Scottish Referendum question(s)

Fretwired

RaymondLin said:

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. 

The people voting yes should look to the future not the past. If they think they can build a fairer better country for themselves then I say good luck vote yes. It will be hard and very messy and will take 20 years IMHO to work.

RaymondLin

Clarky said:

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]

Exactly, all this freedom crap is just crap.  It wasn't one ruling the other, it was a union and always was and always has been.  Most of Scotland are labour voters and it shows in the seats.  It just because Tories are in power now it doesn't mean they always will.  Tony Blair wasn't that long ago was it?

Fretwired

RaymondLin said:

Clarky said:

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]

Exactly, all this freedom crap is just crap.  It wasn't one ruling the other, it was a union and always was and always has been.  Most of Scotland are labour voters and it shows in the seats.  It just because Tories are in power now it doesn't mean they always will.  Tony Blair wasn't that long ago was it?

The people of Scotland see Tony Blair as a child of Thatcher - New Labour was just Tory Lite. Scottish Labour is something different. If the Scots get independence the SNP will be history - free from London's influence Scottish Labour will move to the left and be the dominant power and it looks like Gordon Brown fancies himself as leader. 

Emp_Fab

Fretwired said:

You could talk bollocks for Britain

Really ?!!  Wow !  Thanks !!

I wonder if they'll ever include it in the Olympics.

Clarky

I did some reading on the original union and how it came about.. like most people I'd misunderstood it completely..

I thought about it in terms of kings, warfare and conquest..

but it wasn't like that at all..

it seems that at the time of the union, most Scots [at least those with power] were really up for it because Scotland was in a serious mess, under developed and bankrupt..

and within the union, Scotland thrived and developed..

England wanted the union because of the royal family.. something about ensuring a protestant line and to prevent a Scots King [bearing in mind the crowns were unified and that there was a Stuart line with claim] making alliances with England's traditional enemies [France and Spain at the time].

Scotland wanted the union because they were pretty much ruined by the failed attempt to colonise part of Panama and by a succession of failed harvests. Scotland needed it's wealthy neighbour to bail it out of the situation it found itself in.

the long and the short of it is…

England managed to prevent the Scots royal family from making alliances that could lead to war..

Scotland got English money, investment and the doors were opened for trade with the rest of the empire.. 

which means more money..

so… it's not quite the "occupied by a foreign power" vibe that some folk would have you believe..

it seems to me that Scotland got a quite a lot out of the union..

RaymondLin

Clarky said:

I did some reading on the original union and how it came about.. like most people I'd misunderstood it completely..

I thought about it in terms of kings, warfare and conquest..

but it wasn't like that at all..

it seems that at the time of the union, most Scots [at least those with power] were really up for it because Scotland was in a serious mess, under developed and bankrupt..

and within the union, Scotland thrived and developed..

England wanted the union because of the royal family.. something about ensuring a protestant line and to prevent a Scots King [bearing in mind the crowns were unified and that there was a Stuart line with claim] making alliances with England's traditional enemies [France and Spain at the time].

Scotland wanted the union because they were pretty much ruined by the failed attempt to colonise part of Panama and by a succession of failed harvests. Scotland needed it's wealthy neighbour to bail it out of the situation it found itself in.

the long and the short of it is…

England managed to prevent the Scots royal family from making alliances that could lead to war..

Scotland got English money, investment and the doors were opened for trade with the rest of the empire.. 

which means more money..

so… it's not quite the "occupied by a foreign power" vibe that some folk would have you believe..

it seems to me that Scotland got a quite a lot out of the union..

Now read how Ireland came to be under the control of the empire and you will know why they want their independence.

Then some people compare how Scotland wanted independence from the UK is akin to Ireland wanted independence is frankly an insult to the Irish.  They are apples and oranges.

The union is good for everyone.  Scotland will be worse of on its own.  There are no more freedom to be gained by leaving the union, only to make fresh application to the EU and then take on the Euro.

ICBM

Clarky said:

I did some reading on the original union and how it came about.. like most people I'd misunderstood it completely..

I thought about it in terms of kings, warfare and conquest..

but it wasn't like that at all..

it seems that at the time of the union, most Scots [at least those with power] were really up for it because Scotland was in a serious mess, under developed and bankrupt..

and within the union, Scotland thrived and developed..

England wanted the union because of the royal family.. something about ensuring a protestant line and to prevent a Scots King [bearing in mind the crowns were unified and that there was a Stuart line with claim] making alliances with England's traditional enemies [France and Spain at the time].

Scotland wanted the union because they were pretty much ruined by the failed attempt to colonise part of Panama and by a succession of failed harvests. Scotland needed it's wealthy neighbour to bail it out of the situation it found itself in.

the long and the short of it is…

England managed to prevent the Scots royal family from making alliances that could lead to war..

Scotland got English money, investment and the doors were opened for trade with the rest of the empire.. 

which means more money..

so… it's not quite the "occupied by a foreign power" vibe that some folk would have you believe..

it seems to me that Scotland got a quite a lot out of the union..

That is all true, but it was 300 years ago. Whatever the circumstances of the union and whether most Scots agreed with it at the time - and many didn't - it's no longer relevant… nor is what happened while Britain was building its Empire, through the industrial revolution and even two world wars. Just because something has endured for that long, and even was successful at the time, does not make it necessarily a good thing now.

What matters is whether the union has worked well for both Scotland and England in the recent past and whether it will continue to do so in the future.

Clarky

although born in England, I'm part Scots myself.. proud of it too..

but there's something in all this that makes me quite sad..

it's like watching a train crash in slow motion as half of Scotland are being seduced by Salmond, his blatant lies and bullshit..

and now, no matter what the result, everyone loses..

sweepy

I'd be intrigued to find out how the various Oil Companies contracts are worded, are they with Scotland, or the UK ?. Surely if they are with the UK they will have to be re-negotiated and with the revenues and output falling I'd imagine Scotland would get a far worse deal than it's present one.

ICBM

Clarky said:

and now, no matter what the result, everyone loses..

I don't agree. I think that's being pessimistic. If people want things to be worse, they will. If they want to work to make things better, they can.

Although things have not been helped by the recent desperate promises from London - for what it's worth I think the Barnett Formula needs to be scrapped and the West Lothian Question answered, and they have been specifically ruled out. They cause justified resentment in England because they are fundamentally unfair and are correctly seen as a bribe to Scots, and most Scots can see that too. Hopefully if there is a No vote and a renegotiation of the union, this is something that will change, otherwise you may be right.

RocknRollDave

Regarding Alex Salmond....Surely the "Yes" camp are voting for independence despite him, not because of him..?

Fretwired

Emp_Fab said:

Fretwired said:

You could talk bollocks for Britain

Really ?!!  Wow !  Thanks !!

I wonder if they'll ever include it in the Olympics.

@Emp_Fab .. come on .. it was tongue in cheek as I perceived your post wasn't that serious .. the Scots persecuted ... even Brown said that Scotland wields undue influence and power in Westminster.

As for the Olympics you may find you're up against some fairly stiff competition from other parts of the UK .. :-)

Independence for Wales next .. rebuld Offa's dyke?

Emp_Fab

Nah, Wales hasn't got any means to sustain itself, unless there's a sudden global demand for stupidity and derelict coal mines.  I still think Scotland should be free though.

RocknRollDave

It's time we address the elephant in the room: it's really WALES the Scottish want to distance themselves from.

Fretwired

Emp_Fab said:

Nah, Wales hasn't got any means to sustain itself, unless there's a sudden global demand for stupidity and derelict coal mines.  I still think Scotland should be free though.

Wales has three hundred years of coal which could be mined and turned into all sorts of things from oil to petrol to plastics. The Germans perfected the technology in the last war.

Scotland is already free. Anyone would think they were chained and made to eat porridge while working for evil English overlords.

This is an interesting article from a Scottish academic. Worth noting that he wanted fellow academics to sign a letter saying no but they declined as they felt intimidated.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11102126/Scottish-referendum-Alone-Scotland-will-go-back-to-being-a-failed-state.html

frankus

So...

Where are the Scottish Referendum Questions?

tbm

I want Ireland to rejoin the UK again so you pr1cks will post me a guitar.

Watching with interest today. Would like to see a Yes vote, but I reckon the early exit polls are right and No will shade it.

Bogwhoppit

Clarky said:

I did some reading on the original union and how it came about..

There is an issue with reading, viz-a-viz studying, the union. The historiography is awash with conflicting interpretations on the primary sources. I studied the union at uni and postgrad. I can produce primary sources that support the Scottish nationalists, and others that support the union.

From Edward I, the support from France through to Cromwell, there are strong arguments on both sides.

ESchap

I'm sure the rest of the Scottish "yes" politicians are happy for Salmond to be the frontman for the yes campaign. 

If it's no they can blame him and then we can all watch with dismay the in-fighting for the leadership of the SNP.  That will of course be timed nicely with the devo max discussions with Westminster who will then most likely get away with reneging on most things that have been "promised" as Scottish politicians will be focussed on in-fighting and in partial meltdown.  If it's a Tory / UKIP "little England" parliament next year then the gloves will come off and Scotland will be lucky to maintain the public spending it currently has.

If it is yes then SNP / Salmond will be in the driving seat for the first two years and a lot will inevitable not go well or at best be delayed, causing many to ask what they voted for and for which Salmond and SNP will be blamed and ceremoniously dumped at the Scottish Parliament elections in 2016. 

As someone said earlier, in that time, Scottish labour will move a bit more "popularist" left and most likely regain power in the independent parliament.  Not sure Brown would be seen as the right man by the Scottish public ... he let the Tories in and remember, the Scots forget little and forgive less.  However, Darling after the inevitable "Road to Damascus" moment he's bound to have if it's a yes vote ... he may just get the reigns in two years time, but then again it might just be Tommy Sheridan or George Galloway!

RocknRollDave

frankus said:

So...

Where are the Scottish Referendum Questions?

^Well, there's one for a start...