Scottish Independence discussion area

Lenin Skynard

Just watching Peter Hain debating John Redwood about devolution on BBC's newsnight. Hain suggests devolution for Northern England and Redwood tells him: "You're Welsh, I'm English. Why should you have a say about England?" There has been a lot of talk like this over the last few days on the various news outlets.

Whatever the outcome of this referendum, I've a feeling that this will irreversibly a lot of attitudes towards nationalism within the few UK national regions. I wouldn't be surprised to see a bit more nationalism from the English regarding England as an outcome of all this.

bilston

Whatever happens now roughly 50% of the population of Scotland are going to be pissed off at the result of this referendum, there will be some bridge building required after next week.

Red Nissan

Lenin Skynard wrote: »

I wouldn't be surprised to see a bit more nationalism from the English regarding England as an outcome of all this.

Good, and welcomed, if I were to be honest.

porsche959

Billy86 wrote: »

And then what to do with London, the cocaine capital of Europe?

And money laundering capital of the world.

Lapin

Billy86 wrote: »

And then what to do with London, the cocaine financial, cultural, academic, innovative, medical, diplomatic, entrepreneurial and cosmopolitan capital of Europe?

FYP.


London will look after itself.

Actually the London and the Home Counties would be a hell of a lot better off without the rest of the UK.

Billy86

Lapin wrote: »

FYP.


London will look after itself.

Actually the London and the Home Counties would be a hell of a lot better off without the rest of the UK.

Oh of course it will, it's a favourite place of mine (and not for the nose candy!). I misread his post and thought it said "junkie holes".

oppenheimer1

Lapin wrote: »

FYP.


London will look after itself.

Actually the London and the Home Counties would be a hell of a lot better off without the rest of the UK.

And you can be sure of that, it always does.

If UK politics wasn't so London-centric then we wouldn't be having this debate today. The fact that so many Scots want succession even if the referendum fails is an indicator of the complete failure of the UK political class in conducting statecraft.

If the referendum does succeed, it will be fascinating to see how how it plays out, particularly the role that rUK adopts in world affairs. It will also be interesting to see if rUK stays in in the EU, which I suspect it won't.

Are we heading for a time where the rUK becomes insular and has no more of a role to play on the world stage than diminished former powers such as France, Spain or Italy?

loh_oro

porsche959

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

And you can be sure of that, it always does.

If UK politics wasn't so London-centric then we wouldn't be having this debate today. The fact that so many Scots want succession even if the referendum fails is an indicator of the complete failure of the UK political class in conducting statecraft.

If the referendum does succeed, it will be fascinating to see how how it plays out, particularly the role that rUK adopts in world affairs. It will also be interesting to see if rUK stays in in the EU, which I suspect it won't.

Are we heading for a time where the rUK becomes insular and has no more of a role to play on the world stage than diminished former powers such as France, Spain or Italy?

Excellent post.

To see two former Cabinet Ministers trade insults about each others nationality on live tv is really quite sad and pathetic.

dubscottie

The whole yes campaign has turned into a Anti English, Anti Tory, Anti monarchy campaign..

I love how it is all "We will be allowed to do this and that" about currency, the EU, oil etc, when in fact they don't have a clue what is going to happen.

But of course you will cross that bridge when we come to it. (Unless it is the new Forth Crossing.. It may not get finished if you don't have the cash)

Hope the yes campaign are aware that quite a few of the oilfields are going to end up in English waters.. The UN follow land borders when deciding territorial waters for oil etc, NOT East -West lines..

Stick a ruler along the Scotland/England border on a map and see how far North goes into the North Sea!

And remember there are 2 sides to a border. Nothing to stop England carrying out passport checks etc and sticking up a wall to stop illegals flooding from France to Scotland (no passport required after you are forced to join the Schengen area), then over the border into England..

A condition of joining the EU is the Euro and Schengen. So no more CTA for Scotland (IF it is allowed to join the EU)

Sure you can have a currency tied to the Pound or Euro, but how are you going to borrow if nobody recognises it?

Might want to look at the GDR and its currency issues, its over generous welfare state, the cost of military etc, etc.

But of course this is "scaremongering".. the buzz word of the yes campaign.

To the rest of the world..Asking genuine questions.

Unlike the pie in the sky "it will be alright on the night" attitude of the yes crowd.

And I am Scottish born and bred. Lived in Ireland for the last 15 years. I have English friends in Scotland that are getting all sorts of abuse at work etc.

I wish I was still able to vote. It has turned into nothing but a flag waving, childish, playground "my flag is better than yours" spat.

Some of the comments on this tread sum up the yes campaign perfect.

I hope there is no truth in the rumour that the PSNI are sending a few of the armoured LandRovers over to Scotland in the event of a No vote..

oppenheimer1

dubscottie wrote: »

The whole yes campaign has turned into a Anti English, Anti Tory, Anti monarchy campaign..

I love how it is all "We will be able to do this and that" about currency, the EU, oil etc, when in fact they don't have a clue what is going to happen.

But of course you will cross that bridge when we come to it. (Unless it is the new Forth Crossing.. It may not get finished if you don't have the cash)

Hope the yes campaign are aware that quite a few of the oilfields are going to end up in English waters.. The UN follow land borders when deciding territorial waters for oil etc, NOT East -West lines..

Stick a ruler along the Scotland/England border on a map and see how far North goes into the North Sea!

And remember there are 2 sides to a border. Nothing to stop England carrying out passport checks etc and sticking up a wall to stop illegals flooding from France to Scotland (no passport required after you are forced to join the Schengen area), then over the border into England..

A condition of joining the EU is the Euro and Schengen. So no more CTA for Scotland (IF it is allowed to join the EU)

Sure you can have a currency tied to the Pound or Euro, but how are you going to borrow if nobody recognises it?

Might want to look at the GDR and its currency issues, its over generous welfare state, the cost of military etc, etc.

But of course this is "scaremongering".. the buzz word of the yes campaign.

To the rest of the world..Asking genuine questions.

Unlike the pie in the sky "it will be alright on the night" attitude of the yes crowd.

And I am Scottish born and bred. Lived in Ireland for the last 15 years. I have English friends in Scotland that are getting all sorts of abuse at work etc.

To be honest a future within the UK is also fraught with uncertainty too. There is no guarantee that it wont get voted out in a referendum on membership in the next few years.

In fairness 'an alright on the night' attitude is fairly reasonable imo. The questions over currency the EU and other issues will be negotiated with pragmatism as each party has the potential to screw the other over (which would do no one any good). For example if Scotland would never be forced to join Schengen since it would damage the English economy as much as it would damage Scotlands. Similarly for a currency union, sterling needs the trade from scottish oil to prop its value. In the event of Scottish independence, they will get a currency sharing agreement rUK, there is no doubt in my mind. In return Scotland will have to give rUK a treaty port on the Clyde for Trident.

porsche959

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

To be honest a future within the UK is also fraught with uncertainty too. There is no guarantee that it wont get voted out in a referendum on membership in the next few years.

In fairness 'an alright on the night' attitude is fairly reasonable imo. The questions over currency the EU and other issues will be negotiated with pragmatism as each party has the potential to screw the other over (which would do no one any good). For example if Scotland would never be forced to join Schengen since it would damage the English economy as much as it would damage Scotlands. Similarly for a currency union, sterling needs the trade from scottish oil to prop its value. In the event of Scottish independence, they will get a currency sharing agreement rUK, there is no doubt in my mind. In return Scotland will have to give rUK a treaty port on the Clyde for Trident.

Inclined to agree. The western and possibly the entire global banking system almost ground to a halt in 2008 but we lived to fight another day because wise decisions were made, compared to that the problems posed by Scottish independence are very solvable IMO.

porsche959

dubscottie wrote: »

And I am Scottish born and bred. Lived in Ireland for the last 15 years. I have English friends in Scotland that are getting all sorts of abuse at work etc.

That is disappointing but unsurprising. There is a nasty Anglo-phobia with some on the Yes campaign and it needs to be called out.

dubscottie

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

To be honest a future within the UK is also fraught with uncertainty too. There is no guarantee that it wont get voted out in a referendum on membership in the next few years.

Really though? I can't see the UK leaving Europe. It would be the end of the budget airlines for starts.

They could also have the 40% rule (think that was what it is called) as the turnout, I expect would be low.

They only way Scotland in the EU could work is if Scotland became an Overseas territory like Gibraltar until it gains full UN recognition. But that takes years..

What happens in-between?

The Neanderthals that don't know about Scottish history have resorted to this..

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=273939842817046&set=p.273939842817046&type=1

Lapin

porsche959 wrote: »

Excellent post.

To see two former Cabinet Ministers trade insults about each others nationality on live tv is really quite sad and pathetic.

Redwood and Hain on Newsnight earlier?

That was sad and pathetic indeed. Almost as much as Galloway in the same programme.

porsche959

Lapin wrote: »

Redwood and Hain on Newsnight earlier?

That was sad and pathetic indeed. Almost as much as Galloway in the same programme.

Yes, was referring to Redwood/Hain.

Didn't see Galloway's excerpt, but he is an awful man.

Salmond, who I'm by no means a fan of, is somewhat blessed as regards some of his detractors.

dubscottie

porsche959 wrote: »

Salmond, who I'm by no means a fan of, is somewhat blessed as regards some of his detractors.

Well he has had 40 years to practice the same speech! Other politicians have more on there minds...

porsche959

dubscottie wrote: »

Well he has had 40 years to practice the same speech! Other politicians have more on there minds...

Sure, but 50% Yes vote according to the most recent polls - which is way, way higher than SNP vote, or, I'd assume, Salmonds popularity ratings (and I'm not arsed checking them, I don't care about the man one way or the other).

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the Scots Tory vote is more pro-independence than the London media establishment might prefer, as is a relatively high proportion of those that would usually vote Labour.

dubscottie

porsche959 wrote: »

Sure, but 50% Yes vote according to the most recent polls - which is way, way higher than SNP vote, or, I'd assume, Salmonds popularity ratings (and I'm not arsed checking them, I don't care about the man one way or the other).

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the Scots Tory vote is more pro-independence than the London media establishment might prefer, as is a relatively high proportion of those that would usually vote Labour.

Forget the polls.

Getting info back from family (just off phone to auntie) that people are saying yes as they are to scared to say no.

The attitude is "If they are like this now, then I don't want them to win. I will say yes if asked but will vote no on the day".

The yes campaigns intimidation seems to be changing what people say but maybe not how they vote!

Karl Stein

What Scottish Unionists need to do is threaten a campaign of mass-murdering terrorism and ethic cleansing of Scots who vote for independence from Eng/LDN.

dubscottie

Karl Stein wrote: »

What Scottish Unionists need to do is threaten a campaign of mass-murdering terrorism and ethic cleansing of Scots who vote for independence from Eng/LDN.

Did I mention Unionist? No..

You seem like someone that doesn't have a clue about history, other than the one you have learned from folk songs..

80% of scots think the battle of Culloden was a Scottish v English shooting match.. 1745! British v Highlanders. Scots v Scots.

You have watched too much braveheart! Historical bollox also. he murdered anyone that stood in his way. Again fact not Hollywood!

evo2000

I think scottish independence would be a stupid move financially, and to be honest they re basically are independent now as is except its not official,

I think when you weigh up the whole thing..scotland wales and england are better off together.

evo2000

That being said! I wonder will the pro- scot independence campaigners be handing out free copys of braveheart!

porsche959

The campaign for Scottish independence was influenced by Mel Gibson's movie about as much Irish nationalism has to do Tom Cruise's 'Far and Away'.

This isn't about personalities or Hollywood movies.

dubscottie

porsche959 wrote: »

The campaign for Scottish independence was influenced by Mel Gibson about as much Irish nationalism has to do Tom Cruise's 'Far and Away'.

This isn't about personalities or Hollywood movies.

Really? So what is with all the kilts up over the arses pics then? Braveheart?

Sorry must be some other film..

WilyCoyote

evo2000 wrote: »

I think scottish independence would be a stupid move financially, and to be honest they re basically are independent now as is except its not official,

I think when you weigh up the whole thing..scotland wales and england are better off together.

North Sea oil ........ where did the money finish up?

Welsh coal mines ........... where did the money finish up?

Muahahaha

Fratton Fred wrote: »

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.

Do you seriously hold that opinion? I'm genuinely shocked but then again given that you support the British monarchy and all the inequality that it brings into British society I probably shouldnt be. But what what surprises me is that you think becoming PM in Britain is something that can be achieved by anyone when history suggests the complete opposite. The fact of the matter is that an ordinary person on the street ever becoming PM of the UK is an event so unlikely that if you asked a bookie for odds on it they would laugh at you. So while you say that there are no restrictions on who becomes PM you might be talking the truth in some sort of abstract sense but not in any realistic sense that takes account of where British PMs have hailed from. And at the end of the day 57 of the last 59 British PMs have all come from the triangle of Eton, Oxford and Cambridge. Doesnt matter if they are Labour or Tory, the single largest predictor of whether any British citizen can become Prime Minister is directly related to the status, wealth and class of their family and weather or not they can get access to Eton and then go on to Oxford. There's always exceptions to the rule, Churchhill would have been one who didnt go to Oxford/Cambridge but he did go to Sandhurst Military Academy which stood him in good stead as a war time PM. Gordon Brown was another outlier who didnt go to Oxford or Cambridge but given he was shagging the Princess of Romania I suspect he came from a family of at least some sort of status and privledge. So while MPs as an overall might be diverse Prime Ministers are anything but, even getting on the front benches is difficult if you didnt go to the right school and make the right connections- David Cameroon appointed 13 Etonions to his front bench which just goes to show how truly inbred the upper echlons of British power really is.

So to say that the office of PM is accessible to anyone really is having your head in the sand. To me you seem to have no idea of the how important class is in UK politics and how all these structures in UK society that undermine equality between citizens are a direct result of having a monarchy. As soon as you accept that some people in society can have more than others it doesnt take long till others demand the same and suddenly you've got thousands of aristrocrats and lord and earls who all want privledge over the middle classes. And what you end up with is a society that is structured to be unequal from the top on down. Thats what monarchoes are, weather they be the 1400's version or the 2014 version, any society who allows the very top of it to be unequal ends up by default making all of it unequal. Theres no getting around that and perhaps many Scots see it that way too. For many on the Yes side the Queen horing about on her 60,000 acres of Balmoral shooting wild deer doesnt sit well when the life expectancy of males in Glasgow is a shocking 58 years of age. Any monarch is a direct representation of inequality and no-where in the UK is inequaity more evident that it is in Scotland.

So while I completely agree that this vote isnt about 'kicking out the Queen' its also not hard to see some Scots will defintely be going to the polls to give the Royal and London establishment an almighty kick in the balls. They've never had this opportunity before so they're certainly not going to miss it. It may not be right but that doesnt matter because its going to happen regardless.

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

I see panic appears to be setting in and Cameron is scampering to Scotland to push for a No vote. Hopefully the clown will push the undecideds into the Yes campaigns arms.

Things really are desparate when probably the most unpopular Tory leader since Thatcher is now begging the Scots to stay in the UK. Its a PR disaster and Milliband is losing face here big time too. Secretly though I reckon Cameron wants Scotland to vote yes, the Tories have no real power in Scotland and never will do, they're hated up there. So a Scottish yes vote means that the Tories biggest electoral rival Labour are weakened nationally as a result. Weakened becuase they are going to lose 40 MP's in Westminister and weakened in Scotland because they campiagned for a No vote and turned out to be on the wrong side of history. So for Cameroon and the Tories looking at the 2015 General Election they might be thinking one good way to boost Tory chances is to see Scotland go independent with the unintended consequences that Labour lose 40 seats up north.

evo2000

WilyCoyote wrote: »

North Sea oil ........ where did the money finish up?

Welsh coal mines ........... where did the money finish up?

You make it out like its a dictatorship, from england that scotland and wales give everything to england and they get no benifit of being in the uk

Karl Stein

dubscottie wrote: »

Did I mention Unionist?

Don't mind me. I'm just wondering how Ireland would have turned out if the threat of Unionist/British terrorism hadn't been the principle factor that led to the partition of our Island.

WilyCoyote

evo2000 wrote: »

You make it out like its a dictatorship, from england that scotland and wales give everything to england and they get no benifit of being in the uk

Good evening evo2000 I thought the idea of ruling over other countries was to line the pocket of the invader ...... but I'm obviously wrong in your mind.

The Conquistadors did it for Spain
The Portuguese did it for Potrtugal
ISIS is doing it for Islam

evo2000

WilyCoyote wrote: »

Good evening evo2000 I thought the idea of ruling over other countries was to line the pocket of the invader ...... but I'm obviously wrong in your mind.

The Conquistadors did it for Spain
The Portuguese did it for Potrtugal
ISIS is doing it for Islam

Oh ok, so the uk is similar too isis...........while i agree the goal is to take over for resources initially i think the, relationship between wales, england and scotland has evolved a tiny bit passed that era!

I could be wrong tho! there could still be longbow men roaming around collecting taxes for longshanks!

WilyCoyote

evo2000 wrote: »

Oh ok, so the uk is similar too isis...........while i agree the goal is to take over for resources initially i think the, relationship between wales, england and scotland has evolved a tiny bit passed that era!

I could be wrong tho! there could still be longbow men roaming around collecting taxes for longshanks!

And whatever you do ........... don't mention the invasion of Ireland

porsche959

Muahahaha wrote: »

And at the end of the day 57 of the last 59 British PMs have all come from the triangle of Eton, Oxford and Cambridge. Doesnt matter if they are Labour or Tory, the single largest predictor of whether any British citizen can become Prime Minister is directly related to the status, wealth and class of their family and weather or not they can get access to Eton and then go on to Oxford.

This is really a quite simplistic and/or selective analysis at best.

The "Triangle of Eton, Oxford and Cambridge"...what does that even mean?

Oxford and Cambridge have had scholarship assistance for students from less wealthy backgrounds for many decades and that continues to be the case. It is not particularly surprising that talented people that are interested in politics go on to political careers - and many have done so.

The last Conservative PM before Cameron didn't go to any university - let alone Oxford or Cambridge - and he certainly didn't go to Eton for his schooling.

Before John Major, Margaret Thatcher was from a lower middle class background and attended Oxford as a science student via a scholarship.

Before Thatcher, Ted Heath was from an ordinary non-upper class background but similarly to Thatcher got into an Oxford college on a scholarship.

In other words - just focusing on the four Tory PM's that have held office in the last 40 years, all but one were from middle class or even, in Major's case, working class backgrounds, only one went to Eton (or any public school, for that matter), two of the three that went to Oxbridge went there on scholarships, and one didn't even go to university!

Crooked Jack

dubscottie wrote: »

The whole yes campaign has turned into a Anti English, Anti Tory, Anti monarchy campaign..

The Yes side has made a huge deal out of the English people involved in the campaign. The monarchy will remain. You've got them on the Tories though but that's hardly exclusive to the yes campaign. How many times have we heard people advocating a no vote because they dont want the Tories to have a wesminster majority. And frankly, fu(k the tories anyway.

dubscottie wrote: »

I love how it is all "We will be allowed to do this and that" about currency, the EU, oil etc, when in fact they don't have a clue what is going to happen.

But of course you will cross that bridge when we come to it.

The Yes campaign has produced several documents laying out, quite clearly, their vision for a new Scotland. You dont have a clue what those are because you havent read them.

dubscottie wrote: »

(Unless it is the new Forth Crossing.. It may not get finished if you don't have the cash)

Scotland gives more to Westminster than it gets in return.

dubscottie wrote: »

Hope the yes campaign are aware that quite a few of the oilfields are going to end up in English waters.. The UN follow land borders when deciding territorial waters for oil etc, NOT East -West lines..

Stick a ruler along the Scotland/England border on a map and see how far North goes into the North Sea!

I can hear Salmond panicking over this when you tell him? "Quick. call the whole thing off. how could we never have thought of using a ruler to find out where Scotland actually is."

dubscottie wrote: »

And remember there are 2 sides to a border. Nothing to stop England carrying out passport checks etc and sticking up a wall to stop illegals flooding from France to Scotland (no passport required after you are forced to join the Schengen area), then over the border into England..

Nothing to stop them except common sense

dubscottie wrote: »

A condition of joining the EU is the Euro and Schengen. So no more CTA for Scotland (IF it is allowed to join the EU)

Ah if only I had some way of disproving this. If only there was some other country with a land border between british occupied territory and a european country. maybe even one close to scotland itself. ah damn, nope, cant for the life of me think.

dubscottie wrote: »

Sure you can have a currency tied to the Pound or Euro, but how are you going to borrow if nobody recognises it?

They will. This is pure No camp scare mongering. "You'll all go back to trading chickens."

dubscottie wrote: »

Might want to look at the GDR and its currency issues, its over generous welfare state, the cost of military etc, etc.

Why? Totally different issue from Scotland?

dubscottie wrote: »

But of course this is "scaremongering".. the buzz word of the yes campaign.

To the rest of the world..Asking genuine questions.

But it is clearly scaremongering. The answers to all those questions are there. The No campaign just ignores them and keeps asking the same questions over and over again and insists they arent being answered.

dubscottie wrote: »

Unlike the pie in the sky "it will be alright on the night" attitude of the yes crowd.

Again, this is a perfect example of what i was just referring to. The Yes campaign has clearly laid out its vision over the past year. This "the yes campaign is winging it" is the new version of the no campaign's old discredited "this is all because of Braveheart" cry.

dubscottie wrote: »

And I am Scottish born and bred. Lived in Ireland for the last 15 years. I have English friends in Scotland that are getting all sorts of abuse at work etc.

Aww, the poor diddums. I bet they make fun of them during the world cup as well. I recall living with lads from Tyrone in uni and the abuse I got when they beat Armagh in the all-Ireland was horrendous.

dubscottie wrote: »

I wish I was still able to vote. It has turned into nothing but a flag waving, childish, playground "my flag is better than yours" spat.

You are the only person I have heard say anything like that.

dubscottie wrote: »

Some of the comments on this tread sum up the yes campaign perfect.

Clear. Positive. Hopeful. Determined. Yes they do.

dubscottie wrote: »

I hope there is no truth in the rumour that the PSNI are sending a few of the armoured LandRovers over to Scotland in the event of a No vote..

Yeah, the No crowd is clearly not into scaremongering

Crooked Jack

dubscottie wrote: »

Really? So what is with all the kilts up over the arses pics then? Braveheart?

Sorry must be some other film..

Of course, mooning people never existed in Scotland before Braveheart.
Also, everyone drink. Do a shot every time the No campaign references Braveheart. Makes the campaign gas.

Dozen Wicked Words

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Of course, mooning people never existed in Scotland before Braveheart.
Also, everyone drink. Do a shot every time the No campaign references Braveheart. Makes the campaign gas.

Do we get a drink everytime someone from the yes campaign mentions the Westminster Elite?

Both sides have their predictable go to phrases. Think drink is the only thing that makes any long campaign interesting. No one is saying anything new now. Wish it would hurry up and get it over with, then we get the year of what the result means for you, me and someone in a pub somewhere, then we can go back to safely watching the news.

Crooked Jack

Dozen Wicked Words wrote: »

Do we get a drink everytime someone from the yes campaign mentions the Westminster Elite?

Both sides have their predictable go to phrases. Think drink is the only thing that makes any long campaign interesting. No one is saying anything new now. Wish it would hurry up and get it over with, then we get the year of what the result means for you, me and someone in a pub somewhere, then we can go back to safely watching the news.

Why not. But you have to admit the Westminster elites thing is clearly a far more sensible and reasoned argument then all the condescending braveheart shite

Dozen Wicked Words

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Why not. But you have to admit the Westminster elites thing is clearly a far more sensible and reasoned argument then all the condescending braveheart shite

Both are cheap point scoring soundbites. Neither add anything. Lowest common denominator stuff.

Crooked Jack

Dozen Wicked Words wrote: »

Both are cheap point scoring soundbites. Neither add anything. Lowest common denominator stuff.

Not really. Scottish attitudes to and issues with Westminster go the core of this entire referendum. The Braveheart shyte is empty, condescending, smug and frankly downright insulting.

porsche959

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Ah if only I had some way of disproving this. If only there was some other country with a land border between british occupied territory and a european country. maybe even one close to scotland itself. ah damn, nope, cant for the life of me think.

So England and Northern Ireland aren't in Europe?

Dozen Wicked Words

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Not really. Scottish attitudes to and issues with Westminster go the core of this entire referendum. The Braveheart shyte is empty, condescending, smug and frankly downright insulting.

It's certainly been framed that way. I don't care who wins, it's not my referendum but it's blinkered to think one side has the monopoly on condescending soundbites, in any election or campaign. That's what modern politics boils down to now.

A Dub in Glasgo

dubscottie

I am sorry but I do not recognise any of the things who have come on here as 'facts'. If what you are hearing (which is at least 2nd hand and everybody knows how these kind of things get embellished down the chain) is really happening, I am sure the media over here will be very interested. Some of them are really itching to get those kind of stories. Sounds like it is made up

Happyman42

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

dubscottie

I am sorry but I do not recognise any of the things who have come on here as 'facts'. If what you are hearing (which is at least 2nd hand and everybody knows how these kind of things get embellished down the chain) is really happening, I am sure the media over here will be very interested. Some of them are really itching to get those kind of stories. Sounds like it is made up

It's a case of 'If all else fails, drag 'em through the muck'. Kinda pathetic imo.

folamh

A new government with its own policies will reflect the voting trends of the Scottish people. Are there any records of the voting trends of Scottish people?

Barely There

Despite the giddy excitement of the barstool republicans, I predict a comfortable victory for the pro-Union side in next week's referendum.

Madam

porsche959 wrote: »

The campaign for Scottish independence was influenced by Mel Gibson's movie about as much Irish nationalism has to do Tom Cruise's 'Far and Away'.

This isn't about personalities or Hollywood movies.

My first real belly laugh of the day!

Happyman42

Barely There wrote: »

I predict a comfortable victory for the pro-Union side in next week's referendum.

And the Republicans are giddy you say? :rolleyes:

Crooked Jack

Crooked Jack wrote: »

But it is clearly scaremongering. The answers to all those questions are there. The No campaign just ignores them and keeps asking the same questions over and over again and insists they arent being answered.

So what is "the answer" to the currency question?

Fratton Fred

Muahahaha wrote: »

Do you seriously hold that opinion? I'm genuinely shocked but then again given that you support the British monarchy and all the inequality that it brings into British society I probably shouldnt be. But what what surprises me is that you think becoming PM in Britain is something that can be achieved by anyone when history suggests the complete opposite. The fact of the matter is that an ordinary person on the street ever becoming PM of the UK is an event so unlikely that if you asked a bookie for odds on it they would laugh at you. So while you say that there are no restrictions on who becomes PM you might be talking the truth in some sort of abstract sense but not in any realistic sense that takes account of where British PMs have hailed from. And at the end of the day 57 of the last 59 British PMs have all come from the triangle of Eton, Oxford and Cambridge. Doesnt matter if they are Labour or Tory, the single largest predictor of whether any British citizen can become Prime Minister is directly related to the status, wealth and class of their family and weather or not they can get access to Eton and then go on to Oxford. There's always exceptions to the rule, Churchhill would have been one who didnt go to Oxford/Cambridge but he did go to Sandhurst Military Academy which stood him in good stead as a war time PM. Gordon Brown was another outlier who didnt go to Oxford or Cambridge but given he was shagging the Princess of Romania I suspect he came from a family of at least some sort of status and privledge. So while MPs as an overall might be diverse Prime Ministers are anything but, even getting on the front benches is difficult if you didnt go to the right school and make the right connections- David Cameroon appointed 13 Etonions to his front bench which just goes to show how truly inbred the upper echlons of British power really is.

So to say that the office of PM is accessible to anyone really is having your head in the sand. To me you seem to have no idea of the how important class is in UK politics and how all these structures in UK society that undermine equality between citizens are a direct result of having a monarchy. As soon as you accept that some people in society can have more than others it doesnt take long till others demand the same and suddenly you've got thousands of aristrocrats and lord and earls who all want privledge over the middle classes. And what you end up with is a society that is structured to be unequal from the top on down. Thats what monarchoes are, weather they be the 1400's version or the 2014 version, any society who allows the very top of it to be unequal ends up by default making all of it unequal. Theres no getting around that and perhaps many Scots see it that way too. For many on the Yes side the Queen horing about on her 60,000 acres of Balmoral shooting wild deer doesnt sit well when the life expectancy of males in Glasgow is a shocking 58 years of age. Any monarch is a direct representation of inequality and no-where in the UK is inequaity more evident that it is in Scotland. .

You've never been to Scotland have you. In fact, have you ever been to the UK? Because you know absolutely **** all about the place.

Muahahaha

Muahahaha wrote: »

Doesnt matter if they are Labour or Tory, the single largest predictor of whether any British citizen can become Prime Minister is directly related to the status, wealth and class of their family and weather or not they can get access to Eton and then go on to Oxford.

Of the 9 Prime Ministers in the last 50 years, 1 (David Cameron) has gone to Eton.

Of course social mobility is an issue in the UK (same as it is in Ireland), but you are just making a fool of yourself with comments like the above.