Scottish Independence discussion area

Happyman42

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Something you will never understand or appreciate.

Barely There wrote: »

When you've managed to figure out why the question concerns you so much, you'll be a good way down the path to becoming am more enlightened member of the planet's population.

You guys aren't huffing already are yis? A bit defeatist with 10 days to go.

Hoop66

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Funny you should mention the English campaigning for a yes vote. My Scottish friend who lives in Dublin argues that the best reason to vote no, is because the English want the Scots to vote yes!

Really? None of my English friends want a yes vote. Probably because it'll likely lead to more Tory government of England.

If I lived in England I'd want a no vote. If I was in Scotland I'd be seriously divided - on the one hand it would be great to have a modern, functioning, participatory democracy, but on the other hand it's likely the same old cunts will get power.

A Dub in Glasgo

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Which, of course, they would not be.

So your real question should be why do different countries have different voting eligibility criteria?

If/when Scotland becomes independent, will all these non Scots who are voting in the referendum be eligable to vote?

I do not know, that is for the constitution to sort out

Saadyst

The smallness and pettiness of this referendum is astounding, considering the scale of the question. It's being run almost as a regular election. I wonder if there would be any chance of it succeeding if Labour were in power. It's what scares me as a Scot - is this a protest vote and is it just short term thinking.

I know it's what Salmond is using to get the votes secured. I see that almost as a betrayal to the country - focusing on the small points rather than the grander question.

Hoop66

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If/when Scotland becomes independent, will all these non Scots who are voting in the referendum be eligable to vote?

I don't see why not. I, a British citizen, am eligible to vote in elections here in Ireland. So presuming they meet the residence criteria, why shouldn't they?

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

You guys aren't huffing already are yis? A bit defeatist with 10 days to go.

Not huffing, just laughing at the size of the chip on your shoulder.

You will never understand what it is to be British, because you are too narrow minded and obsessed with your own little world

You see being British as being an imperialist when in reality it is the opposite, it is a catch all name for people who live in a hugely multicultural state.

You can be British and English, Welsh or Scottish. I was watching cricket last week with British Indians. British because they were born in Britain and support the Scottish or English football teams, but Indian by heritage and therefore supporters of the Indian cricket team.

It's too much for you to understand, your world view was created listening to one hundred year old rebel songs and politics and you seem to have problem digesting the fact that not everything that happens in the world revolves around Ireland and it's struggle for freedom .

Fratton Fred

Hoop66 wrote: »

I don't see why not. I, a British citizen, am eligible to vote in elections here in Ireland. So presuming they meet the residence criteria, why shouldn't they?

You aren't in presidential elections or referendums.

Donkey Oaty

Headline on the live updates from The Telegraph:

David Cameron invokes the defeat of Hilter in bid to get Business leaders to campaign for a 'no' vote

A bit out of context, to be fair - the report is actually this:

Sky News reports that the Prime Minister told a drinks reception of 200 of Britain’s most influential business leaders that the United Kingdom had fought and won the Second World War together and it must remain undivided.

So he hasn't actually compared Alex Salmond to Hitler.

Yet.

A Dub in Glasgo

Saadyst wrote: »

The smallness and pettiness of this referendum is astounding, considering the scale of the question. It's being run almost as a regular election. I wonder if there would be any chance of it succeeding if Labour were in power. It's what scares me as a Scot - is this a protest vote and is it just short term thinking.

I know it's what Salmond is using to get the votes secured. I see that almost as a betrayal to the country - focusing on the small points rather than the grander question.

Can't be as the people in Scotland have been told relentlessly, 'it is forreeevveerr'

It is about structural change about how the people of Scotland are Governed and do they have the responsibility and accountibility to make decisions (with the cost that goes with it)

This is not voting for the SNP or Labour, in fact I see the SNP fracturing should independence happen.

kingchess

jank wrote: »

China is a republic (and North Korea), yet its political system is more akin to feudalism than anything else. Sweden and the Netherlands are constitutional monarchies. Which country do you think gives the individual more power and say in the political process.

they may call themselves a Republic but they are not,in a Republic the people are sovereign-all power comes from the people,and in a Parliamentary Democracy such as the UK the Parliament is Sovereign and can pass any law, which can not be challenged in court.the difference is more to do with legal terms than anything else and do not really make much difference to the average joe soap.

Michael D Not Higgins

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So will they all become Scottish citizens? What about the 800,000 thousand Scots living elsewhere in the UK? Will they automatically get a Scottish passport?

I'm assuming it will work like NI in that they will get a choice of continuing with a British passport or opt for a Scottish passport. For those born after independence, I'm sure the usual passport criteria will apply.

Happyman42

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Not huffing, just laughing at the size of the chip on your shoulder.

You will never understand what it is to be British, because you are too narrow minded and obsessed with your own little world

You see being British as being an imperialist when in reality it is the opposite, it is a catch all name for people who live in a hugely multicultural state.

You can be British and English, Welsh or Scottish. I was watching cricket last week with British Indians. British because they were born in Britain and support the Scottish or English football teams, but Indian by heritage and therefore supporters of the Indian cricket team.

It's too much for you to understand, your world view was created listening to one hundred year old rebel songs and politics and you seem to have problem digesting the fact that not everything that happens in the world revolves around Ireland and it's struggle for freedom .

Ah Fred, I thought you had more in the arsenal than that pettyiness ^

I think everybody in the debate has an understanding of 'Britihness' it is just that more and more people are seeing that it is more important to part of the construct that is a 'nation', than a construct that is an uneven 'Union'.

In an Ireland context, republicans have been saying that our future is better in a united nation, for a long time. Republicans understand fully what it is to be British, the good and the bad.

Skylinehead

LordSutch wrote: »

Defence = No British Army, No RAF, No Royal Navy . . . .

Hardly a major issue, it's not like the Russians are on the doorstep waiting to invade the second they say Yes.

Fratton Fred

Hoop66 wrote: »

Really? None of my English friends want a yes vote. Probably because it'll likely lead to more Tory government of England.

If I lived in England I'd want a no vote. If I was in Scotland I'd be seriously divided - on the one hand it would be great to have a modern, functioning, participatory democracy, but on the other hand it's likely the same old cunts will get power.

I have been getting mixed responses to be honest, ranging from we are better together, please vote no, to lets rebuild Hadrian's wall.

kingchess

what ever way you cut it,it seems a large minority-maybe a majority-of scots do not want to be British, ,that is democracy for you.

Fratton Fred

Skylinehead wrote: »

Hardly a major issue, it's not like the Russians are on the doorstep waiting to invade the second they say Yes.

That's not why Salmond is planning on a £2.5bn defence budget, it's because there are thousands of Scots in the UK armed forces who are basically saying don't make me choose between my uniform and my country.

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

Ah Fred, I thought you had more in the arsenal than that pettyiness ^

I think everybody in the debate has an understanding of 'Britihness' it is just that more and more people are seeing that it is more important to part of the construct that is a 'nation', than a construct that is an uneven 'Union'.

In an Ireland context, republicans have been saying that our future is better in a united nation, for a long time. Republicans understand fully what it is to be British, the good and the bad.

A United Ireland? How is that any different to a union?

How would the people of east Belfast have their interests better served by a Dublin parliament?

Surely if you support Scottish independence, then you should support independence for northern Ireland?

Fratton Fred

kingchess wrote: »

what ever way you cut it,it seems a large minority-maybe a majority-of scots do not want to be British, ,that is democracy for you.

Not Scots, the people of Scotland. Not all Scots are being asked.

EunanMac

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Surely if you support Scottish independence, then you should support independence for northern Ireland?

I would indeed, I certainly would not want that British made cesspit draining Ireland's resources.

Happyman42

Fratton Fred wrote: »

A United Ireland? How is that any different to a union?

How would the people of east Belfast have their interests better served by a Dublin parliament?

Surely if you support Scottish independence, then you should support independence for northern Ireland?

Who is looking for an independent N.I.?

Your assumption that a 'Dublin' parliament would automatically act against the interests of the people of East Belfast is revealing though. Just because the United Kingdom of GB and NI behaved in that way(worked against some of it's people) doesn't mean that a Dublin parliament made up of elected representatives would.

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

Who is looking for an independent N.I.?

Your assumption that a 'Dublin' parliament would automatically act against the interests of the people of East Belfast is revealing though. Just because the United Kingdom of GB and NI behaved in that way(worked against some of it's people) doesn't mean that a Dublin parliament made up of elected representatives would.

Yeah, ok, whatever.

Please don't derail this thread any further.

Happyman42

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Yeah, ok, whatever.

Please don't derail this thread any further.

Stop asking derailing questions then.

Dyr

Happyman42 wrote: »

Who is looking for an independent N.I.?

Your assumption that a 'Dublin' parliament would automatically act against the interests of the people of East Belfast is revealing though. Just because the United Kingdom of GB and NI behaved in that way(worked against some of it's people) doesn't mean that a Dublin parliament made up of elected representatives would.

If you think about it norn irish tds would have far more pull in a 32 county dail than they can in Westminster. Of course the Brits made such a basket case of the place that the upkeep on her would be mental

Madam

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Not Scots, the people of Scotland. Not all Scots are being asked.

The people of Scotland are the only ones with a vested interest in where they live. Why should someone who doesn't live here have a vote - I don't have a vote in Ireland even though I'm Irish, why? because I contribute nothing to that country! Besides if someone left Scotland at the age of 2 or 3 months you think they should be allowed to vote when obiviously their attachment to the country wouldn't be the same as someone who lives here.

Fratton Fred

Madam wrote: »

The people of Scotland are the only ones with a vested interest in where they live. Why should someone who doesn't live here have a vote - I don't have a vote in Ireland even though I'm Irish, why? because I contribute nothing to that country! Besides if someone left Scotland at the age of 2 or 3 months you think they should be allowed to vote when obiviously their attachment to the country wouldn't be the same as someone who lives here.

Generally I would agree. It isn't that black and white though.

BonnieSituation

The Scottish Government published a white paper detailing the institutions and processes it it intends to develop after a yes vote. Some of the stuff in here is maddening to read when there's information already out there.

http://scotreferendum.com/reports/scotlands-future-your-guide-to-an-independent-scotland/

---
In other news: this is moving too quickly for me!
http://www.krank.ie/category/opinions/end-nigh-scottish-independence-referendum/

Donkey Oaty

Here's a crafty question by an anonymous tweeter, reported by the BBC, re. DevoMax:

What happens if a hung parliament produces a Ukip coalition who have not signed up for more devolution?

porsche959

It's actually an extremely silly question, but not suprising that it was dutifully tweeted by the BBC, which is basically an arm of the UK government.

Michael D Not Higgins

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

Here's a crafty question by an anonymous tweeter, reported by the BBC, re. DevoMax:

No one's going into coalition with UKIP.

kingchess

it seems that Cameron,Miliband and Clegg are to make an emergency visit to Scotland tomorrow to show how united they all are and to rally the NO vote,.that might work-three English Toffs telling the Scots we love you guys ,please do not go(.I would love to hear the conversation in the back of the auld Rover as they leave London for the long drive north-I would say the craic would be mighty) ps-they will not travel together.

stevedublin

kingchess wrote: »

it seems that Cameron,Miliband and Clegg are to make an emergency visit to Scotland tomorrow to show how united they all are and to rally the NO vote,.

They should be telling the Scots to vote Yes if they want a No vote.

Donkey Oaty

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

No one's going into coalition with UKIP.

No, but that was the craftiness of it - he just wanted to raise the mere theoretical possibility of Nigel Farage having a say in the future of a non-independent Scotland.

Similar subtle tactics on the No side - take a look at the picture that the Telegraph is using in this non-story about Queen Elizabeth:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11083874/Alex-Salmond-implies-Queen-backs-Scottish-independence.html

Fratton Fred

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

No, but that was the craftiness of it - he just wanted to raise the mere theoretical possibility of Nigel Farage having a say in the future of a non-independent Scotland.

Similar subtle tactics on the No side - take a look at the picture that the Telegraph is using in this non-story about Queen Elizabeth:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11083874/Alex-Salmond-implies-Queen-backs-Scottish-independence.html

What's crafty about a picture of Liz and Al?

Peppa Pig

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

No, but that was the craftiness of it - he just wanted to raise the mere theoretical possibility of Nigel Farage having a say in the future of a non-independent Scotland.

Similar subtle tactics on the No side - take a look at the picture that the Telegraph is using in this non-story about Queen Elizabeth:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11083874/Alex-Salmond-implies-Queen-backs-Scottish-independence.html

That's nothing. the good old Daily Mail is predicting armageddon, possibly.
Daily Mail

Donkey Oaty

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What's crafty about a picture of Liz and Al?

They could have used a nice one where she isn't grimacing at him.

Assuming one exists.

Antar Bolaeisk

Fratton Fred wrote: »

A United Ireland? How is that any different to a union?

How would the people of east Belfast have their interests better served by a Dublin parliament?

Surely if you support Scottish independence, then you should support independence for northern Ireland?

Besides, there's always the question of whether or not we'd want them back!

Donkey Oaty

Peppa Pig wrote: »

That's nothing. the good old Daily Mail is predicting armageddon, possibly.
Daily Mail

More scaremongering from the DM. Keep on printing this rubbish and us YES voters will be celebrating even earlier next Friday. Trust me, we'll win this in a canter, an absolute canter !

Interestingly, that is the "worst rated" comment on the DM story.

Nodin

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Not huffing, just laughing at the size of the chip on your shoulder.

You will never understand what it is to be British, because you are too narrow minded and obsessed with your own little world

You see being British as being an imperialist when in reality it is the opposite, it is a catch all name for people who live in a hugely multicultural state.

You can be British and English, Welsh or Scottish. I was watching cricket last week with British Indians. British because they were born in Britain and support the Scottish or English football teams, but Indian by heritage and therefore supporters of the Indian cricket team.

It's too much for you to understand, your world view was created listening to one hundred year old rebel songs and politics and you seem to have problem digesting the fact that not everything that happens in the world revolves around Ireland and it's struggle for freedom .

....dear me, somebody is a bit bitter.

Fratton Fred

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

They could have used a nice one where she isn't grimacing at him.

Assuming one exists.

I think that's her standard look. At her age her face doesn't move an awful lot!

Dyr

Nodin wrote: »

....dear me, somebody is a bit bitter.

You wouldnt understand bitter lad, with your fancy stouts and ales

Fratton Fred

Nodin wrote: »

....dear me, somebody is a bit bitter.

Hi Nodin.

Muahahaha

jank wrote: »

Just dismantling his point. Republicanism = good, monarchy = bad is something that most Irish people grow out of when they reach puberty and look at the world with knowing.

I don't think I'll ever grow out of the idea that all a nations citizens should be treated equally rather than the inequality that is inherent in monarchies. You try to accuse others of being immature by reducing it to a simple dichotomy of good & bad when it is far more complex than that.

But one thing I would ask you to answer, a thought experiment if you will. Lets assume we were on the first day after a revolution in which feudalism was overthrown and society was deciding what method of governance to follow. Do you think they would choose a democratic republic where all citizens are held as equal or would they choose a democratic monarchy where all citizens are equal, except for some who are more equal than others ? Which option do you think society would choose, given that they know nothing about either system having never yet experienced it.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

How many times does this need pointing out?

Scotland is not voting to remove the monarchy.

You can point it out all you like till you're blue in the face but the fact of the matter is that for some Scots they are voting out the Queen. Referendums are funny like that and people will attach all sorts of issues to the question. iirc we were told to vote Yes to Lisbon, 'Yes for Jobs', where was the jobs and what the bloody hell had Lisbon to do with some abstract notion of 'Jobs' ? During the Lisbon 1 campaign one group convinced a lot of people that a Yes vote would mean the introduction of abortion on demand and some people went and voted No on that basis. Again people were convinced to vote a certain way in a referendum as an answer to a question that wasnt even being asked.

So when you say Scotland isnt voting to remove the monarchy that is indeed correct. But what is also correct is that some Scottish people are going to vote Yes because to them doing so gives the Royal Family the biggest kick in the nads they've ever got. THat's the reality of some voters intentions and it is very much a part of the dynamic in this referendum.

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

Headline on the live updates from The Telegraph:



A bit out of context, to be fair - the report is actually this:



So he hasn't actually compared Alex Salmond to Hitler.

Yet.

Well given the Tory rag the Spectator has compared Alex Salmond to Robert Mugabe a Hitler reference wouldnt be all that out of place at this stage.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/01/how-is-alex-salmond-like-robert-mugabe/

Fratton Fred

Muahahaha wrote: »

I don't think I'll ever grow out of the idea that all a nations citizens should be treated equally rather than the inequality that is inherent in monarchies. You try to accuse others of being immature by reducing it to a simple dichotomy of good & bad when it is far more complex than that.

But one thing I would ask you to answer, a thought experiment if you will. Lets assume we were on the first day after a revolution in which feudalism was overthrown and society was deciding what method of governance to follow. Do you think they would choose a democratic republic where all citizens are held as equal or would they choose a democratic monarchy where all citizens are equal, except for some who are more equal than others ? Which option do you think society would choose, given that they know nothing about either system having never yet experienced it.



You can point it out all you like till you're blue in the face but the fact of the matter is that for some Scots they are voting out the Queen. Referendums are funny like that and people will attach all sorts of issues to the question. iirc we were told to vote Yes to Lisbon, 'Yes for Jobs', where was the jobs and what the bloody hell had Lisbon to do with some abstract notion of 'Jobs' ? During the Lisbon 1 campaign one group convinced a lot of people that a Yes vote would mean the introduction of abortion on demand and some people went and voted No on that basis. Again people were convinced to vote a certain way in a referendum as an answer to a question that wasnt even being asked.

So when you say Scotland isnt voting to remove the monarchy that is indeed correct. But what is also correct is that some Scottish people are going to vote Yes because to them doing so gives the Royal Family the biggest kick in the nads they've ever got. THat's the reality of some voters intentions and it is very much a part of the dynamic in this]

that's just your own interpretation, the monarchy has never been in question with this.

I agree with your first point, but we aren't starting some year one type regime. In the UK, the monarchy works fine, they do their job well and don't rock the boat too much. Most people's view in the UK would be more why change for the sake of it, rather than actively wanting to keep a monarchy.

Parliament has the real power and control and a quick look at the MPs shows that any one can get there if they want and there are no restrictions on who can become prime minister. Why go to all the hassle and expense of electing a ceremonial president, when a ceremonial monarchy does the same job.

Hagar7

As much as I'd love no monarchy in Scotland,Lizzy will be with us for the forseable future.

Dozen Wicked Words

What ever way the vote goes now, the SNP will be happy. Independence obviously their preference but devo max is what they get now even if they "lose". That's what they wanted on the ballot in the first place, and secretly I'd guess was as good as they thought they could get. Definitely win win.

sabat

Hagar7 wrote: »

As much as I'd love no monarchy in Scotland,Lizzy will be with us for the forseable future.

Yes, but could you see a monarchy headed by Charles Windsor surviving a referendum on its future in Scotland in say 10 or 15 years time?

A Dub in Glasgo

It is not really devo max, it is a half baked solution dreamed up by Labour

Dozen Wicked Words

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

It is not really devo max, it is a half baked solution dreamed up by Labour

Ah, what are the differences between the two then?

Donkey Oaty

Muahahaha wrote: »

Well given the Tory rag the Spectator has compared Alex Salmond to Robert Mugabe a Hitler reference wouldnt be all that out of place at this stage.

In fact, he has already been compared to Hitler by two Labour MPs, and he has also been compared to Slobodan Milosevic, King Jong-Il, Genghis Khan, Nero, Stalin and Nicolae Ceausescu.

Perceptive blog post about it here.

Donkey Oaty

And he has also been compared to Beyoncé by SNP deputy leader Nicola Sturgeon.