should now be expressed within a United Kingdom and a European Union. I have never claimed that the desire to maintain the union was immature, or silly, or Utopian, or in any way negative. I have simply favoured a different path. If we are to make the path we have now chosen work, then negative comments about the aspirations and intellect of those who had a different view are not helpful.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,750
    Independence sounds immature to me but not as you have characterised it.

    However if Scotland does want to achieve something along the lines you suggest then I think it would be better to build the movement from the bottom up so that when there was a referendum there would be little doubt as to what the result would be(like picking a ripe fruit).



    I know that the SNP was elected on a pledge to hold a referendum and also that it was mocked at its supposed discomfort when it had to honour that pledge but perhaps it should have held its nerve and waited for a better (=correct) moment -which ,by the way may never come.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    874
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    II would like to think that other members, whatever their views, will fully accept all of this result. Those who favoured independence must now work unreservedly, not just to improve the economic and social welfare of Scotland, but to foster a Union wide enhancement of the quality of life, in part through radical reformation of a broken constitutional system, and to ensure that the UK's role in Europe helps to transform that behemoth into something much better and more responsive than it is today. And those who voted against, must accept how many of their fellows felt strongly there was a need for change and work with them, not against them, to achieve the same goals.
    Galt for First Minister now that Salmond has quit!!!

    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by geordief View Post
    Independence sounds immature to me but not as you have characterised it.

    However if Scotland does want to achieve something along the lines you suggest then I think it would be better to build the movement from the bottom up so that when there was a referendum there would be little doubt as to what the result would be(like picking a ripe fruit).



    I know that the SNP was elected on a pledge to hold a referendum and also that it was mocked at its supposed discomfort when it had to honour that pledge but perhaps it should have held its nerve and waited for a better (=correct) moment -which ,by the way may never come.
    I completely agree that the timing was wrong. I had always favoured a vote in 2020, partly so we could talk about 20-20 Vision, but mainly so we could do due diligence on all the points that influenced many to vote no: especially the currency and EU membership.

    My suspicion has always been that Salmond thought a No vote likely, but recognised that a close vote would be a mandate for change for Scotland and for the UK as a whole. However, that is history. If a lesson is learned from history, and if the nation seeks independence at some distant date, then it will note that a step so momentous requires better preparation. But then that is the history lesson few politicians, or voters, ever learn.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Forum Ph.D. Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cumbria UK
    Posts
    882
    Great Britain is still Great. Long live the Union.
    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Forum Professor Zwirko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    55° N, 3° W
    Posts
    1,082
    I got so totally and utterly sick of the whole thing that I ended up not voting. I was just too uninformed and saw no route to getting to grips with the issues.


    Every source I turned to, whether it be politician, analyst, pundit, journalist or friend, seemed incapable of looking at the issues rationally, critically or sceptically. Everything was put through a meat-grinder of party politics, personal biases and prejudices leaving behind a steaming pile of contradictory information. I got the feeling that not a single god-damn person in the entire freaking country knew what the hell they were talking about. Did anybody?
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Independent Birth of Organisms
    By forests in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: March 28th, 2012, 11:17 PM
  2. Scotland Geology
    By c186282 in forum Earth Sciences
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: May 30th, 2011, 11:20 AM
  3. Independent convections
    By Pong in forum Earth Sciences
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: October 8th, 2008, 12:45 AM
  4. Computing in Scotland
    By spl1nter in forum Computer Science
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: October 16th, 2007, 05:13 AM
  5. Hello from Scotland!!
    By venus in forum Introductions
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: February 15th, 2007, 11:01 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •