Scottish Referendum question(s)

Clarky

I think the only difference between the parties is essentially how badly they run the economy.. Labour runs up the credit card, the Tories pay it off..

beyond that they are not that different in what they actually do in power and will break most of their pre-election promises within the 1st year..

I suspect an independent Scotland will be more of the same.. just on a smaller scale.. it'll be interesting to see how much debt a Scots Labour gov manage to run up during their 1st innings.. and likewise, it'll be interesting to see how well / quickly the alternative party manages to sort it out..

RaymondLin

ICBM said:

RaymondLin said:

Whilst I can sympathise with that feeling, but what you are saying is that "it's okay if the UK continue to do it, just not in my name because it no longer in my country so I don't care what they do, it's not my problem anymore".

I understand where you're coming from, but that's not quite it. I actually think that as the UK would be "weakened" as claimed by not having Scotland a part of it, some or all of this may stop. If not, then yes you're right.

I agree that we should side with America when we think America is right, just as I agree that an independent Scotland should side with the UK when the UK is right. But it should be *our* decision. Not long ago, the UK parliament took a decision not to go to war in Syria, despite pressure from the government and indirectly the US. Now it looks like Cameron may start military action anyway, without the approval of parliament.

RaymondLin said:

That is opposed to staying within the UK, and next time vote for someone who agree with your stance and perhaps make a difference.

The problem with that is that all three main parties are essentially the same on this issue. Only minor parties who under the current system have no hope of influencing anything could make a real change. I've been voting for UK parties since the mid-80s and only twice have I ever got the government I voted for - Labour in '97, and the Lib Dems in 2010. Neither of those turned out exactly as they promised, did they...

Thus the only hope of *real* change will come from the break-up of the UK and a potential new form of union.

Getting the government who you voted for twice since the 80's seems about the right stats?

If you think all 3 parties like alike, well, the truth is all politicians are alike, even the Scottish ones, specially Salmond himself.  The latest one he mention he has been in discussions with 3 other EU countries about Scotland's EU membership.  Telegraph today has an article basically saying "Alex Who?"  They have no spoken to him about the issue.  The man lies through his teeth on important subjects like this.  He is no different and to follow him into any policy making is a dangerous concept to even think about.

The other thing is that, Salmond wants Scotland to be a member of Nato, and to be a member of Nato you need an arms force, which mean Scotland will meddle anyway.  And here is another food for thought.  Norway has a similar population to scotland of 5 million people.  Norway however has a compulsary military service for all men and women between the age of 19 to 25 (I think you have to serve around 2 years). 

I hazard a guess this is because of the low population and this conscription keeps the numbers in the arms force at a reasonable level for both self defence and Nato membership.  So basically if it comes down to it, if Scotland does want to be independent and a member of Nato...would you like the idea of a compulsary arms service for the people of Scotland?

I haven't even mentioned things like boarder control, the currency, or the fact Scottish students will need to pay foreign student fee rates to study in England and Wales.

There are so many things to think about, the UK's foriegn policy would be the last of my agenda when voting.

ICBM

RaymondLin said:

Getting the government who you voted for twice since the 80's seems about the right stats?

It might have been, except that these governments then did the diametric opposite of what they had promised in order to get elected, in many cases... not just failed to deliver.

I'm well aware that Scottish politicians are still politicians, but at least there is more hope they would be more locally accountable, and they have to govern more by consensus - since the Scottish parliament is already elected by a form of PR.

RaymondLin said:

The other thing is that, Salmond wants Scotland to be a member of Nato, and to be a member of Nato you need an arms force, which mean Scotland will meddle anyway.

You can have armed forces - in fact, Scotland already contributes more to the UK than are based in Scotland, so conscription is unlikely - without feeling the need to meddle internationally. They should understand the meaning of the word 'defence'. The current Ministry of Defence used to be the War Ministry, and in many mays that still seems more appropriate. Scotland does not need or want the sort of offensive capability and the 'ability to project power' that the UK government seems so wedded to.

RaymondLin said:

There are so many things to think about, the UK's foriegn policy would be the last of my agenda when voting.

I agree there are other things too, but to me foreign policy is critical because it has such a large effect on the rest - from Trident and the sheer size of the UK's 'defence' budget (4th largest in the world, which for a country of only 65 million is ludicrous), to the 'war on terror' and the justification for the erosion of civil liberties. Both Labour and the Tories are as bad as each other, and there's no real hope of anything changing while they remain in control.

Emp_Fab

I'd vote AYE ! if I had a vote.  The Scots have been used and persecuted for centuries.  Their will has been ignored in Westminster for decades, and the slimy bastards in Whitehall are suddenly panicking and are now making last-minute grandiose promises of jam tomorrow ?  Away Tae Fuck !!  The fact that the three most slippery, untrustworthy bastards in politics - Cameron, Milliband and Clegg are all campaigning for a No vote is enough to make me want to vote Yes (if I could).

Go for it Scotland - this is a one-time opportunity - because if you vote No tomorrow, hell will freeze over before they'll give ye the chance again.

FREEDOM!!!!

Sambostar

I'm pretty much sure the average Scot who is working in Scotland will not give two shites if companies relocate southwards. Afterall they recruit directly from the former eastern block anyway.

RaymondLin

dp.

RaymondLin

I think you will be in for quite a shock if you think Alex Salmond will deliver anything he promised.  Most of the stuff he is promising has no grounds, in both legislature (i.e. joining the EU without taking up the Euro) or completely made up. 

If people think the MP in Westminsters are bad, they haven't really look around much in the bigger picture. 

Don't get me wrong, it is natural to think people of your own background, country and race are more honest and somehow better than others. People of all walks of life have this almost built in superiority complex that they think they are better than others, I am sure you are sitting there thinking you are better than me, and we are all sitting here thinking we are better than Alex Salmond. Just look back in history, the Christians and their crusades, The Vikings, the Romans, the Mongolians, hell, even as recently, the Nazi's did too. (no, I am not saying Scottish people are Nazi's). I am sure right now the people of the Islamic State thinks they are better than everyone else in the West.

But human beings are human beings, the truth is we are all proud and we are all flawed.

To think somehow you are different is just arrogance, delusional and actually a little prejudicial. I mean, what reason is there to think the Scottish people are better than everyone else on the planet?

Reality is going to kick in big time when they realise that their own MP's is just as bad, except this time instead of blaming Westminster, its their own doing and have no one else to blame.

Seriously, our political landscape is not that bad, you say there are only 2 parties that goes back and forth, not exactly true, the Lib Dems actually got into power with the Tories this time round.  Who would have thought that could happen when Blair was around?!

Comapre to say the US, where it is always either Democrats of Republicans.  Or Communisam in China where they pick their own.  We have it pretty good, in fact, our model of democracy is copied the world over.  Our law is constantly changing as the society change and despite all it's flaws, it is better than all the alternatives.  I also don't think it's mostly 2 parties is that big a deal, if you look at other countries where there are lots of fractions and smaller parties, it is a pain in the butt to get anything done, instead of 2 opposing agendas, you have like 3 or 7. It is a legislature nightmare.

With regard to the actual splitting up of the union, I think in this day and age, people should be coming together, nor splitting apart, the time when everyone wants to join the EU (just look at Turkey and how desperate they are to join), should Scotland chooses to leave the UK and then reapply as a new member is mind boggling.  The whole concept actually makes no sense.  You want away from one union to join another.  In the process you lose control of your money.  And then eventually have to adopt the Euro anyway (Salmond may like to think this isn't true, but history isn't on his side, all new members has to adopt the Euro, Scotland is nothing special that makes it exempt).

Also you mention you don't want Trident, that is also odd because Salmond wants Scotland to join NATO, which is a Nuclear alliance.  As for thinking the size of the UK's Defence budget compared to the population of the country.  In the agreement of the NATO alliance in wales the other week, it was agreed that each NATO member spends 2% of its GDP on defence.  When you look at it that way, its not so much that it is 4th largest vs 65th in population.  And like it or not, if Scotland wants to join NATO, they can't get out of the same agreement that everyone else sign up to either. They would need to spend the same.

This independence thing is far more than stick 2 fingers up Westminster, the best way to stick 2 fingers at Westminster is actually having the power/a vote to do so, not leaving completely.

kuro

Raymond, get off the 'board. You are clearly too reasonable to be here.

Moe_Zambeek

Alex Salmond is the first minister and leader of the SNP. It's not just one man...it's a party, a government and a popular movement. We're not having a referendum because Salmond fancied it, it's been the SNPs stated aim since inception and part of their manifesto on which they gained power - a full majority in the PR system - at the last Scottish election.

The SNP have a history of- mainly - doing what they say / said while in power. That's more than can be said for the Westminster parties.

The SNP have a position and so do the other players.

RaymondLin

Moe_Zambeek said:

Alex Salmond is the first minister and leader of the SNP. It's not just one man...it's a party, a government and a popular movement. We're not having a referendum because Salmond fancied it, it's been the SNPs stated aim since inception and part of their manifesto on which they gained power - a full majority in the PR system - at the last Scottish election.

The SNP have a history of- mainly - doing what they say / said while in power. That's more than can be said for the Westminster parties.

The SNP have a position and so do the other players.

Alex Salmond says he has had discussions with other EU members re Scotland's membership through Article 48, other members says "Who the F is Alex?"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11100406/Alex-Salmond-accused-of-lying-over-EU-talks.html

ICBM

RaymondLin said:

Don't get me wrong, it is natural to think people of your own background, country and race are more honest and somehow better than others. People of all walks of life have this almost built in superiority complex that they think they are better than others, I am sure you are sitting there thinking you are better than me, and we are all sitting here thinking we are better than Alex Salmond. Just look back in history, the Christians and their crusades, The Vikings, the Romans, the Mongolians, hell, even as recently, the Nazi's did too. (no, I am not saying Scottish people are Nazi's). I am sure right now the people of the Islamic State thinks they are better than everyone else in the West.

But human beings are human beings, the truth is we are all proud and we are all flawed.

To think somehow you are different is just arrogance, delusional and actually a little prejudicial. I mean, what reason is there to think the Scottish people are better than everyone else on the planet?

You may be surprised... I don't think of myself or my country as inherently superior. That's one of the reasons I'm opposed to meddling in international affairs - I do not believe we have the right to try to force our culture and values on other countries. It has never done us any good, and more often than not the exact opposite. I'd prefer it if the UK didn't do this, but if that can't be achieved then being a part of a smaller nation which doesn't is the next best thing.

RaymondLin said:

This independence thing is far more than stick 2 fingers up Westminster, the best way to stick 2 fingers at Westminster is actually having the power/a vote to do so, not leaving completely.

If I could believe that change from the inside was possible, I might agree with you. But I really don't think it is. The two-party system is too entrenched, and the two parties have a vested interest in keeping it that way. The Lib Dems got in largely by accident, then proved they were just as bad - and are probably finished electorally anyway, for at least a generation.

Show me an electable UK party which could deliver genuine change on the big issues I mentioned above at the next general election and I might change my vote tomorrow.

RaymondLin

If I could promise you a sort of Messiah then I would be lying to say I can. For one thing, to change, you need to know what you want to change it to, blindly change for the sake of it seldom works out. Just look how much trouble Iraq is in now, as you no doubt agree, looking back, Saddam did a pretty good job keeping his country in 1 piece, albeit through intimidation and violence.  Also, in a country that is relatively prosperous like ours, people like to live in peace so change is unlikely.  If the need of change is that desperate then I would be afraid of our economy, welfare, healthcare and even basic human rights.  The fact is we have it pretty good, it is no means perfect but it is an envy of a lot of other people in the world.

What I can promise you is that leaving the UK is not a solution to fix both Westminster or Scotland.  The UK will be weaker for the split, Scotland will be weaker for the split, other regions of the world also looking to Scotland as an example and precedent want want to split, basically causing political ripples all over. Catalan is watching very closely for example.  I can also promise you that leaving the UK is not a solution to both Scotland and Westminster.

Rocker

Almost 100 years ago Ireland broke away from the UK.  A lot of blood was spilled in the process.  Events outside of Ireland's control, World Wars, depressions etc., meant that it took years for Ireland to grapple with and take control of its own destiny.  Scotland can break free of the UK by means of the stroke of a pen.  The closer you get to the Referendum day, the more the waters get muddied as vested interests spread information and disinformation: right, left and centre.  Making sense of all this "information" is quite a challenge.  The reality is that the vested interests want the voter to fear the unknown and vote to retain the status quo.  A Referendum result based on fear of the unknown, is not a true indication of the will of the people.  In Ireland we had a Referendum on divorce approx 20 years ago.  The misinformation churned out by religious fanatics, about property/land and inheritance rights etc., meant the result was a No vote.  A number of years later another Referendum on the same topic resulted in a Yes vote.  The people saw that the No vote was not what they wanted.

RaymondLin

Rocker said:

Almost 100 years ago Ireland broke away from the UK.  A lot of blood was spilled in the process.  Events outside of Ireland's control, World Wars, depressions etc., meant that it took years for Ireland to grapple with and take control of its own destiny.  Scotland can break free of the UK by means of the stroke of a pen.  The closer you get to the Referendum day, the more the waters get muddied as vested interests spread information and disinformation: right, left and centre.  Making sense of all this "information" is quite a challenge.  The reality is that the vested interests want the voter to fear the unknown and vote to retain the status quo.  A Referendum result based on fear of the unknown, is not a true indication of the will of the people.  In Ireland we had a Referendum on divorce approx 20 years ago.  The misinformation churned out by religious fanatics, about property/land and inheritance rights etc., meant the result was a No vote.  A number of years later another Referendum on the same topic resulted in a Yes vote.  The people saw that the No vote was not what they wanted.

It's not quite the same.

Ireland was held practically under the barrel of a gun where Scotland joined the UK in good faith. Or should I say, joined to create the UK.

UnclePsychosis

Anyone who thinks that the discussion is all about Salmond isn't worth listening to, because they clearly don't know what they're talking about.

And I say that as someone most likely to vote No tomorrow.

Fretwired

Emp_Fab said:

I'd vote AYE ! if I had a vote.  The Scots have been used and persecuted for centuries.  Their will has been ignored in Westminster for decades, and the slimy bastards in Whitehall are suddenly panicking and are now making last-minute grandiose promises of jam tomorrow ? 

Yet more steaming turds from Wales ... :-)

You could talk bollocks for Britain ... as for Whitehall it's been full of Scots for centuries .. the Labour Party and the Tory party have been full of Scottish MPs and ministers and quite a few prime ministers have been Scots including John Stuart 3rd Earl of Bute, George Hamilton-Gordon, Primrose 5th Earl of Rosebery, William Gladstone, Henry Campbell Bannerman, James Ramsay MacDonald, Herbert Henry Asquith, Andrew Bonar Law, Sir Alec Douglas-Home, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameron has a Scottish heritage. But don't let facts get in the way of your diatribe .. :-)

Rocker

RaymondLin said:

Rocker said:

The closer you get to the Referendum day, the more the waters get muddied as vested interests spread information and disinformation: right, left and centre.  Making sense of all this "information" is quite a challenge.  The reality is that the vested interests want the voter to fear the unknown and vote to retain the status quo.  A Referendum result based on fear of the unknown, is not a true indication of the will of the people.  In Ireland we had a Referendum on divorce approx 20 years ago.  The misinformation churned out by religious fanatics, about property/land and inheritance rights etc., meant the result was a No vote.  A number of years later another Referendum on the same topic resulted in a Yes vote.  The people saw that the No vote was not what they wanted.

It's not quite the same.

Ireland was held practically under the barrel of a gun where Scotland joined the UK in good faith. Or should I say, joined to create the UK.

My point is: are those who vote No, voting No because they want to stay as part of the UK rather than being afraid of stepping into the unknown by voting Yes

RaymondLin

Rocker said:

RaymondLin said:

Rocker said:

The closer you get to the Referendum day, the more the waters get muddied as vested interests spread information and disinformation: right, left and centre.  Making sense of all this "information" is quite a challenge.  The reality is that the vested interests want the voter to fear the unknown and vote to retain the status quo.  A Referendum result based on fear of the unknown, is not a true indication of the will of the people.  In Ireland we had a Referendum on divorce approx 20 years ago.  The misinformation churned out by religious fanatics, about property/land and inheritance rights etc., meant the result was a No vote.  A number of years later another Referendum on the same topic resulted in a Yes vote.  The people saw that the No vote was not what they wanted.

It's not quite the same.

Ireland was held practically under the barrel of a gun where Scotland joined the UK in good faith. Or should I say, joined to create the UK.

My point is: are those who vote No, voting No because they want to stay as part of the UK rather than being afraid of stepping into the unknown by voting Yes

I don't want to guess the reasons that people vote No, I just think some of the reasons from the Yes voters for voting yes are base in nothing more than optimism and screaming Freedom to the finish line.

This isn't the 1300's anymore, nations join together, we should put aside race, colour, class and boundaries or at least try to.  Creating more divides in a nation that was united? 

Mind boggles. 

sinbaadi

At first I thought it would be a shame if the yes vote won, but now I'm thinking a no vote will only prolong the b.s until the yes voters get what they want.

I didn't vote for Gordon Brown as a p.m. Find me an Englishman that says they did. We don't always get what we want, it doesn't mean we should stop playing the game and take the ball home.

The English should have been part of a UK wide vote to allow this to go ahead in the first place.

Anyway, best of luck to them if it happens, I'm sure the oil revenues will pay for everything promised to them.

Clarky

found this in Wiki.. thought it was quite an interesting observation..

The Acts took effect on 1 May 1707. On this date, the Scottish Parliament and the English Parliament united to form the Parliament of Great Britain, based in the Palace of Westminster in London, the home of the English Parliament.^[3]Hence, the Acts are referred to as the Union of the Parliaments. On the Union, the historian Simon Schama said "What began as a hostile merger, would end in a full partnership in the most powerful going concern in the world ... it was one of the most astonishing transformations in European history."^[4]