Scottish Independence discussion area

joseph brand

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

The barrel being well and truly scraped



'Former prime minister Tony Blair has urged voters in Scotland to opt for staying in the UK'

Can't argue with that. :rolleyes:

I wonder has his wife fiddled any charities lately.

Nodin

First Up wrote: »

I guess "fearmongering" is any fact or opinion you don't like.
What's the opposite - "dreammongering"?

Ahh yes, that's the kind of thing. Scream "What about Badgers? They'll turn cannibal" and scream "DOOOOOOOM!" over anyone trying to answer, while somebody else throws in another apocalyptic scenario.

35cent

Whenever I hear accusations of scaremongering, it just translates to 'we have no argument against that statement' for me. I hope the electorate take heed of these warning instead of dismissing them as 'scaremongering'.

joseph brand

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

Would you accept that many of the people who will be voting in the referendum do not see the above group of people as having their particular interests at heart?

What are you getting at? Those offshore bank accounts and corporate tax loopholes ,to name a few, are just conspiracy theories. Like the staged Moon Landing and Eskimos, they're just fantasy.

Donkey Oaty

It's now a simple choice between:

1) A protest vote against the current UK government ("They don't like it up 'em!)

2) A grim depression in the economy ("We're doomed!")

3) An overstated grim depression in the economy that can be dealt with ("Don't panic!")

4) Devo Max without a real vote for Scotland or plans for similar devolution plans in the rest of the UK ("Is that wise, sir?")

5) An inquiry into whether any Scottish Nationalist other than Alex Salmond or Nicola Sturgeon has a fish-based surname. ("Don't tell him, Pike!")

Copyright Donkey Oaty Dad's Army Rip-Offs 2014 All Rights Reserved

LincolnsBeard

joseph brand wrote: »

Her Royal Highness of Majesty, The Queen of England is keeping shtum, while she Queens from her Scottish pad (Balmoral). I'm not sure about the rest of them.

Nigel Farage of UKIP fame has taken a break from demonising gays and all non-whites to call on her most gracious and majestic excellency to speak out. There are fears that she has become reclusive, and doesn't want to speak to anybody. Some reports are saying that she won't wear her crown, she keeps hiding it about the vast palace. The help have employed sniffer dogs on several occasions to hunt down the precious crown, but I digress.

Maybe Farage can join forces with those other stalwarts of national pride the BNP and crush the uppity Scots.

However, I do wonder why Farage would be against a nation looking towards independence when he has been most vocal on the UK leaving Europe? It's not like he's a bigoted, racist hypocrite. Is it?

When you run out of things to say, you can always try crying racism.

A Dub in Glasgo

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

It's now a simple choice between:

1) A protest vote against the current UK government ("They don't like it up 'em!)

2) A grim depression in the economy ("We're doomed!")

3) An overstated grim depression in the economy that can be dealt with ("Don't panic!")

4) Devo Max without a real vote for Scotland or plans for similar devolution plans in the rest of the UK ("Is that wise, sir?")

5) An inquiry into whether any Scottish Nationalist other than Alex Salmond or Nicola Sturgeon has a fish-based surname. ("Don't tell him, Pike!")

Copyright Donkey Oaty Dad's Army Rip-Offs 2014 All Rights Reserved

Whatever about the rest, Devo Max is not on the agenda

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92173610&postcount=1352

Piliger

35cent wrote: »

Whenever I hear accusations of scaremongering, it just translates to 'we have no argument against that statement' for me. I hope the electorate take heed of these warning instead of dismissing them as 'scaremongering'.

So when you have no evidence, just pile in with more scare mongering.

Fratton Fred

joseph brand wrote: »

Her Royal Highness of Majesty, The Queen of England is keeping shtum, while she Queens from her Scottish pad (Balmoral). I'm not sure about the rest of them.

I think you mean HRH Queen Elizabeth 1st of Scotland.

kingchess

well,Scotland will not be able to watch the BBC if they vote yes.or so I heard.

kingchess

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I think you mean HRH Queen Elizabeth 1st of Scotland.

why then is she always called Elizabeth the second ??i

A Dub in Glasgo

ICM poll for tomorrow's Sunday Telegraph puts Yes at 54% and No at 46% excluding Don't Knows

on the river

kingchess wrote: »

why then is she always called Elizabeth the second ??i

Queen of Scots.

A Dub in Glasgo

kingchess wrote: »

why then is she always called Elizabeth the second ??i

because she is the 2nd Queen Elizabeth in England and most people equate England to mean the UK therefore she is known as QE 2nd

eeepaulo

kingchess wrote: »

well,Scotland will not be able to watch the BBC if they vote yes.or so I heard.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3J66YAvWK3s

Skip to 1:35

This made me laugh on newsnight the other night

I think he is kidding

Smiles35

kingchess wrote: »

well,Scotland will not be able to watch the BBC if they vote yes.or so I heard.

And now the weather....

North.

South. SCORCHIO

snubbleste

What other dirty tricks does the London government have up it's sleeve to get a No ?

kingchess

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

because she is the 2nd Queen Elizabeth in England and most people equate England to mean the UK therefore she is known as QE 2nd

yes I know-that was my point,most people equate England to the UK.I suppose with the bulk of the population,seat of Government etc it is understandable.

My name is URL

kingchess wrote: »

well,Scotland will not be able to watch the BBC if they vote yes.or so I heard.

That has to be bullcrap. Shur you can watch it here in Ireland no bother

They might do away with their Scottish division, BBC Alba.. but that would be the height of it. I doubt they'd even do that tbh.

EunanMac

snubbleste wrote: »

What other dirty tricks does the London government have up it's sleeve to get a No ?

Expect them to try their last desperate smear attempts this week.
They have nothing but negativity to add to the debate.

EunanMac

kingchess wrote: »

well,Scotland will not be able to watch the BBC if they vote yes.or so I heard.

I heard they can come to Ireland to watch it

tiger55

The SNP have promised they will join the EU and NATO asap.

So they will be ruled by Brussels, and be a member of a global terror network.

tiger55

kingchess wrote: »

well,Scotland will not be able to watch the BBC if they vote yes.or so I heard.

You can watch the BBC in Holland. Can you get it in Ireland?

eeepaulo

tiger55 wrote: »

You can watch the BBC in Holland. Can you get it in Ireland?

Yes we all use the same satelitte

35cent

Piliger wrote: »

So when you have no evidence, just pile in with more scare mongering.

Several large companies and financial institutions detailing the possible outcomes of an independent Scotland should be listened to instead of ignored surely. I'm not saying everything they say will come to pass but dismissing their comments entirely seems unwise to me.

kingchess

EunanMac wrote: »

I heard they can come to Ireland to watch it

no-not with the Border checkpoints and passport controls:D

Iwasfrozen

kingchess wrote: »

why then is she always called Elizabeth the second ??i

She's Queen Elizabeth the second of England and Queen Elizabeth the first of Scotland.

A Dub in Glasgo

It appears that the BBC has banned the Proclaimers song 'Cap in Hand' from their 1988 Sunshine on Leith album. There was a campaign to get the song into the charts this week

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gApwpSWAhbQ

A Dub in Glasgo

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

She's Queen Elizabeth the second of England and Queen Elizabeth the first of Scotland.

Therefore QE 1st of the UK

Iwasfrozen

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Therefore QE 1st of the UK

No such thing. The UK is a union of three kingdoms, which you already know.

EunanMac

kingchess wrote: »

no-not with the Border checkpoints and passport controls:D

You don't need them to go to england, and never did

snubbleste

Eh, she'll be Queen Elizabeth II of Scotland..same as she is Queen Elizabeth II of Canada

A Dub in Glasgo

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No such thing. The UK is a union of three kingdoms, which you already know.

I do know that so what are the Daily Telegraph saying here

Iwasfrozen

I think the American model would work well going forward within the UK, have four separate parliaments for the four historic regions and Westminster acting as the federal parliament.

Of course this would require a formal constitution be drafted but I don't believe that would be such a bad thing. It would strengthen the Union in the long term.

Wurzelbert

35cent wrote: »

Several large companies and financial institutions detailing the possible outcomes of an independent Scotland should be listened to instead of ignored surely. I'm not saying everything they say will come to pass but dismissing their comments entirely seems unwise to me.

the right of nations to self-determination far outweighs any economic considerations…for example germany would never have re-united purely by economic logic…
i think that, should scotland actually become independent again, future generations of scots would see september 18th 2014 as scotland’s finest hour…

Iwasfrozen

Wurzelbert wrote: »

the right of nations to self-determination far outweighs any economic considerations…for example germany would never have re-united purely by economic logic…
i think that, should scotland actually become independent again, future generations of scots would see september 18th 2014 as scotland’s finest hour…

Does it though?

In the US it is illegal for a state to secede from the Union. Should this referendum fail a similar constitution could be drafted for the UK to strengthen the Union and remove the possibility of something like this happening again.

Fratton Fred

Wurzelbert wrote: »

the right of nations to self-determination far outweighs any economic considerations…for example germany would never have re-united purely by economic logic…
i think that, should scotland actually become independent again, future generations of scots would see september 18th 2014 as scotland’s finest hour…

And if the people of that nation determine that their future is best as part of a union?

kingchess

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No such thing. The UK is a union of three kingdoms, which you already know.

poor Wales-never gets any recognition.

Iwasfrozen

kingchess wrote: »

poor Wales-never gets any recognition.

Wales isn't a kingdom. It's a principality.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Does it though?

In the US it is illegal for a state to secede from the Union. Should this referendum fail a similar constitution could be drafted for the UK to strengthen the Union and remove the possibility of something like this happening again.

And what happens then if Texas for example declares independence.If they declare they are no longer part of the USA then surely the laws of the USA no longer apply to a state that has decided to break from the union.

Madam

Fratton Fred wrote: »

And if the people of that nation determine that their future is best as part of a union?

No doubt us the yes voters would be magnanimous in defeat - not so sure the same will be said of the no's:-)

tiger55

The 1st king on the UK was Scottish BTW

Wurzelbert

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Does it though?

In the US it is illegal for a state to secede from the Union. Should this referendum fail a similar constitution could be drafted for the UK to strengthen the Union and remove the possibility of something like this happening again.

yeah, the us had its share of that in 1861/65, but there are no nations as such (in the european sense) in the us, though i’d like to see texas go for it again…and once a people rises up, a constitution is worth less than the paper it’s written on…or do you think that for example east germany had its own failure and dissolution anchored in its constitution…?!

Wurzelbert

Fratton Fred wrote: »

And if the people of that nation determine that their future is best as part of a union?

then so be it…

Iwasfrozen

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

And what happens then if Texas for example declares independence.If they declare they are no longer part of the USA then surely the laws of the USA no longer apply to a state that has decided to break from the union.

It's a legal grey area but there is a very interesting court case involving Texas post-civil war that stated Texas never legally left the union and has been a member ever since it joined.

In that precedence it's widely accepted that succession by any state is simply illegal, there is no mechanic by which it can be done.

A Dub in Glasgo

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Wales isn't a kingdom. It's a principality.

Well actually neither is NI which leaves 2

Iwasfrozen

Wurzelbert wrote: »

yeah, the us had its share of that in 1861/65, but there are no nations as such (in the european sense) in the us, though i’d like to see texas go for it again…and once a people rises up, a constitution is worth less than the paper it’s written on…or do you think that for example east germany had its own failure and dissolution anchored in its constitution…?!

The South rose prior to the civil war and the constitution of the US turned out to be worth a lot more than the paper it's written on. But that's the thing about constitutions, they provide stability because when you write a constitution you lay out what can and can't be done within the Union and suddenly you have a lot of men with guns who are ready to enforce the word of the constitution.

As for East Germany, desire for unification with the West was far from universal so it's a bit deceptive to say the people rose up.

Iwasfrozen

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Well actually neither is NI which leaves 2

It is. Northern Ireland is included in the Queen's title.

Wurzelbert

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

[...]
As for East Germany, desire for unification with the West was far from universal so it's a bit deceptive to say the people rose up.

more than enough of the east germans did…and thank god, odin or whoever for that…

A Dub in Glasgo

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It is. Northern Ireland is included in the Queen's title.

makey uppy stuff

Did you not want to comment on that Daily Telegraph article?