Scottish Independence discussion area

who the fug

Sir Oxman wrote: »

54-46
Scotland -it's time.

No for England it is time to throw off our shackles, and get rid.

A Dub in Glasgo

What shackles is that?

who the fug

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

What shackles is that?

Six counties and whinging sweaties of course.

Also doing a special offer on North Wales and Leicester

Donkey Oaty

Survatation for Daily Record now released is a boost for Better Together.

It's 42 Aye, 48 Naw, 10 Dinna ken.

oppenheimer1

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

Survatation for Daily Record now released is a boost for Better Together.

It's 42 Aye, 48 Naw, 10 Dinna ken.

Its really all going to come down to turnout now. Given that the westminster parties didn't want to give Scotland any more power and have had to u turn over the past few days, it could be argued that the nationalists have won far more than they originally expected to get.

All the polls are meaningless without the published methodology and in particular the confidence interval. A quick sum tells me that both those figures should be presented with a plus or minus 4

WilyCoyote

Q. What is worn under a Scotsman's kilt?

A.

Nothing. Everything in perfect working order.

C'mon Scotland .......... go for it. Your destiny is in your own hands

Da Shins Kelly

Can see some folks who are on the fence or swaying ever so slightly in favour of independence getting cold feet on the day.

A Dub in Glasgo

So can I, that is why I am bringing these to my local polling station

http://www.popgadget.net/images/usb-foot-warmers.jpg

kefir32

It's gonna be a no !!!!! Not a resounding one but a slim majority! Will be another referendum within the next 5 to 10 years no doubt!

SharpshooterTom

Scotland will vote No on this I suspect.

I just hope we don't get some 'Rule Britannia' love in, nothing wrong with that of course (I don't like patriotism generally), but what usually accompanies some of is some anti-Irish feeling, notably in parts of Scotland and Northern Ireland who can't wait to gloat it in front of the taigs (I personally have no preference which way Scotland votes myself as long as its peaceful).

I'm reading some British forums at this moment in time, and some (not all of course) of the Scottish unionist posters on there are making very clear they don't like Irish catholics or their descendant's living in Scotland at this moment in time and some of them appear to be blaming catholics in Scotland for inflating the Yes vote.

Wompa1

Was over in the UK for the last few days. If I was Scottish I'd be angry at the talk coming out of the English politicians and the propaganda coming out of the English media. It's very patronizing.

Saw a couple of interviews with Scots. They were suggesting that it will deal a larger blow to England if they vote Yes, than it would ultimately for the Scots. They are more focused on social issues than the current crop. They also have very rich oil reserves and some strong exports.

I was sitting behind some lad on the train who was talking about it. He said "some of our greatest artifacts and treasures are up there"...I don't know how a Scot would feel with an English man saying that..

Stinicker

ThomasFlynn wrote: »

Scotland will vote No on this I suspect.

I just hope we don't get some 'Rule Britannia' love in, nothing wrong with that of course (I don't like patriotism generally), but what usually accompanies some of is some anti-Irish feeling, notably in parts of Scotland and Northern Ireland who can't wait to gloat it in front of the taigs (I personally have no preference which way Scotland votes myself as long as its peaceful).

I'm reading some British forums at this moment in time, and some (not all of course) of the Scottish unionist posters on there are making very clear they don't like Irish catholics or their descendant's living in Scotland at this moment in time and some of them appear to be blaming catholics in Scotland for inflating the Yes vote.

Who cares about them bigots, the undeniable reality is the day is moving ever closer when both Scotland will be independent and Ireland will be united. Protestant birthrate decline ensure this is a certainty, so those Unionist bigots should really be making love and not spouting hate and wanting war if they are to ever have a chance of survival. I hope Soctland votes Yes and even if they don't it is a total inevitability that they will go Independent anyway.

If Alex Salmond and his party had any balls they should unequivocally declared Independence without a referendum, their party won a majority of the vote and their main sole aim is to bring about an Independent Scotland.

Poblacht na hÉireann was declared in 1919 and the British occupying forces then declared war on this state. I hardly this Cameron would declare war on Scotland and the SNP have a duty to the Scottish break free from the UK, whether it be by Referendum or otherwise. The Scottish referendum is already shambolic in that the occupying forces and leaders of the UK have consistently interfered with threats in an affront to the Scottish people.

The days of the UK are ticking down and Scotland will be free and Ireland united and free.

A Dub in Glasgo

Wompa1 wrote: »

Was over in the UK for the last few days. If I was Scottish I'd be angry at the talk coming out of the English politicians and the propaganda coming out of the English media. It's very patronizing.

http://wingsoverscotland.com/point-and-counterpoint/

Why don't we tell the Scots to shove off!

A Dub in Glasgo

Stinicker wrote: »

If Alex Salmond and his party had any balls they should unequivocally declared Independence without a referendum, their party won a majority of the vote and their main sole aim is to bring about an Independent Scotland.

I don't think that would have been useful

Muahahaha

Fratton Fred wrote: »

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.

lol Ive lived in the UK and was only motorbiking in the Scottish Highlands four short weeks ago.

You didnt address any of my points and instead you base your argument on the basis of whether or not Ive ever been to the UK, which is nothing more than a strawman and diversionary tactic. You're the one looking foolish here because you claimed that the office of PM is accessible to any ordinary UK citizen but your problem is history proves that assertation to be completely wrong- becoming PM is largely a function of the education you've had and the connections you've made along the way. Fact of the matter is if you want to be a PM and you didnt go to Oxford or Cambridge and join in some pretty vital societies and clubs then you havent got a snowballs chance in hell.

I say again, look at David Cameroons front bench- 13 Old Etonians. 13 Ministers who all went to the same school now with their hands on the reins of power and you think that speaks of equality, the society is truly represented by a bunch of Old Etonians ? The upper echlons of power in the UK is not a meritocracy, the school & university you go to is a far better predictor of your success in UK political circles than any innate talent. Just take a look at the education record of every UK PM and you'll see the undeniable pattern.

Scottish people see all this, they know well how unequal Westminister is run. And they don't like it, they don't like being governed by a bunch of Old Etonians who have nothing in common with them and have little appreciation for Scottish culture, interests or society.

Harry Palmr

Its all to play for as we enter time added on at 0-0.

The bad luck for Scotland esp and the UK generally is that the result is going to satisfy no one really. Independence will cause massive upheaval within Scotland and rUK, staying will create massive pressure to re-organise the way the UK is run esp within England outside Londinium.

porsche959

Muahahaha wrote: »

lol Ive lived in the UK and was only motorbiking in the Scottish Highlands four short weeks ago.

You didnt address any of my points and instead you base your argument on the basis of whether or not Ive ever been to the UK, which is nothing more than a strawman and diversionary tactic. You're the one looking foolish here because you claimed that the office of PM is accessible to any ordinary UK citizen but your problem is history proves that assertation to be completely wrong- becoming PM is largely a function of the education you've had and the connections you've made along the way. Fact of the matter is if you want to be a PM and you didnt go to Oxford or Cambridge and join in some pretty vital societies and clubs then you havent got a snowballs chance in hell.

I say again, look at David Cameroons front bench- 13 Old Etonians. 13 Ministers who all went to the same school now with their hands on the reins of power and you think that speaks of equality, the society is truly represented by a bunch of Old Etonians ? The upper echlons of power in the UK is not a meritocracy, the school & university you go to is a far better predictor of your success in UK political circles than any innate talent. Just take a look at the education record of every UK PM and you'll see the undeniable pattern.

I note that you haven't addressed or taken on board my point that for those PM's that happen to have attended Oxbridge, more often than not it was on scholarships. You also have completely ignored the fact that a relatively recent PM didn't attend any university at all. Another one, Thatcher, did a science degree, so I doubt if she had much time to be getting involved in the kinds of clubs and societies you refer to. In fact I think it was only after graduating that she paid much attention to politics.

Tony Blair went to a public school but not Eton. He then attended Oxford university.

Gordon Brown did not go to public school. He went to a co-educational comprehensive. He then attended Edinburgh University, not Oxbridge.

So overall of the last six PM's only one, Cameron, fully meets your ridiculous stereotype. Blair comes close but he didn't attend Eton.

I'd grant that the current cabinet does seem to have a lot of folk from upper class backgrounds, the proverbial 'Eton Tories'.

Incidentally, when Michael Gove, one of the few members of the current Cabinet from an ordinary background lost the education ministry, everyone cheered because apparently he is a right wing Tory bent on privatisating the education sector and sending children down the mines or something. If you ask me, a lot of the hate against Gove is really because he went against groupthink in the teaching profession.

Muahahaha wrote: »

Just take a look at the education record of every UK PM and you'll see the undeniable pattern.

I took a look - and it doesn't prove your thesis, far from it.

porsche959

Stinicker wrote: »

The Scottish referendum is already shambolic in that the occupying forces and leaders of the UK have consistently interfered with threats in an affront to the Scottish people.

Occupying forces...ffs..emotive rabble rousing. Was Gordon Brown an occupying force in England do you think?

I'm pro-independence but your kind of emotive rabble-rousing is a big turn-off for people sitting on the fence.

BonnieSituation

porsche959 wrote: »

Occupying forces...ffs..emotive rabble rousing. Was Gordon Brown an occupying force in England do you think?

I'm pro-independence but your kind of emotive rabble-rousing is a big turn-off for people sitting on the fence.

And he's from Kerry...

In fairness I don't think most take a lot of Stinicker's contributions too seriously, least of all wavering Scottish voters.

Muahahaha

porsche959 wrote: »

I note that you haven't addressed or taken on board my point that for those PM's that happen to have attended Oxbridge, more often than not it was on scholarships. You also have completely ignored the fact that a relatively recent PM didn't attend any university at all. Another one, Thatcher, did a science degree, so I doubt if she had much time to be getting involved in the kinds of clubs and societies you refer to. In fact I think it was only after graduating that she paid much attention to politics.

Tony Blair went to a public school but not Eton. He then attended Oxford university.

Gordon Brown did not go to public school. He went to a co-educational comprehensive. He then attended Edinburgh University, not Oxbridge.

So overall of the last six PM's only one, Cameron, fully meets your ridiculous stereotype. Blair comes close but he didn't attend Eton.

I'd grant that the current cabinet does seem to have a lot of folk from upper class backgrounds, the proverbial 'Eton Tories'.

Incidentally, when Michael Gove, one of the few members of the current Cabinet from an ordinary background lost the education ministry, everyone cheered because apparently he is a right wing Tory bent on privatisating the education sector and sending children down the mines or something. If you ask me, a lot of the hate against Gove is really because he went against groupthink in the teaching profession.



I took a look - and it doesn't prove your thesis, far from it.

Yeah but why are you depending on John Major as an outlier ? I already mentioned how Gordon Brown didnt go to Oxbridge but he was shagging the Princess of Romania while he was at Edinburgh, you dont get to meet and date royalty unless you come from some sort of privileged background. I also mentioned Churchill who didn't attend Oxbridge but did Sandhurst Miliary Academy, another institute which is a pillar of Britains ruling classes. It wasnt as if Churchill didnt come from privledge, he was the son of the Duke of Marlborough and his grandad was the Viceroy of Dublin, with young Winston spending his childhood in Aras an Uachtarain.


In any care I think you've misunderstood me. I said that the vast majority of UK PMs have come from some triangle of Eton-Oxford-Cambridge. I'm not claiming that the majority went to 2 out of the 3, I'm claiming (and this is undisputable fact) that the vast majority of UK PMs went to one of those three institutions. Regardless this is all splitting hairs because there somewhere in the region of 170 different universities in the UK and of the 54 Prime Ministers to date 41 went to Oxbridge, 2 to Edinburgh and one to Leiden. In other words 75% of British PMs have gone to Oxbridge, going there by far increases the likelihood that you may become PM one day. Of the 9 that didnt attend university there is still oodles of privledge, like the 4th Duke of Devonshire who was PM in 1756 without a degree, or the 2nd Marquis of Rockingham who was PM in 1782. Even just to look back at all the PMs in the 1700's, 1800's and 1900's where the vast majority of them went to university during a time when going to university was but a dream for the average British teenager on the street. That tells a whole story about the upper class priviledge of Brisish PMs in itself.

Fact of the matter is the upper echelons of British society are closed to all but a privileged few. If you want to become PM attending Oxbridge is without doubt a crucial part of the jigsaw, there's no getting beyond the historical significance. But first you've got to get in to Oxbridge and that's where the problem will lie for anyone who doesnt come from a privileged background because the Oxbridge interviews will soon find out the tone of your accent and discriminate accordingly. Back in 2010 there was not one black student admitted to 19 different schools across Oxbridge. The interview process filters them all out, they're the wrong colour for Oxbridge, their face doesnt fit with the upper British classes who breeze the interview process to get in. If Barack Obama was born in the UK could he have become PM? I doubt it, he might have gotten his way into Oxbridge on ability alone but that counts for nothing if his face doesnt fir in the Fabian Society or the Bullingdon Club or whatever other secret clubs the future ruling elite are running. And a bit like South Park there'll be a few Tokens walking about. But in such a multicutural society as the UK is if you take a walk around the campuses of Oxbridge the attendees are almost 90% white and upper class. A single ticket to their university ball is €330 ffs, what ordinary British university student could ever afford to pay €330 for a ticket for a night out....? So this notion of Fratton Fred's that becoming PM of the UK is something that is attainable by any citizen is pure rubbish. There'll always be exceptions to any rules but for any James Callaghan or John Major you can throw me I can throw right back a plethora of Earls, Dukes, Lords and Barons who all served as PM, with the vast majority attending either Oxford or Cambridge and with Eton having a sizeable influence too.

But all of the above is to be expected. Thats the inherent inequality that is structured within monarchies. This inequality is not by accident, its by design. As soon as you allow the very top of society to be structured unequally that inequality the permeates down through many other strata of society. Politics is just one of those strata. By going to Oxford or Cambridge not only do you get to join the right clubs and societies, when you're in a leadership battle 25 years down the line to try to become PM you'll find that all those Oxford connections will come in very handy in ensuring that the guy who went to Leeds University doesnt get it. Thats historically been the case because its not by coincidence that 75% of British PMs have attended Oxford or Cambridge and Edinburgh and Birmingham aside all the other 170 odd UK universities have never educated a future leader of the country. It really shows how out of touch the Westminister set is with the average joe on the street but these are features of constitutional monarchies. Society is unequal and unjust because the people at the top want it to be so. Many Scottish people are rejecting that notion. More power to them I say.

myshirt wrote: »

Is it right that Braveheart will be aired in the run up?

Is this insulting? Just wrong? Or a coy move, given the low voting age?

Frankie Boyle told a good yarn a while back - "On the eve of the Scottish indpendence referendum BBC Scotland should screen Braveheart, just to get the population riled up. And when that's over they just screen Trainspotting, just to provide a bit of balance"

Good man Frankie.

LincolnsBeard

Stinicker wrote: »

Who cares about them bigots, the undeniable reality is the day is moving ever closer when both Scotland will be independent and Ireland will be united. Protestant birthrate decline ensure this is a certainty, so those Unionist bigots should really be making love and not spouting hate and wanting war if they are to ever have a chance of survival. I hope Soctland votes Yes and even if they don't it is a total inevitability that they will go Independent anyway.

If Alex Salmond and his party had any balls they should unequivocally declared Independence without a referendum, their party won a majority of the vote and their main sole aim is to bring about an Independent Scotland.

Poblacht na hÉireann was declared in 1919 and the British occupying forces then declared war on this state. I hardly this Cameron would declare war on Scotland and the SNP have a duty to the Scottish break free from the UK, whether it be by Referendum or otherwise. The Scottish referendum is already shambolic in that the occupying forces and leaders of the UK have consistently interfered with threats in an affront to the Scottish people.

The days of the UK are ticking down and Scotland will be free and Ireland united and free.

Scotland will stay in the UK, as will Northern Ireland. In the mean time, your tears are delicious.

Muahahaha

porsche959 wrote: »

Another one, Thatcher, did a science degree, so I doubt if she had much time to be getting involved in the kinds of clubs and societies you refer to. In fact I think it was only after graduating that she paid much attention to politics.






I took a look - and it doesn't prove your thesis, far from it.

just fyi Thatcher was President of the Oxford University Conservative Association and was heavily involved in student politics. By the tender age of 27 she had already reached the very highest position that any young Tory could and she was selected to run as an MP two years later. It nearly didnt happen for her at all- Oxford rejected her initial application and she only got accepted because someone else pulled out. If Thatcher hadnt of got into Oxford then it is more likely that she would have never made it to the office of PM. She met a wealthy Tory donor called Denis Thatcher through her being President of the Oxford Tories. He sponsored her, he married her, the rest is history but there's no getting away from him gaining her access to the upper levels of the Tory party. If Thatcher had of been President of the Young Tories at Brighton or Leeds or Cardiff then her future path would not have been the same as how it turned out to be at Oxford.

Anyway its not my thesis, there is peer reviewed academic research out there on the Oxbridge-Prime Minister bias.

Muahahaha

Oh and I should mention on the Eton thing, this one single school in the UK has produced 19 British prime ministers out of a total of 54 Pm's. The current PM was educated at Eton, where annual fees are £33,000. If Boris Johnson ever makes it to PM he will be the 20th Old Etonian to make the office. It's not just PMs and Eton though, follow the money and you'll see huge biases towards Eton and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

So you have around 40% of all PMs educated at Eton. And 75% of all PMs went to either Oxford or Cambridge, both the educational institutes of choice for the British aristocracy and upper classes. So despite Britain being a vastly multicultural society there is undisputable linkages between the political leaders of the country and three educational institutions. Just to put that in perspective, there are around 4,000 schools in the UK and some 170 odd universities along with hundreds more polytecs running apprenticeships. Yet Eton, Oxford and Cambridge is where the ruling classes go to be educated, the privileged backgrounds of these people have almost nothing in common with the average Scotman or woman on the street. They can't connect to Scottish people because they don't know how to and many Scots see their background as alien to them and are scratching their heads as to why a bunch of privedged kids who got to go to Oxbridge always ruling over them when they themselves have virtually no chance of attending those same institutions, because they speak with the wrong accent or are the wrong colour or aren't rich enough to pay the fees.

Its very difficult for a bunch of privileged upper class Westminster elites to convince the Scottish that 'We're Better Together' when the optics in terms of fairness, equality and social justice suggest the opposite.

Fratton Fred

Muahahaha wrote: »

lol Ive lived in the UK and was only motorbiking in the Scottish Highlands four short weeks ago.

You didnt address any of my points and instead you base your argument on the basis of whether or not Ive ever been to the UK, which is nothing more than a strawman and diversionary tactic. You're the one looking foolish here because you claimed that the office of PM is accessible to any ordinary UK citizen but your problem is history proves that assertation to be completely wrong- becoming PM is largely a function of the education you've had and the connections you've made along the way. Fact of the matter is if you want to be a PM and you didnt go to Oxford or Cambridge and join in some pretty vital societies and clubs then you havent got a snowballs chance in hell.

I say again, look at David Cameroons front bench- 13 Old Etonians. 13 Ministers who all went to the same school now with their hands on the reins of power and you think that speaks of equality, the society is truly represented by a bunch of Old Etonians ? The upper echlons of power in the UK is not a meritocracy, the school & university you go to is a far better predictor of your success in UK political circles than any innate talent. Just take a look at the education record of every UK PM and you'll see the undeniable pattern.

Scottish people see all this, they know well how unequal Westminister is run. And they don't like it, they don't like being governed by a bunch of Old Etonians who have nothing in common with them and have little appreciation for Scottish culture, interests or society.

Harold Wilson local school, scholarship to Oxford
James Callaghan. Local school didn't attend university
Margaret Thatcher. Local school, won scholarship to Oxford
John Major, local school didn't attend university
Tony Blair. Fettes school, then Oxford
Gordon Brown, local school, Edinburgh university
David Cameron, Eton and Oxford.

So four if the last seven prime ministers went to Oxford,which considering it is one of the leading universities in the world, is no surprise it's graduates have successfully careers.

The two there with a posh education are Cameron and Blair. I agree Cameron may have trouble relating to the Scots, but the number of votes the Blair government received in Scotland, I'd suggest they liked him.

Care to amend your comments?

swimming in a sea

ThomasFlynn wrote: »

I'm reading some British forums at this moment in time, and some (not all of course) of the Scottish unionist posters on there are making very clear they don't like Irish catholics or their descendant's living in Scotland at this moment in time and some of them appear to be blaming catholics in Scotland for inflating the Yes vote.

Funny that I have some relatives in Edinburgh of Irish descent and they are all voting no, partially influenced by anti-Irish people they are aware of are all so much in favour of a Yes Vote.

So its not all cut and dry which side people fall into.

Muahahaha

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Care to amend your comments?

Why would I care to amend my comments. Sure all you've done is cherry picked the last 7 PMs because it suits your point of view. Why cherry pick 7 and not look at all 54 ? Because that doesnt suit the uncomfortable facts. I'm still not even sure what point you're trying to make by saying only four of the last 7 PMs went to Oxford, sure that is still some 60% of the last 7 PMs coming from the one university out of some 170 universities in the UK. Fair enough, 60% might be below the historical average of 75% but heh, if Boris becomes PM the average for the last 8 PMs will be up to close on 65% went to Oxbridge.

So if you want to keep burying your head in the sand on this then do, hell go dig out the peer reviewed academic research on the topic of class, privledge and British leaders and chancellors and then go debate it with the academics who wrote it and then when they tell you how wrong you are go debate it with the academics who peer reviewed it who'll also point out much of the facts I've outlied here, except their facts go even deeper and they can trace all kinds of educational linkages to the upper levels of the British Civil Services, Home Offices, Foreign Offices, the more you look into it the more inbred it becomes.

Facts are the UK as a society is structured in such a way that means all citizens are not created equal. Many people, including myself, disagree with that on a fundamental level. I don't claim that a republic is any sort of utopia, far from it. But at least in a republic you start out with the aim of creating a just society where all citizens are to be afforded the same opportunity, from education and beyond. Now if the citizens of that republic vote in politicans who go about making that society unequal then that's the folly of the electorate. But under a constitutional monarchy the electorate never even got to make that choice because a Royal family and bunch of aristocrats and ruling classes deemed themselves to be more equal that other citizens.

None of that sits well, not just with Scottish people, go ask anyone the thought experiment I posed earlier in this thread, ask them given the choice would they choose a society that is designed to be structurally unequal or one that is designed to be structurally equal. 99% will choose the equal society, the 1% who dont are the monarchists, aristrocrats and ruling classes of the UK because inequality is what protects their very social status and privilege. Many Scottish people are well aware of this and the polls are reflecting it through the appetite for change.

EunanMac

Don't be under the illusion that Ireland doesn't have a version of the same system.
It's largely who you know, not what you know, and always has been.

Fratton Fred

I picked the last seven because 40 years seemed like a reasonable time frame.

I stated that any one can be prime minister, the history of the last forty years shows that to be true.

The only possible argument is that, in the UK, there is a preference for prime ministers to be well educated, not just related to someone who fought on a particular side in a civil war.

Parliament and the monarchy are no more than symbolically connected, the power is with parliament and this represents the UK well. Take a look at the different races, creeds and back grounds of its members. You might also want to take a look at the big statue of Cromwell outside Westminster as well, which is there as a gentle reminder to the monarchy as to what happens when you cross them.

SharpshooterTom

swimming in a sea wrote: »

Funny that I have some relatives in Edinburgh of Irish descent and they are all voting no, partially influenced by anti-Irish people they are aware of are all so much in favour of a Yes Vote.

So its not all cut and dry which side people fall into.

Its interesting you say that, George Galloway is a unionist (which is a bit odd given his grievances with British colonialism) but I think some his reasoning is that he fears Catholics will face increased prejudice in an independent Scotland, which I thought was a bit odd, but what you've said isn't the first time I've heard Scots of Irish backgrounds voting no for reasons like that. Hmm.

Donkey Oaty

Oxford or Cambridge, both the educational institutes of choice for the British aristocracy and upper classes

They're also the educational institutes of choice for Marxist revolutionaries.

eeepaulo

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Parliament and the monarchy are no more than symbolically connected, the power is with parliament and this represents the UK well. Take a look at the different races, creeds and back grounds of its members. You might also want to take a look at the big statue of Cromwell outside Westminster as well, which is there as a gentle reminder to the monarchy as to what happens when you cross them.

I think this is true of the queen, she just keeps her mouth shut and waves, but people like prince charles? he thinks he should have an opinion.

sorry, from the daily mail -

When the young Cameron was due to attend a job interview at Conservative Central Office, a phone call was received from Buckingham Palace. "I understand you are to see David Cameron," said the caller. "I am ringing to tell you that you are about to meet a truly remarkable young man."

It has been speculated that the mystery call was from Captain Sir Alastair Aird, Equerry to the Queen Mother and husband of Cameron's godmother. The Airds vigorously denied it.

Others have suggested the caller might have been Sir Brian McGrath, a family friend who was private secretary to Prince Philip. But he, too, though named as a referee for the job, denies it firmly.

No matter - the tale provides an illuminating insight into the family's enviable social standing, and how the ambitious Cameron was helped by well-placed friends and family.

Hoop66

Muahahaha wrote: »

...upper levels of the British Civil Services, Home Offices, Foreign Offices...

And this is where the real power lies. And look at where they went to school/university.

You want to be famous? Be a politician. You want to have real power? Civil service, every time.

Politicians get voted out, but it's the same people who actually hold the reins no matter who the public face of the government is. And it's much the same in Ireland.

spiralism

Stinicker wrote: »

Who cares about them bigots, the undeniable reality is the day is moving ever closer when both Scotland will be independent and Ireland will be united. Protestant birthrate decline ensure this is a certainty, so those Unionist bigots should really be making love and not spouting hate and wanting war if they are to ever have a chance of survival. I hope Soctland votes Yes and even if they don't it is a total inevitability that they will go Independent anyway.

If Alex Salmond and his party had any balls they should unequivocally declared Independence without a referendum, their party won a majority of the vote and their main sole aim is to bring about an Independent Scotland.

Poblacht na hÉireann was declared in 1919 and the British occupying forces then declared war on this state. I hardly this Cameron would declare war on Scotland and the SNP have a duty to the Scottish break free from the UK, whether it be by Referendum or otherwise. The Scottish referendum is already shambolic in that the occupying forces and leaders of the UK have consistently interfered with threats in an affront to the Scottish people.

The days of the UK are ticking down and Scotland will be free and Ireland united and free.

The sad reality is that the opposite is much more likely to be true. The closer it gets the more they'll kick off and whenever it eventually reaches a stage where a majority would consent to reunification they'll start a civil war that would make the troubles look comparatively mild over it. The closer we get to a catholic majority, the worse they'll get.

This is one issue people fail to bring up in that instance, they have always had a persecution complex, even 50 years ago with a large majority when they denied the catholic community basic civil rights in order to keep them down.. Ever since they've been treated better than second class citizens, those bigots have kicked off regularly over any attempt to treat them equally and still do. What do you imagine will happen once they're in an actual minority?

Donkey Oaty

Really big movement on the BetFair exchange today towards a No vote, which the commentators don't seem to have picked up on.

The current back/lays are: YES 4.8/5, NO 1.25/1.26.

A Dub in Glasgo

ThomasFlynn wrote: »

Its interesting you say that, George Galloway is a unionist (which is a bit odd given his grievances with British colonialism) but I think some his reasoning is that he fears Catholics will face increased prejudice in an independent Scotland, which I thought was a bit odd, but what you've said isn't the first time I've heard Scots of Irish backgrounds voting no for reasons like that. Hmm.

I have not really heard that this is a major problem. I think GG is out of step and as MP for an English constituency, he might be more concerned about his job as Labour will surely put more effort into unseating him if they lose all the Scottish MP's if independence happens.

eeepaulo

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

Really big movement on the BetFair exchange today towards a No vote, which the commentators don't seem to have picked up on.

The current back/lays are: YES 4.8/5, NO 1.25/1.26.

Thats probably alex salmond putting a couple billion on 'no'

If it comes in 'yes' he can not pay the debt, win win

Muahahaha

Muahahaha wrote: »

Why would I care to amend my comments. Sure all you've done is cherry picked the last 7 PMs because it suits your point of view. Why cherry pick 7 and not look at all 54 ? Because that doesnt suit the uncomfortable facts. I'm still not even sure what point you're trying to make by saying only four of the last 7 PMs went to Oxford, sure that is still some 60% of the last 7 PMs coming from the one university out of some 170 universities in the UK. Fair enough, 60% might be below the historical average of 75% but heh, if Boris becomes PM the average for the last 8 PMs will be up to close on 65% went to Oxbridge.

So if you want to keep burying your head in the sand on this then do, hell go dig out the peer reviewed academic research on the topic of class, privledge and British leaders and chancellors and then go debate it with the academics who wrote it and then when they tell you how wrong you are go debate it with the academics who peer reviewed it who'll also point out much of the facts I've outlied here, except their facts go even deeper and they can trace all kinds of educational linkages to the upper levels of the British Civil Services, Home Offices, Foreign Offices, the more you look into it the more inbred it becomes.

Facts are the UK as a society is structured in such a way that means all citizens are not created equal. Many people, including myself, disagree with that on a fundamental level. I don't claim that a republic is any sort of utopia, far from it. But at least in a republic you start out with the aim of creating a just society where all citizens are to be afforded the same opportunity, from education and beyond. Now if the citizens of that republic vote in politicans who go about making that society unequal then that's the folly of the electorate. But under a constitutional monarchy the electorate never even got to make that choice because a Royal family and bunch of aristocrats and ruling classes deemed themselves to be more equal that other citizens.

None of that sits well, not just with Scottish people, go ask anyone the thought experiment I posed earlier in this thread, ask them given the choice would they choose a society that is designed to be structurally unequal or one that is designed to be structurally equal. 99% will choose the equal society, the 1% who dont are the monarchists, aristrocrats and ruling classes of the UK because inequality is what protects their very social status and privilege. Many Scottish people are well aware of this and the polls are reflecting it through the appetite for change.

A few things:

1. The significant majority of those Prime Ministers who went to Eton served before universal suffrage and so are totally irrelevant to the conversation. Sure most of them were "prime minister" of Ireland as well, you might as well use the same logic to say if you want to be taoiseach go to Eton...
2. It's perfectly valid to look at the last 50 or so years as being a better reflection on what things are like NOW. And in the last 50 years, one prime minister went to Eton. One too many if you ask me, but so be it. It's their vote, not ours.
3. The Oxbridge thing - it is where 'clever' people go to college in England. Yes, it is very well connected and it certainly helps if you go there I am sure, but your idea that you cannot get in unless you are a toff is nonsense - although since the end of the grammar schools it is probably harder.
4. If you really think they don't have public schools, landed gentry and a class system in Scotland, you are a fool. Sorry to be so blunt, but this fantasy that somehow an independent scotland is about to become a people's republic is just that.
5. Lastly, if one side of the debate insists (fairly I think) that 'it's not about Salmond', then the reverse should apply: 'it's not about Cameron'. You can guarantee - and I mean guarantee - that this vote would never be so close under Gordon Brown for example.

magma69

The West Brits can rest easy. There's no way the Scottish will vote Yes. Almost all the undecided ones will go and vote No on the day. It's such an easier option for them than delving into the unknown. It's great to see proper democracy in action though.

seamus

I think whatever way this referendum goes, the fact that the vote is so close, it will trigger a movement in other small "states" like NI, Catalonia, etc.

It's not necessarily in seeing what others achieve that inspires people to say "me too", but rather in seeing what others attempt.

That is, "If Scotland can get such a close result, maybe we could actually win it".

Interesting times coming up for these islands and the EU in general.

A Dub in Glasgo

Some terrible scaremongering going on in the media about the movement of some companies headquarters if there is a Yes vote

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Some terrible scaremongering going on in the media about the movement of some companies headquarters if there is a Yes vote

When exactly did pointing out what is going to happen become 'scaremongering'?

It's an absolute certainty this will happen with independence. It appears every time the No camp question what the plan is around some pretty fundamental stuff, the Yes response is 'scaremongering'.

When UKIP get their EU referendum are you going to accuse the no camp of 'scaremongering' if they point out that leaving will cause companies to relocate elsewhere?

porsche959

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Some terrible scaremongering going on in the media about the movement of some companies headquarters if there is a Yes vote

The head of the massive fund manager Aberdeen has said he personally plans to vote Yes, while RBS have clarified that moving their HQ to London would mean very few if any job losses.

It is, as you say, mainly scaremongering from likes of BBC and not coming from the companies themselves for the most part.

porsche959

Deleted User wrote: »

When exactly did pointing out what is going to happen become 'scaremongering'?

It's an absolute certainty this will happen with independence. It appears every time the No camp question what the plan is around some pretty fundamental stuff, the Yes response is 'scaremongering'.

When UKIP get their EU referendum are you going to accuse the no camp of 'scaremongering' if they point out that leaving will cause companies to relocate elsewhere?

IMO it is indeed scaremongering pure and simple, reason being that HQ of a bank just means where their registered office is denominated, has very little implications for numbers they employ.

IFSC in Dublin have many bank headquarters that actually employ feck all staff there.

eeepaulo

http://www.digitallook.com/news/rns/22036119-10068/RBS-Scottish_Referendum_html



The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc
11 September 2014

SCOTTISH REFERENDUM

In response to press speculation in relation to re-domicile, The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc ("RBS") confirms that, as set out in the risk disclosures in RBS's Annual Report, there are a number of material uncertainties arising from the Scottish referendum vote which could have a bearing on the Bank's credit ratings, and the fiscal, monetary, legal and regulatory landscape to which it is subject. For this reason, RBS has undertaken contingency planning for the possible business implications of a 'Yes' vote. RBS believes that this is the responsible and prudent thing to do and something that its customers, staff and shareholders would expect it to do.

As part of such contingency planning, RBS believes that it would be necessary to re-domicile the Bank's holding company and its primary rated operating entity (The Royal Bank of Scotland plc) to England. In the event of a 'Yes' vote, the decision to re-domicile should have no impact on everyday banking services used by our customers throughout the British Isles. However, RBS believes that it would be the most effective way to provide clarity to all our stakeholders and mitigate the risks previously identified in our Annual Report.

The vote on independence is a matter for the Scottish people. Scotland has been RBS's home since 1727. RBS intends to retain a significant level of its operations and employment in Scotland to support its customers there and the activities of the whole Bank.


For further information contact:-
Group Media Relations - +44(0)131 523 4205
Investor Relations - +44 (0) 20 7672 1758

Barely There

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Some terrible scaremongering going on in the media about the movement of some companies headquarters if there is a Yes vote

How do you know it's not true?

porsche959

Muahahaha wrote: »

Yeah but why are you depending on John Major as an outlier.

If John Major is an outlier, then, equally, so is David Cameron in the other direction.

Orinoco's post addresses the rest of your points.

kefir32

Bye bye current UK, hello federal United Kingdom. Big constitutional change in the event of a no...... It's a certainty in my opinion

porsche959

magma69 wrote: »

The West Brits can rest easy.

Odd expression to use considering many that have commented in this thread are actual Scottish people, some of whom favour Yes side, others the No side.

porsche959

kefir32 wrote: »

Bye bye current UK, hello federal United Kingdom. Big constitutional change in the event of a no...... It's a certainty in my opinion

I am starting to think the Nos will hedge it on the day but Cameron will concede so much might as well be Yes!

seamus

kefir32 wrote: »

Bye bye current UK, hello federal United Kingdom. Big constitutional change in the event of a no...... It's a certainty in my opinion

That's a better halfway house for the Scottish to be fair. Seems kind of win-win either way.