Scottish Independence yea or nay

Ignorant etc.

Noblong wrote: »

Cnut the Great! Like Abba! Is he comeing down from Scandinavia again? Making plots..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cnut_the_Great

Sorry, but if you don't understand why Sweden, Finland and Denmark would back Scotland you need to do some research. Looking at a map of Europe might be a good start.

For those who do understand why Scandinavia would be likely to back Scotland, I would give this as a primary reason why I would see no issue in Scotland acceding to the EU.

A Dub in Glasgo

Ignorant etc. wrote: »

That Scotland won't be part of the EU is a threat? No its not, its a fact

I refer you to posts 89-92 of this very thread or maybe you can go one better and show us this fact?

Ignorant etc.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

I refer you to posts 89-92 of this very thread or maybe you can go one better and show us this fact?

Look I know you Glesga Sellik fans like to think that the great ghost of Jock Stein decides everything, and failing that his own son which he sent forth be our saviour, Neil Lennon, will sort the EU out but that's simply not true. I know you'd like the Green Brigade to descend upon Brussels singing Roll of Honour but it will be the EU leaders who decide what happens to Scotland and not one of them has suggested Scotland would immediately enter the EU, whilst a number of them have suggested the opposite.

I also love the suggestion that Scotland continues to use the pound without permission from Westminster. Nice hijacking of, what would then be, another country's sovereign right to determine who uses its currency. I would also suggest that it would be found to be illegal and add to that that its a wimp's choice, either you want independence or you don't.

Smiles35

Ignorant etc. wrote: »

Sorry, but if you don't understand why Sweden, Finland and Denmark would back Scotland you need to do some research. Looking at a map of Europe might be a good start.

For those who do understand why Scandinavia would be likely to back Scotland, I would give this as a primary reason why I would see no issue in Scotland acceding to the EU.

Whatever you say King Richard.

Ignorant etc.

Noblong wrote: »

Whatever you say King Richard.

No problem Thomas Crapper.

Sam Russell

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I'd love to see you provide a source for your claim Churchill offered a terrible war. But of course, you won't be able to.

I don't read either of the rags you mentioned there, but I've never heard anyone claim the Scots are too inferior to run their own country. Scottish people have had plenty of experience running the UK. Maybe you could point to an article that claims that. But of course, you won't be able to.

Why should different regions of England have devolved governments, when England currently does not have it's own government?

This from the National Archives display of the Treaty negotiations. A little more digging will show it was WC who said that.

http://treaty.nationalarchives.ie/timeline/

1–3 December
Counter proposals are presented by the British and brought to Dublin for full consideration by the Cabinet in Dublin on 3 December.

External association is stipulated as the plenipotentiaries’ default position in the negotiations to follow. The oath of allegiance, as worded in the British document, is rejected – even if the consequence is a resumption of war – while it is reiterated that no document can be signed without reference back to the Dáil.

3 December
De Valera visits counties Clare and Galway and makes speeches defining his republican position.

4 December
Discussion by both sides of the written Irish counter proposals.


5 December
A meeting is held between Lloyd George and Collins which discusses the proposed boundary commission in more detail.

6 December
An ultimatum is delivered by Lloyd George to the delegates in which they are faced with the option of either signing the text of the Treaty as it stands or refusing to sign and face the consequence of an immediate resumption of war.


My comment with respect to the Scots (I have great respect for them) was to interpret the views of the two rags (and their readers) of those self same Scots. The right wing folk (Official Britain or 'the Establishment') that read those rags have very little respect for anyone outside their own 'sets'. Official Britain has little regard for us as well, or for that matter, any ex-colonials.

Fratton Fred

From the minutes of the Dail debate.

Dáil Éireann - Volume 4 - 15 December, 1921

MR. D. O'ROURKE: I would like to ask the chairman of the delegation what would have been the result if the Treaty was not signed.

MR. ARTHUR GRIFFITH: It was the impression of every member of the delegation—they were replying to Ulster that night and it was a question of whether they would break off with us or not, and from their attitude we knew that probably before we got back to Dublin war would have broken out here; not war in the proper sense but somebody was going to be shot on our side, probably someone on their side and the same thing started again. I had absolutely no doubt in my mind the issue there was peace or war.

MR. KEVIN O'HIGGINS: Did Mr. Lloyd George single Mr. Barton out as the left wing of the delegation and did he say, “The man who is against peace may bear now and forever the responsibility for terrible and immediate war”?

MR. R.C. BARTON: I want first of all to say we were eight and a half hours on that Monday in conference with the English representatives and the strain of an eight and a half hours conference and the struggle of it is a pretty severe one. One, when I am asked a question like that, “Was it or was it not?”, I cannot give you an answer. But as regards particular aspects of that question, which I cannot take on oath, I can only give you my impression. It is in my notes that the answer is given, and it is there because it was my impression of that conference. It did appear to me that Mr. Lloyd George spoke to me and I had an impression that he actually mentioned my name; but I could not swear on oath that he mentioned my name, or actually addressed me when he spoke. It appeared to me that he spoke to me. What he did say was that the signature and the recommendation of every member of the delegation was necessary, or war would follow immediately and that the responsibility for that war must rest directly upon those who refused to sign the Treaty (applause).

Dil ireann - Volume 4 - 15 December, 1921

Ignorant etc.

Sam Russell wrote: »

6 December
An ultimatum is delivered by Lloyd George to the delegates in which they are faced with the option of either signing the text of the Treaty as it stands or refusing to sign and face the consequence of an immediate resumption of war.


My comment with respect to the Scots (I have great respect for them) was to interpret the views of the two rags (and their readers) of those self same Scots. The right wing folk (Official Britain or 'the Establishment') that read those rags have very little respect for anyone outside their own 'sets'. Official Britain has little regard for us as well, or for that matter, any ex-colonials.

Sorry, it says there that the ultimatum was delivered by Lloyd George.

Also, I would have thought it was fairly obvious that the most likely consequence to a peace treaty being signed is a resumption of war. It also says resumption of war, not a terrible war, terrible war is just sensationalising things, though war is pretty damn awful anyway. Also, the Irish negotiators stated that their position was that they would resume war rather than swear the oath of allegiance, so you can't say Churchill or Lloyd George threatened anything that the Irish delegation didn't threaten. You say pota(y)to and I say pota(h)to.

I also take exception to the idea that the "right wing Englander" shows very little respect for anyone outside his/her "set", not because it is incorrect, it is 100% true, but its a bit like the pot calling the kettle black. We Celts, be we Irish, Welsh or Scottish, don't exactly shower respect down upon the English either. You can't tar one group with something and refuse to accept that the other "sets" do the same themselves.

Sam Russell

Ignorant etc. wrote: »

I also love the suggestion that Scotland continues to use the pound without permission from Westminster. Nice hijacking of, what would then be, another country's sovereign right to determine who uses its currency. I would also suggest that it would be found to be illegal and add to that that its a wimp's choice, either you want independence or you don't.

What does 'illegal' mean? Against which statute? Scotland would be a sovereign state and (as currently) makes it's own laws. Many countries peg their currency to another country's currency. More nonsense from the NO side.

Scotland has a few options for the currencies. One is to continue with the Bank of England backed pound, as Ireland did for 50 years. They could join the Euro (as Ireland did). They could issue the Scottish pound (which has notes in circulation) and peg it one-for-one to the BofE pound (as it is now). They could set up a link with Denmark or Sweden and peg their note to one or other of those, or an average of them.

Alternatively, they could just float it, but that would be foolish if they had any of the British National Debt, which is huge.

They have eighteen months to negotiate and then decide.

Sam Russell

Ignorant etc. wrote: »

I also take exception to the idea that the "right wing Englander" shows very little respect for anyone outside his/her "set", not because it is incorrect, it is 100% true, but its a bit like the pot calling the kettle black. We Celts, be we Irish, Welsh or Scottish, don't exactly shower respect down upon the English either. You can't tar one group with something and refuse to accept that the other "sets" do the same themselves.

But the difference is that the "right wing Englander" makes up the very highest levels of the Government, the Civil Servants, the Judiciary, the Army, the Bankers and their aristocratic friends own much of the wealth. We are the poor workers at the gate who doff our caps and pull our forelock as the 'betters' pass by with no glance at us poor folk.

Fratton Fred

Sam Russell wrote: »

What does 'illegal' mean? Against which statute? Scotland would be a sovereign state and (as currently) makes it's own laws. Many countries peg their currency to another country's currency. More nonsense from the NO side.

Scotland has a few options for the currencies. One is to continue with the Bank of England backed pound, as Ireland did for 50 years. They could join the Euro (as Ireland did). They could issue the Scottish pound (which has notes in circulation) and peg it one-for-one to the BofE pound (as it is now). They could set up a link with Denmark or Sweden and peg their note to one or other of those, or an average of them.

Alternatively, they could just float it, but that would be foolish if they had any of the British National Debt, which is huge.

They have eighteen months to negotiate and then decide.

If I was voting, I would want this information up front.

Fratton Fred

Sam Russell wrote: »

But the difference is that the "right wing Englander" makes up the very highest levels of the Government, the Civil Servants, the Judiciary, the Army, the Bankers and their aristocratic friends own much of the wealth. We are the poor workers at the gate who doff our caps and pull our forelock as the 'betters' pass by with no glance at us poor folk.

Sigh.

Please don't comment on things you know absolutely nothing about.

Sam Russell

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If I was voting, I would want this information up front.

Of course you would, but it would be difficult if the BofE, Conservitive party, Labout Party, etc. say it is not negotialbe. If the vote is YES, then of course it is negotiable.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Sigh.

Please don't comment on things you know absolutely nothing about.

How very good and omniscient of you to know exactly how much I know. By the way, which bit do I know absolutely nothing about?

Ignorant etc.

Sam Russell wrote: »

What does 'illegal' mean? Against which statute? Scotland would be a sovereign state and (as currently) makes it's own laws. Many countries peg their currency to another country's currency. More nonsense from the NO side.

Scotland has a few options for the currencies. One is to continue with the Bank of England backed pound, as Ireland did for 50 years. They could join the Euro (as Ireland did). They could issue the Scottish pound (which has notes in circulation) and peg it one-for-one to the BofE pound (as it is now). They could set up a link with Denmark or Sweden and peg their note to one or other of those, or an average of them.

Alternatively, they could just float it, but that would be foolish if they had any of the British National Debt, which is huge.

They have eighteen months to negotiate and then decide.

Why get aggressive? It doesn't help your argument. The only reason anything relating to currency is dismissed as nonsense by the yes side is that they simply haven't got any answers on it. Less than a month from the referendum, that's simply not good enough.

Have a look at how the Irish economy faired whilst using the Bank of England pound. A story of a continuously dwindling economy. It was only when Ireland dropped the UK pound that it started to make any progress economically. Ironically, Ireland's biggest crash arrived at a time when it was using another joint (group) currency. I also doubt that you will find, outside the Eurozone, a top performing country that doesn't retain absolute sovereignity over its own currency and then the Euro is fraught with uncertainty, not what a new country needs when its trying to attract investment.

Also, you err by placing me in the no camp. I'm not, with regards to the referendum from the Scottish side, I would not insult the Scots, who are more than capable of making up their own mind, by getting involved as a non-Scot. Where I do get involved, and fully believe I have a right to voice an opinion, is where it effects MY country. I'm from the UK, not from Scotland (not from England either), and very shortly will be moving back home to the UK. The Scottish referendum effects my interests, the interests of my family and likewise those of MY country. The Scots can make their own mind up, that is their prerogative, however, I don't think they should feel that they have any right to put on the poor mouth if they vote yes and look for concessions and help from what would then be MY government and not THEIR'S. They should not be allowed to affect our currency, they should not weasel their way out of the national debt, created partly by THEIR country and they should not expect concessions. No more than I would expect Scotland to shoulder 100% of the national debt, they shouldn't expect us to shoulder their portion of it either. That's completely different to asking Westminster to act aggressively towards Scotland. Of course, we should continue the excellent relations we have forged with Scotland over the centuries. However, we shouldn't be their crutch either. Incidentally, by reducing this to a Scotland v England referendum, you're insulting the Welsh, another nation I would guess is close to your heart as you seemingly have a passion for "Celtic freedom".

Ignorant etc.

Sam Russell wrote: »

But the difference is that the "right wing Englander" makes up the very highest levels of the Government, the Civil Servants, the Judiciary, the Army, the Bankers and their aristocratic friends own much of the wealth. We are the poor workers at the gate who doff our caps and pull our forelock as the 'betters' pass by with no glance at us poor folk.

Ah stop will ya, this is just Marxist bullshít rhetoric.

Fratton Fred

Sam Russell wrote: »

Of course you would, but it would be difficult if the BofE, Conservitive party, Labout Party, etc. say it is not negotialbe. If the vote is YES, then of course it is negotiable.

I wouldn't want my financial future to be negotiable. I would expect the yes campaign to have fully thought out and very feasible options.

How very good and omniscient of you to know exactly how much I know. By the way, which bit do I know absolutely nothing about?

Well, for starters your obsession with an elite class of old Etonians who look down their noses at poor working class folk. I'm sure they exist, but they certainly don't run the country any more and certainly have absolutely nothing to do with this debate.

Give us a clue then, how long have you lived in England and how many of these little Englanders do you know. Or is it just something you read in an phoblacht.

A Dub in Glasgo

Ignorant etc. wrote: »

Look I know you Glesga Sellik fans like to think that the great ghost of Jock Stein decides everything, and failing that his own son which he sent forth be our saviour, Neil Lennon, will sort the EU out but that's simply not true. I know you'd like the Green Brigade to descend upon Brussels singing Roll of Honour but it will be the EU leaders who decide what happens to Scotland and not one of them has suggested Scotland would immediately enter the EU, whilst a number of them have suggested the opposite.

I also love the suggestion that Scotland continues to use the pound without permission from Westminster. Nice hijacking of, what would then be, another country's sovereign right to determine who uses its currency. I would also suggest that it would be found to be illegal and add to that that its a wimp's choice, either you want independence or you don't.

Most of the 1st paragraph is irrelevant posturing

EU - You appear to have grudgingly accepted that your 'statement of fact' is not fact at all

Currency - Scotland can use the £ irrespective of what the UK Government thinks. The £ is an internationally traded currency. Talk of 'permission' and 'hijack' is hyperbole. The less said of the 'illegal' bit of the 2nd paragraph the better

Ignorant etc.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Most of the 1st paragraph is irrelevant posturing

EU - You appear to have grudgingly accepted that your 'statement of fact' is not fact at all

Currency - Scotland can use the £ irrespective of what the UK Government thinks. The £ is an internationally traded currency. Talk of 'permission' and 'hijack' is hyperbole. The less said of the 'illegal' bit of the 2nd paragraph the better

Its not irrelevant posturing when its pointing out that the only reason you and your Glesga Septic buddies are in the yes camp is because of some hooped madness which results in racism against all things English. Sorry, did you miss the part where I said what happens in the EU will be decided by EU leaders, many of whom have said Scotland will not automatically form part of the EU and none of whom have said it automatically will?

And the sum of your ambitions is to peg your currency to the same neighbours you want to break away from? So if Westminster devalues the pound, your fiscal situation becomes devalued and you have absolutely no say in it? Or are you going to change what you peg your currency to every time the currency you currently use hits a bit of a rough spot? You'll be sure to attract major investment that way :rolleyes:. Brilliant dedication to the independence cause, and super ambitious too.

Look, if Scotland wants to PEG its currency to the pound like Panama does to the dollar then they can work away. That's their choice. What they cannot and must not be allowed to do is to have any say in our currency. If the extent of your economic ambition is to match Panama then the Scots will soon be begging to be allowed back into the union, but then that is their mistake to choose to make.

bilston

In answer to the OP

No - 57%
Yes - 43%

So no independence but it would be too close for things to remain as they are. I would expect Scotland (and possibly Wales and Northern Ireland) to be given tax powers of some description.

A Dub in Glasgo

Ignorant etc. wrote: »

Its not irrelevant posturing when its pointing out that the only reason you and your Glesga Septic buddies are in the yes camp is because of some hooped madness which results in racism against all things English.

More irrelevant posturing

Sorry, did you miss the part where I said what happens in the EU will be decided by EU leaders, many of whom have said Scotland will not automatically form part of the EU and none of whom have said it automatically will?

Again that is opinion not fact

And the sum of your ambitions is to peg your currency to the same neighbours you want to break away from? So if Westminster devalues the pound, your fiscal situation becomes devalued and you have absolutely no say in it? Or are you going to change what you peg your currency to every time the currency you currently use hits a bit of a rough spot? You'll be sure to attract major investment that way :rolleyes:. Brilliant dedication to the independence cause, and super ambitious too.

Look, if Scotland wants to PEG its currency to the pound like Panama does to the dollar then they can work away. That's their choice. What they cannot and must not be allowed to do is to have any say in our currency. If the extent of your economic ambition is to match Panama then the Scots will soon be begging to be allowed back into the union, but then that is their mistake to choose to make.

So you grudgingly accept that they do not need permission, they are not hijacking and it is not illegal.

Ignorant etc.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

More irrelevant posturing



Again that is opinion not fact



So you grudgingly accept that they do not need permission, they are not hijacking and it is not illegal.

Its perfectly relevant posturing because your argument is based not on what is good for Scotland but on a misguided hatred for England. Try to convince us that independence would be good for Scotland... When your argument is so shallow that you don't even know what currency you'll use its very clear that you don't know what the future will hold. I would also rather believe what EU leaders say about Scotland's position than some guy whose sole ambition in life was to move to Glasgow (which has a W btw) to be a better Glesga Sellik fan.

As I said, if they want to peg their currency to ours that's their choice. What was being suggested was that they use our currency and have shared power over it which I am completely against.

What an independent Scotland does it can do provided that it does NOT in any way affect Wales, England and the rest of the UK. I have made my case clear that it should be the Scots that decide, and by Scots I mean SCOTS. I hope you also realise that by arguing for Scotland to get all the hand outs under the sun, you're not just arguing a case against the country that ye lot hate, namely England, you're also arguing against Wales.

Ralphdejones

bpb101 wrote: »

I dont think that a yes for scotland will effect n.ireland politically (expect maybe more people elected to Westminster, but that depends whether its a set number of mps or 1 mp per so many thousand)

There will be at least some economic and political effects, all be it an unknown one at this stage. N.Ireland, England and Wales on their own, whatever they are going to call it, will be a strange coupling indeed. I wonder has the Irish Government even thought about it. Probably not would be the answer to that one.

A Dub in Glasgo

Ignorant etc. wrote: »

Its perfectly relevant posturing because your argument is based not on what is good for Scotland but on a misguided hatred for England. Try to convince us that independence would be good for Scotland... When your argument is so shallow that you don't even know what currency you'll use its very clear that you don't know what the future will hold. I would also rather believe what EU leaders say about Scotland's position than some guy whose sole ambition in life was to move to Glasgow (which has a W btw) to be a better Glesga Sellik fan.

As I said, if they want to peg their currency to ours that's their choice. What was being suggested was that they use our currency and have shared power over it which I am completely against.

What an independent Scotland does it can do provided that it does NOT in any way affect Wales, England and the rest of the UK. I have made my case clear that it should be the Scots that decide, and by Scots I mean SCOTS. I hope you also realise that by arguing for Scotland to get all the hand outs under the sun, you're not just arguing a case against the country that ye lot hate, namely England, you're also arguing against Wales.

You seem to be an angry (wo)man. You would have me turfed out of Scotland for the cheek to vote Yes to independence, how very accommodating of you

Ignorant etc.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

You seem to be an angry (wo)man. You would have me turfed out of Scotland for the cheek to vote Yes to independence, how very accommodating of you

LOL, I love the way you pick up on one part of my whole argument every time, whilst also offering no solutions of your own nor offering any clear reason why independence would be good for Scotland.

Also, I love the way you sensationalise everything, very amusing. Saying I want you turfed out of Scotland lol. When I've already stated numerous times I don't give a damn what the Scots decide nor what happens in Scotland. I happen to believe something so important for a country's future, should be decided by that country's people. That's not being racist, before you pick up on that point, because I apply and have applied the same rule to myself. I have lived in Ireland for many years, though I am about to move back home, and, for example, if there were to be a referendum on a united Ireland, I don't believe it would be right for me to vote on it because I am not Irish. I also WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO VOTE on it, because Irish electoral law doesn't allow other nationals to vote in referenda nor for the president, so before you go all rabid and start frothing at the mouth gobbling fascist at me, you will also need to shout it to your country too. Personally, I think its a good rule as there is a tendency amongst foreign nationals to return home, as I am doing. There's also a very easy solution, if a person shows their long term commitment to their new country and takes on its citizenship then they would have the same voting rights as any other citizen. Its probably a mistake to mention this because it will just sidetrack the argument, because of the complete and utter void of reasons to dispute what I am saying in regards to the effect of Scotland's referendum on my own country.

However, you continuously fail to offer any substantial reason why Scotland would be better off as an independent country, not that it particularly interests me, as I'll repeat for the hard of reading, I have absolutely no interest in what Scotland chooses. That is for Scotland to choose and Scotland is also entitled to choose it any way they like. They can do it via eeny meeny miny mo for all I care.

If you are interested in discussing or disputing what I say in terms of Scotland expecting no concessions from Westminster and that Scotland should not expect a SAY in the running of the pound, nor should it expect to worm its way out of its portion of the national debt, then please lets discuss. If there is something wrong with me wanting my country, and the other countries that form part of a union with my country, to protect their own interests then please dispute it with me. I repeat, I am not interested in the yes camp nor in the no camp, I am solely concerned with Wales, and the other countries that will remain in the union, coming out of this as best as possible.

A Dub in Glasgo

The mechanism that allows me to vote - there is no point in ranting and raving at me if you do not like it, accept it and move on

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_independence_referendum,_2014#Date_and_eligibility

Banjoxed

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Most of the 1st paragraph is irrelevant posturing

EU - You appear to have grudgingly accepted that your 'statement of fact' is not fact at all

Currency - Scotland can use the £ irrespective of what the UK Government thinks. The £ is an internationally traded currency. Talk of 'permission' and 'hijack' is hyperbole. The less said of the 'illegal' bit of the 2nd paragraph the better

Ireland as most of you know had a Saorstat/Irish Pound from 1928 to 1979.

It was exchangeable on a one-for-one basis with the Pound Sterling but the catch was that we had zero input into interest rates. Not only that, but the Irish banks were obliged to maintain balances in the Bank of England, and historically access to credit by Irish bank customers was very limited.

Scotland could do this, but with the Scottish banks exposure to personal debt far in excess of what the Irish banks permitted Irish customers, it won't be Westminster's decision. The banking system itself will limit it.

Ignorant etc.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

The mechanism that allows me to vote - there is no point in ranting and raving at me if you do not like it, accept it and move on

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_independence_referendum,_2014#Date_and_eligibility

Again continuing to pick up on the small rather than argue your case. I am not ranting and raving, I am stating my case, which you are categorically failing to do, picking up on the minor and insignificant because you have no macro debate. Expressing my opinion and agreeing or disagreeing with things accordingly is what we call living in a democracy with freedom of speech. It really is pointless discussing anything with you because you have no debate to offer in the first place. Oh, and in case you're so hard of reading that you missed it for the umpteenth time I will write it in capitals, I HAVE NO INTEREST IN WHAT SCOTLAND DOES OR DOESN'T DO, THE SCOTS ARE MORE THAN CAPABLE OF MAKING THEIR OWN MINDS UP, I AM SOLELY FOR THE INTERESTS OF MY OWN COUNTRY, WALES!

tipptom

Ignorant etc. wrote: »

Again continuing to pick up on the small rather than argue your case. I am not ranting and raving, I am stating my case, which you are categorically failing to do, picking up on the minor and insignificant because you have no macro debate. Expressing my opinion and agreeing or disagreeing with things accordingly is what we call living in a democracy with freedom of speech. It really is pointless discussing anything with you because you have no debate to offer in the first place. Oh, and in case you're so hard of reading that you missed it for the umpteenth time I will write it in capitals, I HAVE NO INTEREST IN WHAT SCOTLAND DOES OR DOESN'T DO, THE SCOTS ARE MORE THAN CAPABLE OF MAKING THEIR OWN MINDS UP, I AM SOLELY FOR THE INTERESTS OF MY OWN COUNTRY, WALES!

You forgot to mention Glago selkic or whatever ignorant way you pronounce it in your last post and don't forget Jock Stein,vital elements to be taken in to consideration on Scotlands choice.

Ignorant etc.

tipptom wrote: »

You forgot to mention Glago selkic or whatever ignorant way you pronounce it in your last post and don't forget Jock Stein,vital elements to be taken in to consideration on Scotlands choice.

Its not ignorant, its a take on the way Glesga Sellik fans pronounce it, of which you're obviously another one. The point is, when Ireland or England come into a discussion, the hooped ones can't debate anything properly because their blind bigotted love or hatred comes into play immediately. They don't have opinions, they just live to love Ireland and hate England. In today's climate when people on both sides of the Irish Sea have moved on from this insanity, they're, with their Rangers friends, are like throwbacks to a different age. This is the Glesga Sellik level...



I also like the way you think I'm talking about Scotland when I have clearly stated that I have no interest in the Scottish debate other than my own country protecting its interests. I suppose, because that country isn't Ireland and Glesga Sellik don't play in it, you think it doesn't have any rights to look after itself :rolleyes:.

tipptom

Ignorant etc. wrote: »

Its not ignorant, its a take on the way Glesga Sellik fans pronounce it, of which you're obviously another one. The point is, when Ireland or England come into a discussion, the hooped ones can't debate anything properly because their blind bigotted love or hatred comes into play immediately. They don't have opinions, they just live to love Ireland and hate England. In today's climate when people on both sides of the Irish Sea have moved on from this insanity, they're, with their Rangers friends, are like throwbacks to a different age. This is their (your) level...



I also like the way you think I'm talking about Scotland when I have clearly stated that I have no interest in the Scottish debate other than my own country protecting its interests. I suppose, because that country isn't Ireland and Glesga Sellik don't play in it, you think it doesn't have any rights to look after itself :rolleyes:.

What the hell has Glasgow Celtic or Glasgow Rangers got to do with the referendum???!!
You really are showing your prejudice's for what they are now, and YOUR country can do what they like as far as I am concerned should Scotland decide to split from them but I personally think they will try to keep them onside rather than alienate them.

Smiles35

tipptom wrote: »

What the hell has Glasgow Celtic or Glasgow Rangers got to do with the referendum???!!
You really are showing your prejudice's for what they are now, and YOUR country can do what they like as far as I am concerned should Scotland decide to split from them but I personally think they will try to keep them onside rather than alienate them.

Why does the man have prejudices but we don't, or would'nt, when confronted with something similar?

imagine some of our counties decided to leave the republic, and a Rangers supporter turns up with a 'Yes' banner.
Butter woulnt melt in the mouths of some posters here.

Ignorant etc.

tipptom wrote: »

What the hell has Glasgow Celtic or Glasgow Rangers got to do with the referendum???!!
You really are showing your prejudice's for what they are now, and YOUR country can do what they like as far as I am concerned should Scotland decide to split from them but I personally think they will try to keep them onside rather than alienate them.

Its simple, its a Scottish referendum, yes, can we agree on that?

OK, now, being a Scottish referendum, there will be a lot of Sellik and Rangers fans voting, yes, can we agree on that?

Now comes the tricky part, the part that you and others don't seem to understand. Sellik and Rangers fans are, or at least the vast majority of them, are incapable of informing themselves and in turn making an informed decision on anything that involves England. One side is blinded by hatred towards the English and can see no good in the English, the other side is blinded by love and can see no bad in the English. Both sides are equally dangerous mentalities to have. I am simply making the reference that there are many people posting in this thread who are taking up the yes camp solely to exhibit hatred towards England. I have given certain posters ample chance to state their case why Scotland should become independent and how it would benefit Scotland, something which not a single one of them has done. That, my friend, shows a lack of information of the facts, and not having informed themselves on the debate, there is obviously another reason why they are so firmly yes, the reason I have already discussed.

Also, you are exhibiting a crass lack of understanding of the situation. If Scotland votes independent it very much DIRECTLY effects my country. It may or may not INDIRECTLY effect yours but it effects mine from the day the results are known. There is no shame in a Welshman wanting Wales to protect Welsh interests.

There has been much discussion, for example, of Scotland relieving itself of its portion of the national debt if it votes for independence. Can you please explain to me why Wales (or England for that matter) should disproportionately shoulder the national debt and deal with the ramifications of that when Scotland played its own part in creating it? To suggest that Scotland will relieve itself of its part of the debt is as wrong as it would be to suggest that Scotland takes on 100% of it. As a basic example, to explain my point, lets say the national debt is as follows (I know its much higher, but for ease of mathematics)...

National debt: £63,181,775.

UK population at the 2011 census: 63,181,775.

£63,181,775 / 63,181,775 people = £1 per person both north and south of the Scottish border.

Alternatively, please tell me why the Welsh, English or the people in the north of Ireland should shoulder more just to let the Scots set up a country with £0 of the debt it had a hand in creating?

That's my issue. If you can explain to me why an already difficult debt to deal with should become a crippling debt for the economy in the rest of the UK, work away. However, if, hypothetically, Kilkenny voted for independence, would you be in favour of letting Kilkenny off with €0 of the Irish debt it played its part in creating?

The one correct thing you said is that the rest of the UK will not want to allienate an independent Scotland. No, they wouldn't, that is 100% true. HOWEVER, and here comes the crunch, I think it would be the Scots not wanting to alienate us more so than us not wanting to alienate them. It would be a struggle for us if we created bad relations with Scotland, but it would blow the Scottish economy apart if their biggest trading partner turned its back on it. It would be the same as the UK turning its back on the Irish economy. Much as those who inform themselves on world affairs by reading An Phoblacht and watching Sinn Féin TV would like to believe, the Irish economy would be ravaged if the UK stopped dealing with it, and so would a theoretical independent Scottish economy. Like it or not, the rest of the UK will be a far bigger player than Scotland ever will. Plus, there is a very huge difference between making an independent Scotland face up to its responsibilities and deliberately alienating it.

bpb101

Ignorant etc. wrote: »

Its simple, its a Scottish referendum, yes, can we agree on that?

OK, now, being a Scottish referendum, there will be a lot of Sellik and Rangers fans voting, yes, can we agree on that?

Now comes the tricky part, the part that you and others don't seem to understand. Sellik and Rangers fans are, or at least the vast majority of them, are incapable of informing themselves and in turn making an informed decision on anything that involves England. One side is blinded by hatred towards the English and can see no good in the English, the other side is blinded by love and can see no bad in the English. Both sides are equally dangerous mentalities to have. I am simply making the reference that there are many people posting in this thread who are taking up the yes camp solely to exhibit hatred towards England. I have given certain posters ample chance to state their case why Scotland should become independent and how it would benefit Scotland, something which not a single one of them has done. That, my friend, shows a lack of information of the facts, and not having informed themselves on the debate, there is obviously another reason why they are so firmly yes, the reason I have already discussed.

Also, you are exhibiting a crass lack of understanding of the situation. If Scotland votes independent it very much DIRECTLY effects my country. It may or may not INDIRECTLY effect yours but it effects mine from the day the results are known. There is no shame in a Welshman wanting Wales to protect Welsh interests.

There has been much discussion, for example, of Scotland relieving itself of its portion of the national debt if it votes for independence. Can you please explain to me why Wales (or England for that matter) should disproportionately shoulder the national debt and deal with the ramifications of that when Scotland played its own part in creating it? To suggest that Scotland will relieve itself of its part of the debt is as wrong as it would be to suggest that Scotland takes on 100% of it. As a basic example, to explain my point, lets say the national debt is as follows (I know its much higher, but for ease of mathematics)...

National debt: £63,181,775.

UK population at the 2011 census: 63,181,775.

£63,181,775 / 63,181,775 people = £1 per person both north and south of the Scottish border.

Alternatively, please tell me why the Welsh, English or the people in the north of Ireland should shoulder more just to let the Scots set up a country with £0 of the debt it had a hand in creating?

That's my issue. If you can explain to me why an already difficult debt to deal with should become a crippling debt for the economy in the rest of the UK, work away. However, if, hypothetically, Kilkenny voted for independence, would you be in favour of letting Kilkenny off with €0 of the Irish debt it played its part in creating?

The one correct thing you said is that the rest of the UK will not want to allienate an independent Scotland. No, they wouldn't, that is 100% true. HOWEVER, and here comes the crunch, I think it would be the Scots not wanting to alienate us more so than us not wanting to alienate them. It would be a struggle for us if we created bad relations with Scotland, but it would blow the Scottish economy apart if their biggest trading partner turned its back on it. It would be the same as the UK turning its back on the Irish economy. Much as those who inform themselves on world affairs by reading An Phoblacht and watching Sinn Féin TV would like to believe, the Irish economy would be ravaged if the UK stopped dealing with it, and so would a theoretical independent Scottish economy. Like it or not, the rest of the UK will be a far bigger player than Scotland ever will. Plus, there is a very huge difference between making an independent Scotland face up to its responsibilities and deliberately alienating it.

Im sure the debts the Scottish parliament took out they will pay back , but why should they pay the debts for the wars they did not vote for.

if the uk took out the loans, the uk will have to pay it back

tipptom

Noblong wrote: »

Why does the man have prejudices but we don't, or would'nt, when confronted with something similar?

imagine some of our counties decided to leave the republic, and a Rangers supporter turns up with a 'Yes' banner.
Butter woulnt melt in the mouths of some posters here.

Because he is saying every Celtic supporter has a hatred of England and will vote yes.


Your Rangers supporter scenario is just baffling to the whole debate.

Fratton Fred

bpb101 wrote: »

Im sure the debts the Scottish parliament took out they will pay back , but why should they pay the debts for the wars they did not vote for.

if the uk took out the loans, the uk will have to pay it back

That's fine then. The UK currently owns RBS, HBoS and all the oil fields, not the Scottish parliament. It also owns the planes of the RAF and the ships of the RN and all the equipment the scotish regiments possess, So it keeps all of that.

In your (stupid) scenario, Scotland starts off with nothing. Zilch, nada.

Oh, fyi, Scotland has always been a Labour stronghold. They voted very heavily for the party that got Britain in to the last two wars.

Richard

bpb101 wrote: »

Im sure the debts the Scottish parliament took out they will pay back , but why should they pay the debts for the wars they did not vote for.

if the uk took out the loans, the uk will have to pay it back

The UK government took out loans to finance health, education, the economy including all devolved matters. Scotland benefitted from those loans and should pay them back.

If they don't, that's called defaulting and no one will lend them any money.

By the way the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were under a Labour government which in 2001 (before those wars) got 43.3% of the Scottish vote. It got 40.7% of the UK wide vote in comparison. Many of the UK cabinet then were Scottish.

Fratton Fred

Richard wrote: »

The UK government took out loans to finance health, education, the economy including all devolved matters. Scotland benefitted from those loans and should pay them back.

If they don't, that's called defaulting and no one will lend them any money.

By the way the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were under a Labour government which in 2001 (before those wars) got 43.3% of the Scottish vote. It got 40.7% of the UK wide vote in comparison. Many of the UK cabinet then were Scottish.

So the Scots should pick up the debts for those wars then.

Richard

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So the Scots should pick up the debts for those wars then.

Yes.

The debts aren't just for those wars but they partly elected the government that participated in them.

I don't know the cost figures for these conflicts over and above normal MOD spending, but the the costs were paid by all in the UK whether they agreed with them or not.

zetalambda

bpb101 wrote: »

lads, As for Scotland not being in the eu and they will have to reapply is just a stupid reason to vote no. If (and i hope) scotland do vote yes. on the 19th of September, they arent tossed out and told fend for yourself . it wont be till march 2016 that they will be independent. a year and a half is more than enough time to send a letter to the eu and say "any chance of being a member" (even if they send the letter through an post :pac:)

Money. Yes , they wont have control over the pound , but as it stands (and dub in Glasgow please correct me if im wrong) but you dont have a say atm and if you join the euro you wont have a say in it either.


is there a scot here(With a vote) who will be voting no( sorry if you have already spoken up and i missed you. Can you outline your reasons.

Yeah, I think a Yes vote will inevitably lead to Scotland becoming a fully fledged member of the EU and adopting the Euro as their currency.

Fratton Fred

zetalambda wrote: »

Yeah, I think a Yes vote will inevitably lead to Scotland becoming a fully fledged member of the EU and adopting the Euro as their currency.

I can't see any other sensible way forward for them. Their entrance will be pretty swift as well.

Good news for university students from the rUK who want to go to university there as well.

K-9

Ignorant etc. wrote: »

Its not ignorant, its a take on the way Glesga Sellik fans pronounce it, of which you're obviously another one. The point is, when Ireland or England come into a discussion, the hooped ones can't debate anything properly because their blind bigotted love or hatred comes into play immediately. They don't have opinions, they just live to love Ireland and hate England. In today's climate when people on both sides of the Irish Sea have moved on from this insanity, they're, with their Rangers friends, are like throwbacks to a different age. This is the Glesga Sellik level...



I also like the way you think I'm talking about Scotland when I have clearly stated that I have no interest in the Scottish debate other than my own country protecting its interests. I suppose, because that country isn't Ireland and Glesga Sellik don't play in it, you think it doesn't have any rights to look after itself :rolleyes:.

Mod:

This user is now site banned so there's no point replying to them.

Everybody else, please keep it civil.

TireeTerror

The statement about Celtic fans hating the English and Rangers fans not being able to see any wrong in them is the biggest load of utter drivel I've ever heard.

Im Scottish and have many friends who support both Rangers and Celtic. I do not know anyone who hates the English as a whole, and I've yet to meet anyone who couldnt see a problem with someone whether they are English or otherwise.

I did a quick poll on my facebook last night and 25 voted YES, 4 voted NO and 3 DID NOT KNOW. These are all people who are eligible to vote.

Alex Salmond really came out on top this evening in the debate, great to watch.

everdead.ie

Didn't watch the first debate but happened on it while channel hopping ended up just missing a few minutes.

Salmond seemed to come out on top particularly in early and late exchanges danced around the fastlane jobs question a but which I kind of understand giving an estimate on how long it will take to replace the jobs.

Found Darling pretty terrible as a speaker very negative and difficult to like.

feargale

TireeTerror wrote: »

Im Scottish and have many friends who support both Rangers and Celtic.

Are they Eastern Orthodox?

A Dub in Glasgo

Watched the debate and it became a bit of a shouting match at times. Both men would have been infracted on here!

Salmond done much better and Darling did come across as a one trick pony, ended up flustered a bit. I honestly don't think these debates make a difference in reality. What is making a difference and it was touched on by Salmond is the engagement from people who would not normally be engaged in politics.

I thought Salmond could have done better with the Trident jobs question, tens of thousands of defence jobs have already been cut by the UK so that this vanity project is kept alive. The MOD have already admitted that 520 civilian jobs are dependent on the Trident programme

http://news.stv.tv/politics/197151-labour-under-fire-as-row-erupts-over-extent-of-trident-jobs-threat/

Ralphdejones

I think there will be at least some economic and political effects for Ireland North and South, if Scotland votes yes, all be it unknown ones at this stage. N.Ireland, England and Wales on their own, whatever they are going to call it, will be a strange coupling indeed. I wonder has the Irish Government even thought about it. Probably not would be the answer to that one. We can't afford NI, so I hope no one starts getting any notions there.

Richard

zetalambda wrote: »

adopting the Euro as their currency.

God help them.

Richard

Ralphdejones wrote: »

N.Ireland, England and Wales on their own, whatever they are going to call it

"United Kingdom" would probably work.

will be a strange coupling indeed.

Why?

I wonder has the Irish Government even thought about it.

I'm sure they have, but ultimately they will be onlookers.

Probably not would be the answer to that one. We can't afford NI, so I hope no one starts getting any notions there.

There might be pressure for a border poll, but I imagine that it won't happen any time soon as there is not a chance of a UI being voted for in NI, plus the British Government wouldn't want to lose another part of the UK so soon after losing Scotland.

Don't think it'll matter, though because Scotland isn't leaning the UK any time soon IMHO, despite Darling's mediocre performance this evening.

Ralphdejones

Richard wrote: »

"United Kingdom" would probably work.

What united kingdom ?

Richard wrote: »

Why?

Take a look at the map

Richard wrote: »

I'm sure they have, but ultimately they will be onlookers.

How could they be, both politically and economically your neighbours will always effect things.

The NI peace process would not have gotten too far with that attitude.

dlouth15

Ignorant etc. wrote: »

£63,181,775 / 63,181,775 people = £1 per person both north and south of the Scottish border.

Alternatively, please tell me why the Welsh, English or the people in the north of Ireland should shoulder more just to let the Scots set up a country with £0 of the debt it had a hand in creating?

That's my issue. If you can explain to me why an already difficult debt to deal with should become a crippling debt for the economy in the rest of the UK, work away. However, if, hypothetically, Kilkenny voted for independence, would you be in favour of letting Kilkenny off with €0 of the Irish debt it played its part in creating?

That is just the way happens to work in international law. The default position is that the country splitting away can't be held liable for the debts of the country it is splitting away from. It will be a brand new country with zero debts unless they agree to take on some of the debts of the rUK.