Scottish Independence yea or nay

feargale

DarkyHughes wrote: »

No, I believe Ireland the island should be one country & Britain the island should be one countrie.

But if the people of Ireland voted to rejoin the UK I'd support that ( the Tories should suit us were such a conservative country) right, but they voted for complete independence & had their government overthrown by a Free State military coup.

Elaborate please.

DarkyHughes

feargale wrote: »

Elaborate please.

A deal was struck by a small group of representatives of Dail Eireann (including Mr.Griffith the man who supported the bosses during the lockout) to oust the existing Republican government. The Irish people were given a choice between this deal & a terrible war, so that their mind were already made up for them befor e they went to the polls. Basically like marching a voter down to the polls & saying "vote this way or i'll blow your head off". The new alliance of Britain & thee Free State moved quickly against all things republicans while the anti-Treaty republicans, instead of immediately going on the offensive against the neo-colonial Treatyites (who by this stage were equipped heavily & hastily with heavy British weaponry) , dithered and attempted to do deals with them to reunite the movement were crushed quickly & the farmers & workers who seized land & factories had them quickly taken back of them by the new fairly brutal it has to be said "National" army.
Britain didn't protest in 1937 as the new constitution was very conservative unlike the 1919 one which was very red which terrified the ruling classes as there was a great deal of political unrest in Britain itself during the 1918 - 22 period after the war like in Italy & Germany.

I compare it to Franco in Spain getting help from Mussolini to overthrow the Republican government their, it was done much more covertly tho in Ireland.

We could be here for days debating this issue tho & will probably go miles of topic never agree.

The Corinthian

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Ah but you see self-determination comes first.

Ah, but you see, you didn't actually say that. Even if you had, it doesn't explain how being an island should make a single country.

So are you going to explain your logic or are you going to evade doing so a bit longer?

Iwasfrozen

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Ah but you see self-determination comes first. And you see if Scotland voted for independence then that would have to be respected. And if Haiti & DR voted for unity that would have to be respected. But it was not respected here in 1918 & in that lies the fundamental problem you see.

Most people in the area that was to become northern Ireland wanted to remain in the UK.

If Hispaniola can split up then why can't Ireland?

DarkyHughes

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Most people in the area that was to become northern Ireland wanted to remain in the UK.

If Hispaniola can split up then why can't Ireland?

Well there was Unionist dominated towns in Southern Ireland why not give them a state?

Actually I hate the current Fianna Gael government give me my own state. Stop taking taking my rights away from me God damn it.

Iwasfrozen

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Well there was Unionist dominated towns in Southern Ireland why not give them a state?

Actually I hate the current Fianna Gael government give me my own state. Stop taking taking my rights away from me God damn it.

Because a town or a house does not have sufficient land or population to be an economically viable independent state.

But the United Kingdom does and the majority of people in the north eastern part of this island rejected independence.

That's democracy and self determination at work, just because you disagree with a decision doesn't mean it isn't democratic.

The Corinthian

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

If Hispaniola can split up then why can't Ireland?

Assuming some basic level of consistency, Hispaniola shouldn't be split up, according to DarkyHughes, because it's an island. Why this should be the case, is down to some secret magical reason that DarkyHughes is unlikely to want to share with us muggles.

nuac

Back to the topic.

Any news of the various polls on this, and any views on the outcome?

Iwasfrozen

The Corinthian wrote: »

Assuming some basic level of consistency, Hispaniola shouldn't be split up, according to DarkyHughes, because it's an island. Why this should be the case, is down to some secret magical reason that DarkyHughes is unlikely to want to share with us muggles.

Don't assume consistency, I doubt DarkyHuges would support Afro-Eurasian union...

btw that would be awesome.

DarkyHughes

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Because a town or a house does not have sufficient land or population to be an economically viable independent state.

But the United Kingdom does and the majority of people in the north eastern part of this island rejected independence.

That's democracy and self determination at work, just because you disagree with a decision doesn't mean it isn't democratic.

So you think the Nazi's were justified in annexing Czechoslovakia, Austria & the Rhineland (which together is a couple of more million than in the North) because it had large majorities of Germans in them. Hmmmmm interesting.

Plus Liechtenstein are doing alright for themselves the last time I checked.

The Corinthian

DarkyHughes wrote: »

So you think the Nazi's were justified in annexing Czechoslovakia, Austria & the Rhineland (which together is a couple of more million than in the North) because it had large majorities of Germans in them. Hmmmmm interesting.

Would they have been if they were on the same island?

DarkyHughes

The Corinthian wrote: »

Would they have been if they were on the same island?

Well these are the age old questions that have plagued professors of linguists for centuries now.

I mean there was nothing wrong with Slovakia or Austria, the Northern Ireland state however was described a by a British conservative MP (forget his name he's in that Pete Taylor series Provos) as a form of Tyranny.

Must really p!ss you guys that Republicans finally did get some say in how the North should be governed huh?

The Corinthian

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Well these are the age old questions that have plagued professors of linguists for centuries now.

Nah. I doubt that any professors of any description were ever stupid enough to believe that simply being an island conferred any automatic obligation to nationhood.

So are you going to address that point, or would you prefer to underline your inability to defend your convictions a little longer?

DarkyHughes

The Corinthian wrote: »

Nah. I doubt that any professors of any description were ever stupid enough to believe that simply being an island conferred any automatic obligation to nationhood.

So are you going to address that point, or would you prefer to underline your inability to defend your convictions a little longer?

Well if the majority of the people on that island want to be a nation than yes.

I wonder do they threat the rest of the citizens of the UK in England , Scotland & Wales like this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CU1WN7-u7ZE

I doubt it very much because Britain has always itself regarded all of Ireland as foreign & a colonial position.

And Britain has been trying to get of the North since the 70's if you read the 71 & 72 cabinet papers you'll see that.

The Corinthian

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Well if the majority of the people on that island want to be a nation than yes.

And what does that have to do with being an island? Couldn't one argue the same that majority of the people on the peninsula of Iberia wanted to be a nation? What you actually said was:

DarkyHughes wrote: »

No, I believe Ireland the island should be one country & Britain the island should be one countrie.

Didn't see anything about majorities in that post. Or self-determination. Just islands.

So, what's the big deal with being an island? It's not about self-determination, because you don't need an island for that. How about a straight answer?

Richard

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Well if the majority of the people on that island want to be a nation than yes.

Does that apply to continents too? If the majority of the population on North America wanted to be one country should they be one country? Even if tbe majority if Mexicans and Canadians didn't?

I doubt it very much because Britain has always itself regarded all of Ireland as foreign & a colonial position.

If that was the case then there wouldn't have been Irish constituencies at Westminster.

And Britain has been trying to get of the North since the 70's if you read the 71 & 72 cabinet papers you'll see that.

Obviously people in the British government will have had that view but certainly the current government don't seem to want to rid themselves of NI. Also the UK Labour Party ditched it's "Irish Unity by consent" policy some years ago.

Richard

DarkyHughes wrote: »

So you think the Nazi's were justified in annexing Czechoslovakia, Austria & the Rhineland (which together is a couple of more million than in the North) because it had large majorities of Germans in them. Hmmmmm interesting.

He obviously doesn't think that.
If the UK annexed part of Donegal or the republic of Ireland annexed Derry city, both would be wrong.

If there was a United Ireland (brought about by consent) then the UK re-annexed NI that's be wrong too.

But NI rejecting a United Ireland is nothing like the Nazis invading Czechoslovakia. Obviously.

tbradman

This thread started as an interesting question from bpb101 about the forthcoming Scottish referendum.

It has now descended into an Irish version of Godwin’s law about a united 32 county Ireland, and as such is now quite worthless (apologies to the OP). I call on the moderators to close this thread.

I have also noticed a distinct lack of ability to analyse an event in another country (Scotland, Ukraine, Gaza, Israel, etc) without referencing it to Irish history and how unfair it all turned out. If people want to talk about a 32 county Ireland, could they please start a separate thread and leave discussions on foreign affairs to those who are interested in it?

Bepolite

It's interesting to note that Scotland voted for the Union after all that had gone before it in part due to the fact that it had essentially had a massive banking collapse and was broke.

I remeber thread here talking about were we too poor to go it alone and the myriad of threads about us paying to HM Treasury in relation to shopping across the border.

There really isn't anything new under the Sun is there. :pac:

The Corinthian

tbradman wrote: »

It has now descended into an Irish version of Godwin’s law about a united 32 county Ireland, and as such is now quite worthless (apologies to the OP).

Has it become about a united 32 county Ireland? For me it's about what constitutes a nation, any nation, and the daft criteria for this some come up with because it supports whatever ideology they follow and how they run away from any kind of critical analysis of said criteria.

A Dub in Glasgo

Our voting cards came today, hopefully it will be a high turnout. The polls at the weekend showed the gap narrowing even after the inept display from Salmond debating Darling on STV

A Dub in Glasgo

tbradman wrote: »

This thread started as an interesting question from bpb101 about the forthcoming Scottish referendum.

It has now descended into an Irish version of Godwin’s law about a united 32 county Ireland, and as such is now quite worthless (apologies to the OP). I call on the moderators to close this thread.

I have also noticed a distinct lack of ability to analyse an event in another country (Scotland, Ukraine, Gaza, Israel, etc) without referencing it to Irish history and how unfair it all turned out. If people want to talk about a 32 county Ireland, could they please start a separate thread and leave discussions on foreign affairs to those who are interested in it?

As someone in Australia, what is the Australian Prime Minister like? He came out with some crackers on the Scottish referendum recently

http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/9598-australian-pms-enemies-of-freedom-comments-slammed-as-offensive-to-scots

bpb101

tbradman wrote: »

This thread started as an interesting question from bpb101 about the forthcoming Scottish referendum.

It has now descended into an Irish version of Godwin’s law about a united 32 county Ireland, and as such is now quite worthless (apologies to the OP). I call on the moderators to close this thread.

I have also noticed a distinct lack of ability to analyse an event in another country (Scotland, Ukraine, Gaza, Israel, etc) without referencing it to Irish history and how unfair it all turned out. If people want to talk about a 32 county Ireland, could they please start a separate thread and leave discussions on foreign affairs to those who are interested in it?

yea , its got a bit out of control. i cant even follow it. there even talk about nazis .

lads this was a simple thread about do you thinks the Scots will have the ba**s to go Independence and if so , what % will say its a good idea.

please lads, keep it on topic. not trying to back seat mod here, but this isent a 32 county Ireland thread nor a thread about the past but rather the pros and cons of Independence for Scotland and wheater the pros will outweigh the cons for 50.01% of Scottish people over the age of 16

moving on. question. What impact will the 16 and 17 years olds being allowed to vote have on the outcome. And do you think they will have a high turn out(i know there is no way to officially know )

tbradman

The Corinthian wrote: »

Has it become about a united 32 county Ireland? For me it's about what constitutes a nation, any nation, and the daft criteria for this some come up with because it supports whatever ideology they follow and how they run away from any kind of critical analysis of said criteria.

Well the original thread was about Scottish nationhood or lack of... However some people seem unable to view or discuss anything outside of Ireland without referencing it to Ireland. In the process they tend to derail the whole debate. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with discussing Irish or any countries nationhood, but can't we have a separate thread for it? And lets keep the Nazis out of the debate too.

tbradman

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

As someone in Australia, what is the Australian Prime Minister like? He came out with some crackers on the Scottish referendum recently

Well before I answer, I have to be honest and say that I have no respect for Tony Abbott and to answer your question would take an entirely new thread! He makes George Bush look like a genius. His comments about "friends of justice and freedom" were greeted with bafflement in the press and I have yet to see any attempt at explaining them.

Google "28 second silence" to see another of his bizarre gaff's on YouTube.

tbradman

bpb101 wrote: »

yea , its got a bit out of control. i cant even follow it. there even talk about nazis .

lads this was a simple thread about do you thinks the Scots will have the ba**s to go Independence and if so , what % will say its a good idea.

please lads, keep it on topic. not trying to back seat mod here, but this isent a 32 county Ireland thread nor a thread about the past but rather the pros and cons of Independence for Scotland and wheater the pros will outweigh the cons for 50.01% of Scottish people over the age of 16

moving on. question. What impact will the 16 and 17 years olds being allowed to vote have on the outcome. And do you think they will have a high turn out(i know there is no way to officially know )

Well I had said it would be a No by 60%/40%. But I didn't realise that 16 and 17 year olds would be able to vote...

In most elections I think the 18 - 25 year age group tends to have the lowest turnout. But with 16-17 year olds still living at home and possibly being encouraged to vote at school, it could throw a wildcard into the vote. Obviously what they hear their parents say will have a lot of influence, but I'm still going to with a No vote, but maybe a lot closer than 60/40...

By the way, will Scottish TV be showing the movie Braveheart before the vote?

The Corinthian

tbradman wrote: »

Google "28 second silence" to see another of his bizarre gaff's on YouTube.

I suddenly don't feel quite as embarrassed about Berlusconi.

tbradman wrote: »

By the way, will Scottish TV be showing the movie Braveheart before the vote?

I see that this new series Outlander has also had a rather timely release.

bpb101

tbradman wrote: »

Well I had said it would be a No by 60%/40%. But I didn't realise that 16 and 17 year olds would be able to vote...

In most elections I think the 18 - 25 year age group tends to have the lowest turnout. But with 16-17 year olds still living at home and possibly being encouraged to vote at school, it could throw a wildcard into the vote. Obviously what they hear their parents say will have a lot of influence, but I'm still going to with a No vote, but maybe a lot closer than 60/40...

By the way, will Scottish TV be showing the movie Braveheart before the vote?

haha.. yea 16 & 17 years olds can vote. i would say they might get a biggish turnout(below adv though). If you can all remember your parent used to go over and vote together( not always of course) but still. if the family car is going over the 16 and 17 might go with them. They will be though the ones more liberal.

I would say older people and business people will be worried about pensions and their shops

OS119

from recall the polling orgs think that the younger voters - the 16-18's the SNP we so keen to get voting - will vote no, possibly in greater numbers than the rest of the population.

which, i will freely admit, is something of a surprise...

youGov, and another who's name i forget, over the weekend published either a poll or or an Op-Ed that suggests they think the race is getting tighter, and that Yes may get a result by the skin of their teeth - not, it must be stated, because there are more 'yes' than 'no', but because 'yes's are more likely to vote.

should be interesting...

GaelMise

tbradman wrote: »

I'm guessing it will be a No vote. After seeing a little bit of the Salmond/Darling debate, I felt Salmond was very weak.

His insistence that Scotland could keep the Pound and at the same time be independent of London was a very major contradiction that even the "friendlies" in the audience rejected. I think Salmond has lost it for the Yes vote.

Not really, we did it for quite a while after independance.

bpb101

GaelMise wrote: »

Not really, we did it for quite a while after independance.

What is for a lot of scots( from listening to debates) are worried about losing the pound. The UK are using this as a scare tactic. However if Scotland does become independent and gets the pound and does well for itself the welsh national party might gain some power

Fratton Fred

bpb101 wrote: »

What is for a lot of scots( from listening to debates) are worried about losing the pound. The UK are using this as a scare tactic. However if Scotland does become independent and gets the pound and does well for itself the welsh national party might gain some power

It's not scare tactics, it's a simple fact, if they use sterling then they have their financial policies controlled by the bank of England.

bpb101

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It's not scare tactics, it's a simple fact, if they use sterling then they have their financial policies controlled by the bank of England.

No, they(uk ) are saying you can't use the pound if they aren't in the uk.

Lemming

bpb101 wrote: »

No, they(uk ) are saying you can't use the pound if they aren't in the uk.

No, that's not what they've said. What they have actually said is that Scotland will have no say in governance of the pound Sterling, like latin american countries using the US dollar. Their economies (and by extension that of an independent Scotland if it choose to continue using Sterling) are at the mercy of another country.

A Dub in Glasgo

The UK Government & Labour have said there will be no sterling union

Frank Lee Midere

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

The UK Government & Labour have said there will be no sterling union

It's not up to them.

A Dub in Glasgo

It is in the event of independence although this all flies in the face of 'no negotiations before the referendum result' and the best interest of people of rUK if independence happens

Scotland as an independent country can use sterling as their own currency but not a union with the rUK as it stands

The Corinthian

Lemming wrote: »

Their economies (and by extension that of an independent Scotland if it choose to continue using Sterling) are at the mercy of another country.

Monetary policy, rather than economy. Another consequence of unilaterally adopting a currency is that you end up with a lot of tatty banknotes as anyone who's spent any time in places like Montenegro will testify.

Thing is that an independent Scotland would have to reapply to join the EU and this would probably mean a requirement to adopt the Euro.

Still can't see it all happening, on balance, though.

A Dub in Glasgo

Adam Smith Institute has issued a press release this morning saying An independent Scotland should use the pound without permission from rUK with an associated PDF report

It is not established as fact that Scotland would have to reapply to join the EU

The Corinthian

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

It is not established as fact that Scotland would have to reapply to join the EU

Now, it's pretty much established to be fair.

A Dub in Glasgo

That is his view, not policy or a decision. What is a fact is the UK Government refusing to ask the EU and put an end to the speculation

The Corinthian

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

That is his view, not policy or a decision.

Fair enough, but then if you came home and found your wife in bed naked with another man, that too would be inconclusive as you've not actually seen them doing the bold thing...

n-dawg

I'm glad to see this thread is back on track.

Like A Dub in Glasgow, I'm a Dub living in Glasgow and have been for 4 years. I'm going to vote yes for 4 reasons.

1) Generally I support the Green Party and they are campaigning for a yes vote

2) Currently UK citizens do not have the protection of a written constitution. Their only written human rights come from the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights which the Tories and UKIP would like the UK to pull out of. I actually find this quite scary (maybe I'm just being silly though) and feel that an independent Scotland would give its citizens and people who live/work there constitutional rights.

3) I do not like first past the post as a method of electing a parliament. It benefits the status quo and does not allow for a fair representation for minorities or small parties (Plus Gerrymandering is too easy). The Lib Dems attempted to change this 4 years ago but it failed. I can't see it changing in my lifetime unless I vote for independence.

4) I am discussed that the house of lords has even a small amount of say in my life. Meaningful reform of the house of lords will not happen as it benefits the big three parties in the UK way too much. Voting for independence is a way of removing their influence on my life.

Everything that is argued about in the press etc. to me is meaningless and will all change in negotiating after a yes vote. Scotland is a country full of intelligent, well educated, hard working people and in the long run will always be economically successful weather it stays with the UK or gains independence.

A Dub in Glasgo

The Corinthian wrote: »

Fair enough, but then if you came home and found your wife in bed naked with another man, that too would be inconclusive as you've not actually seen them doing the bold thing...

Is Barroso the other man or the wife?

tipptom

n-dawg wrote: »

I'm glad to see this thread is back on track.

Like A Dub in Glasgow, I'm a Dub living in Glasgow and have been for 4 years. I'm going to vote yes for 4 reasons.

1) Generally I support the Green Party and they are campaigning for a yes vote

2) Currently UK citizens do not have the protection of a written constitution. Their only written human rights come from the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights which the Tories and UKIP would like the UK to pull out of. I actually find this quite scary (maybe I'm just being silly though) and feel that an independent Scotland would give its citizens and people who live/work there constitutional rights.

3) I do not like first past the post as a method of electing a parliament. It benefits the status quo and does not allow for a fair representation for minorities or small parties (Plus Gerrymandering is too easy). The Lib Dems attempted to change this 4 years ago but it failed. I can't see it changing in my lifetime unless I vote for independence.

4) I am discussed that the house of lords has even a small amount of say in my life. Meaningful reform of the house of lords will not happen as it benefits the big three parties in the UK way too much. Voting for independence is a way of removing their influence on my life.

Everything that is argued about in the press etc. to me is meaningless and will all change in negotiating after a yes vote. Scotland is a country full of intelligent, well educated, hard working people and in the long run will always be economically successful weather it stays with the UK or gains independence.

Spot on,all the veiled threats will change considerably if they voted yes,which I don't think there is a cat in hells chance though.

Sam Russell

I have a number of questions the Scots should answer for themselves before they vote.

1. Why was Margaret Thatcher not popular in Sctotland? (If in doubt, ask a miner, or if you connot find one, ask a shipbuilder!)

2. Why was Scotland chosen as the test bed for the Pole Tax?

3. Why are Britains nuclear subs based in Scotland?

4. Now for the Pound. Did you know that £10,000 invested in Deutch Marks 50 years ago would currently be worth €65,000. (Just using the exhange rate of the time.) Currently, that is worth £52,000. So staying with the pound over the last 50 years has meant a devaluation with respect to the German currency of over 80%. Why is staying with the British currency considered important or even wise?

5. The British Government are saying that Scotland will be forced out of the EU if they vote yes. But if they vote no, there will be a referendum in two years time to exit the EU anyway. If the Tories and UKIP have their way, Scotland will be out of the EU whether they like it or not.

6. Politics and economics in Britain favour the South East of England and, in particular, the City of London. Why do the No people think that will benefit Scotland?

7. How many members of the current cabinet and parliament went to Eton and Oxford? How many members of the Scotish assembly went to either?

Having considered all these points, vote as you see fit.

Lemming

Sam Russell wrote: »

1. Why was Margaret Thatcher not popular in Sctotland? (If in doubt, ask a miner, or if you connot find one, ask a shipbuilder!)

FYI, Thatcher was hated outside of the home counties. I currently live in Rotherham in South Yorkshire .... go do a google on the miners strikes and where the worst if it happened. Believe me when I say there was/is no love for her around these parts.

3. Why are Britains nuclear subs based in Scotland?

Because Faslane was carefully selected in the 1960s due to its location miles away from population centres and having sheltered deep-water access to the Atlantic. They could put it elsewhere, but it means moving tens of thousands of people for security reasons. It's not about "being nuked less"; nuked is nuked, and the rest of the country would get it in the neck anyway if it came to that.

What most people don't seem to remember, is that there were nukes based in England too. Robin Hood airport (Doncaster) which is about 20 miles from where I currently live, formerly known as "RAF Finningley", was home to the Vulcan nuclear bomber fleet. And based near a far more heavily populated area than Faslane I should add. The reason Faslane is still going and RAF Finningley is not is because the Vulcan bombers were retired with no replacements lined up.

tbradman

GaelMise wrote: »

Not really, we did it for quite a while after independance.

True, but it also meant that Ireland could not vary its interest rates to fix economic problems (same as being in the Euro really). As others have pointed out, Scotland can continue to use Sterling or even print its own notes and peg them to Sterling just as Ireland did. But if England sneezes it means Scotland is in danger of catching pneumonia.

n-dawg

Because Faslane was carefully selected in the 1960s due to its location miles away from population centres and having sheltered deep-water access to the Atlantic

Faslane is 30km from Glasgow

tbradman

Sam Russell wrote: »

5. The British Government are saying that Scotland will be forced out of the EU if they vote yes. But if they vote no, there will be a referendum in two years time to exit the EU anyway. If the Tories and UKIP have their way, Scotland will be out of the EU whether they like it or not.

That's an interesting point, assuming England does actually exit the EU, which just as big an unknown as Scotland splitting from England.

However other EU countries, specifically Spain has been making noises about opposing an attempt by Scotland to re-join in an effort to put pressure on Catalonia and the Basque region not to consider the same path to independence. So England's opinion may be the least of Scotland's worries.

Or you could take the view that Scotland would be better off out of the EU as well. In recent times, peripheral EU countries have not fared well, especially ones that use the Euro.

Hmmm I don't think my opinions are helping...