[Closed] Scottish independence- where do you stand?

Truth is, we have a 2 party system and they're mostly interested in scrapping over which of the 2 gets to be in charge, and thus mostly not too interested in disturbing things. Completely understandable tbh but it's an impressive barrier to change.

Exactly as will happen between SNP and Scottish Labour if Scotland go independent. Same sh*t, different country, but with the added problem of bitter in-fighting over the scraps of new found political power, and trying at the same time to sort out the complex issues of setting up a whole new country. Heaven help you!

And whilst all this unstable turmoil and uncertainty is going on can you really see companies investing their money in Scotland, providing the growth that is needed to fund's Salmond's vision?

Like I said independence could be a good thing in the long term, but short to medium tern there will be a whole load of hideously expensive and deeply unsettling problems to be dealt with.

When was that? I remember the last time constitutional reform was on the cards, that was voted in and was quite successful iirc.

I was thinking of AV. Which even the AV yes camp didn't want. But the conservatives refused to allow PR to even be on the table.

Catalans looking to Scotland as a blueprint.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2adb8102-56bd-11e3-ab12-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2m1u29PZX

English voters aren't daft enough to take us out of europe but hey, precedents aren't great.

Most people in England are Pro europe, your chip on your shoulder about who an English person is (e.g. Daily Mail reader), is making you believe a small vocal minority, and I can assure you they are speaking for everyone.

And I'd be daft to do so, so I didn't.

Hmmmm...

Remind me, what happened the last time electoral reform was on the cards in the UK.

We were offered a shabby compromise that no-one really wanted?

Are we really arguing that Scotland's status as a country is some how in doubt?

Westminster is broken. Blair's stroke of "genius" was to realise that Labour no longer had to be a genuine party of the left. It just had to be one step to the left of the Tories in order to capture the votes from the left and the steal the Tories votes from the centre ground.

We are now witness to the spectacle of both the Tories and Labour trying to demonstrate who is tougher on welfare reform and immigration. Meanwhile the Tories are also in a crisis over whether they should adopt the policies of a racist lunatic in a shiny suit and seriously consider leaving the EU. All the time you have a bunch of mendacious shits hovering in the background desperate to do a deal with anyone to try and remain in power.

Scotland has a chance to genuinely escape this cycle and try a new approach.

Define country for me.

Why do you do this? Its somewhere between desperation and rhetorical so please dont reply it just seems utterly pointless to "ask" stuff like that

Most people in England are Pro europe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_withdrawal_from_the_European_Union#Opinion_polling

one had them pro 3 had them tied circa 40 had them against

Still enough dont knows to swing it either way

[quote=dragon ]Most people in England are Pro europe, your chip on your shoulder about who an English person is (e.g. Daily Mail reader), is making you believe a small vocal minority, and I can assure you they are speaking for everyone.
No truth in any of these polls then?

The Future of England survey 2012 showed English voters saying they would vote to leave the EU by 50% to 33% in a referendum on the UK's membership. By contrast, a February 2013 poll showed Scots would vote to stay in the EU by 53% to 34% in a referendum on UK membership, while EU membership in the event of an independent Scotland was supported by 61% to 33%.

Can we please stop making generalisations about 'England is this' or 'England does this'? It's not a homogenous entity where everyone thinks the same.

Just an aside about the treaty of union, it was ratified by an unelected parliament many of whom were bribed. It was so unpopular that rioting broke out and they needed military protection to get the documents out of Edinburgh.

rebel12 - Member

Do you really think that after independence you're going to get the party you vote for at every single election

Well, yes, Scotland will get the government they vote for in every election. Durr.

rebel12 - Member

Exactly as will happen between SNP and Scottish Labour if Scotland go independent. Same sh*t, different country, but with the added problem of bitter in-fighting over the scraps of new found political power

You would benefit from paying a bit of attention to scottish politics tbh. Where was the bitter in-fighting you imagine when the Parliament was created? We don't have first past the post to deal with, avoiding the false power blocks that creates, and out of 4 governments we've had only one majority so there's far more give and take- there's always had to be.

TBF one of the things that's polarised westminster politics so badly is FPTP. But you say we'll end up with a 2-party system... You realise that the SNP was basically nowhere within my lifetime and is now the majority party? That's how closed to political change we are.

We were offered a shabby compromise that no-one really wanted?

Which led to a No campaign filled with misinformation and scaremongering? Yup, sounds about right.

Exactly as will happen between SNP and Scottish Labour

I don't know. Assuming we keep the style of voting we have at the moment, there's a lot of scope for the smaller parties to do well and keep the larger ones in check.

Are we really meant to think you dont actually understand what this word means? That you have no access to the internet to get clarity if you are genuinely "confused"

Don't be thick.

The reason I asked is because the word's not clearly defined. It's one of those words that gets used a lot but has different meanings and implications depending on who's talking.

What do YOU think it means?

Can we please stop making generalisations about 'England is this' or 'England does this'? It's not a homogenous entity where everyone thinks the same.

Same applies to Scotland.

We were offered a shabby compromise that no-one really wanted?

It brought you here didn't it?

Adding insult to your troll to get a reaction...how tragic.

You realise that the SNP was basically nowhere within my lifetime and is now the majority party?

That's debatable, since voting patterns change from regional/council elections to general elections. Labour were the strongest by a mile then it's level pegging for Libs Dems and SNP, with the Tories a close 4th. However, interestingly looking at voting patterns where the SNP won seats, if their vote collapsed post independence then the net gainers would likely be the Tories. So I'd guess you'd end up with a parliament not looking too dissimilar to Westminster circa 1997.

You would benefit from paying a bit of attention to scottish politics tbh. Where was the bitter in-fighting you imagine when the Parliament was created?

[img] [/img]

Infighting, hmmmmmmm, Salmond can't even agree with himself it seems?

In the second quote he is saying their is an argument and it is being made strongly - he is not saying he is arguing it is he ? Is that really the best they can do to tarnish him ?
Somewhat weak though I would be surprised, like all politicians and most of us on here, if he had not contradicted himself at some point.

Adding insult to your troll to get a reaction...how tragic.

FFS I was raising a legitimate and pertinent question. You just didn't get it, and opted to chastise me for trolling or being thick myself.

AFAIK it has always been SNP policy to use sterling post-independence and then to adopt the Euro at some point in the future (in fact it could never be otherwise - see the rules for joining the Euro). I'm guessing that "some point" will be when it is sensible to do so and that the decisions on that will change according to circumstances prevailing at the time.

Who was it that said "[i]when the facts change I change my mind - what do you do[/i]"?

Oh the goad and the false claim i called you thick - Well played but its al fairly standard trolling 101.
If the question was so pertinent why was the only response to it mine?
Perhaps you might like to reflect on that and consider how pertinent it was.

I shall learn to ignore your future pertinent questions just as everyone else has learnt to ignore them

Well played but its al fairly standard trolling 101

It most definitely is not. It's a serious question and has been my point for ages.

What is the value of historical national boundaries?

What is the value of historical national boundaries?

They are very subjective. If the Romans had maintained the Antonine Wall was the border, the Central Belt would of been part of England.

IMO, culturally and socially the Southern Uplands feel very similar to Northumberland and Cumbria. If you were ignorant of the area, without a map it would be hard to tell when you had crossed the border.

What is the value of historical national boundaries?

Exactly, and when you read the definition of the Scottish people then you have to wonder if this all just isn't a little bit hypocritical and pointless:

The Scottish people (Scottish Gaelic: Albannaich), or Scots, are a nation and ethnic group native to Scotland. Historically they emerged from an amalgamation of the Picts and Gaels, incorporating neighbouring Britons to the south as well as Germanic peoples such as the Anglo-Saxons and the Norse. Later the Normans also had some influence.

Exactly.

dragon - Member

That's debatable, since voting patterns change from regional/council elections to general elections.

OK, fair point, I was referring to the Scottish Parliament where the SNP do hold an overall majority, wasn't clear enough there.

Junkyard- I love ya but every time you call troll a kitten dies.

molgrips - Member
...It does affect us. You're taking away a large part of my country.

No, not your country.

We are taking our country out of a union with another country. Scotland is a separate country divorcing its partner.

winston_dog - Member
...If the Romans had maintained the Antonine Wall was the border, the Central Belt would of been part of England.

They were incapable of maintaining it and had to withdraw south, so it is not a valid border.

The Romans were not very successful in Scotland.

If we are going to use Roman wall as boundaries, then Hadrian's as the longest lasting would be the border, but I doubt the residents in that area would be happy at suddenly being classed as Scots.

Scotland is a separate country divorcing its partner.

Where's that ****ing Pre-Nup? 😀

rebel12 - Member 

The Scottish people (Scottish Gaelic: Albannaich), or Scots, are a nation.
There you are you said it yourself.
I still see independence as a step towards a fairer distribution of power. Less centralised government would be good and some sort of effort to mitigate the power of multinationals

Junkyard- I love ya but every time you call troll a kitten dies.

What word should I use then to describe his behaviour? I only used it once he got insulting to provoke a reaction. If its not a good description what do you prefer?

That loioks like a troll but it a serious point.

They were incapable of maintaining it and had to withdraw south, so it is not a valid border.

The Romans were not very successful in Scotland.

That's a bit of a myth. It was more a cost/benefit thing. There was little natural resource that was of interest to them to expend the military resources that would of been required to occupy Scotland.

One wonders why they kept invading [ over a circa 350 year period] and getting beat if it was just a cost benefit thing and they wer enot interested.

Your either poor on history or trying to get a reaction

Neither of these make me think highly of you.

No, not your country.

Yes it is, my country is the UK.

Scotland is a separate country

How're you defining that?

What word should I use then to describe his behaviour?

I'm not trolling!

Trolling is posting something calculated to start an argument just for the hell of it. This debate is quite reasoned, calm and interesting. But you're shouting troll all over it, I don't understand why.

For the record, I NEVER deliberately wind people up (not without a wink and a smile at least) and I never have done it. I post alternative viewpoints where they are missing, and I try and make posts to make people think. That's not trolling.

One wonders why they kept invading [ over a circa 350 year period] and getting beat if it was just a cost benefit thing and they wer enot interested.

The Romans wanted to conquer places to expand their empire, but given the lack of resources in Scotland it wasn't worth throwing that many resources at it. So they tried, but ultimately gave up.

So all of the No camp are stupid people with shit jobs? I don't buy that for a second. Indeed, we have had some very articulate contributors on here who disprove that theory.

Well I'm very intelligent and have a good job in the very sectors that will supposedly be the lifeblood of the independent Scotlan... which is why I'm in the 'No' camp at the moment...

Articulate I'm not I wouldn't say I am though very.

The United Kingdom consists of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

What do you mean when you say its your country?

Oh this should be fun

But you're shouting troll all over it, I don't understand why.

I post alternative viewpoints where they are missing, and I try and make posts to make people think.

No offence I dont dislike you but I do dislike you doing that on the religious threads as I dont think you believe much of what you type on those threads

The UK is a fully independent sovereign state. Most people would agree it's a country.

Neither of these make me think highly of you.

Why would I want a stranger on the interweb to think highly of me?
Why would I care if he didn't?
Why would you think less of someone with a poor knowledge of history?
What a strange thing to type!

The Romans were as far North as Inverness and built a fort there I believe. They didn't stay for very long. I would imagine it would be a bit like Afghanistan at the moment, lot's of hard fighting brave local tribes. Yes you can use massive military force to knock them down but they keep coming back and in the end it just isn't worth it so you pull out.

I post alternative viewpoints where they are missing, and I try and make posts to make people think. That's not trolling.

you post stuff you dont believe then argue it to death which i consider to be trolling, pointless ,poorly executed and utterly pointless

I'd call it 'taking the concept of playing devil's advocate and stretching it way, way past any kind of usefulness', rather than trolling.

Junkyard - lazarus
One wonders why they kept invading [ over a circa 350 year period] and getting beat if it was just a cost benefit thing and they wer enot interested.

Your either poor on history or trying to get a reaction

Neither of these make me think highly of you.

ps how the hell did this get on to the Romans? 😀

ps how the hell did this get on to the Romans?

Apologies I think it was my fault. 🙂

Why would you think less of someone with a poor knowledge of history?

I dont in general but I do when they state a historical fact that is untrue, especially so when they are on the internet and they could check it out first.

Grum [s]that is very accurate but you know I hate to do long posts when one word will do
[/s] can i quote you on that 😉

when they state a historical fact that is untrue

Which fact is untrue? How does that work?

Can i call him a troll yet 😉

Junkyard - You have tried to insult me and belittle my knowledge of the Ancient Romans. When I ask you to tell me what part of my post was wrong you call me a troll!

No come on - who's trolling now? 🙂

Can i call him a troll yet

[img] https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTnfghD0Sp-cntDwcA3WwnwmShAYJaOb0RBKIz4Hf_5LfcNudwFLg [/img]

winston_dog - Member
...The Romans were as far North as Inverness and built a fort there I believe. They didn't stay for very long. I would imagine it would be a bit like Afghanistan at the moment, lot's of hard fighting brave local tribes. Yes you can use massive military force to knock them down but they keep coming back and in the end it just isn't worth it so you pull out.

Perhaps we shouldn't all believe Roman propaganda, there's another view.

They did a few exploratory invasions at great cost.

As far as there being nothing worth having in the North they were met by an army of tens of thousands. The logistics of that is hardly the work of unsophisticated savages and suggests a considerable civilisation with the resources to organise.

Despite claiming a great victory at Mons Graupius the world's greatest military power zipped back down south real quick. Maybe it was a bit like the great victories the German propaganda was claiming in WW2 as the Russians got closer and closer.

If you look at the pattern of marching camps near Inverness, they are pretty close together which suggests the Romans were having a really hard time. Not to mention the odd obliterated from history legion.

Just because the Romans wrote the history of their campaign, doesn't mean we should believe it - their retreating actions demonstrated the more likely truth of the situation.

That's the first time Ive ever seen the Picts compared to the Red Army.

epicyclo - I don't see what is fundamentally different in your summary from mine?

It seems be generally agreed that the Scots/Picts fought a guerrilla war against the Romans and when they forced to fight a pitched battle against them they suffered a defeat.

This has parallels with the current and previous military activity in Afghanistan, the Boer War the Russian Partisans operating behind the lines in WW2 and countless others.

Basically, the locals made things so uncomfortable for them they left. Not quite the same as chasing them out.

According to Roman Britain website there is (a suspected) Roman Fort at Thomshill just south of Elgin so pretty much Inverness.

This is quite some derailing, I'm impressed.

Can someone knock up a youtube video to show who was the bestest. With top of the trumps style ratings out of 10.

Maybe a section with a deadliest warriors style bit too.

20 things I love about Scotland.........
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/11/26/20-things-we-love-about-scotland_n_4342857.html?utm_hp_ref=uk-comedy

I don't see what is fundamentally different in your summary from mine?

the bit where you claim they did a cost/benefit thing when the reality is they failed to get a foothold/conquer despite multiple attempts

they failed to get a foothold

No they didn't.

the historical information is freely available on the interweb as well as this thread. People can read and decide how accurate or otherwise your account is.

dangerousbeans - Member
According to Roman Britain website there is (a suspected) Roman Fort at Thomshill just south of Elgin so pretty much Inverness.

I believe that one is a marching camp. The Romans erected them as temporary protection when on the move in hostile territory. A bit different from a permanently garrisoned fort. The amount of labour involved plus the loss of time means this was not done unless necessary for protection when on the move in hostile territory.

Of course, the Romans weren't the only ones who built camps or forts, so Roman features are no guarantee that the Romans did it. For example there is the remains of what is called King David's Castle near Muir of Ord and supposedly from that period in Scottish history. It's buried under dense undergrowth so not easy to find. When I checked it out I was struck by how closely it conformed to a Roman fortlet, so I paced it out and the dimensions were close - right down to the surrounding moat.

winston_dog - Member
It seems be generally agreed that the Scots/Picts fought a guerrilla war against the Romans and when they forced to fight a pitched battle against them they suffered a defeat.

It's only generally agreed if you believe the Roman history. There was no written record from the other side. If you judge by what happened next, it doesn't look like a victory.

2* yes in this household.

What's the running score then?

Knowing very little about it is the proposed split full or some half arsed affair? Split the NHS, Pension pot, military, taxation system?

I would imagine a proper split would be hugely expensive and something either country could ill afford in the present climate.

How much of it is down to Alex Salmonds ego trip of being the man to give Scotland Indepenence?

Would the English government then keep all ship building in England? What are the repercussions for England and Scotland?

Split the NHS, Pension pot, military, taxation system?

NHS is already split - as are education and judicial systems. Other stuff would split, but sometimes quite simple as lots of things have separate Scottish divisions - BBC Scotland just becomes the Scottish Broadcasting Company, for example.

How much of it is down to Alex Salmonds ego trip of being the man to give Scotland Indepenence?

None of it. He was voted for, he got an absolute majority (unlike Cameron) so the Scottish people at least want the SNP in power, and it's reasonable to assume the Scottish people know that the SNP wants independence.

Would the English government then keep all ship building in England?

Possibly - but BAE are a multinational and will build ships where they can be built - The Clyde is the best place for doing that.

Wasn't something said about that though, that Britain had never contracted warships outside of the UK and wasn't about to start?

Possibly - but BAE are a multinational and will build ships where they can be built - The Clyde is the best place for doing that.

And who is the biggest customer of BAE warships?

And what has that customer said about this matter?

And what has that customer said about this matter?

They've said it's a commercial decision, not in the slightest bit political 😆

The UK buys US-made aircraft, South African explosives, equipment from all over - they'll also buy ships from whoever can make them.

I love the way most of the Roman stuff on here is based on a tiny bit of historical fact and a huge amount of tendentious supposition.

No politics involved http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-mod-sinks-white-paper-plan-1-3213030

Defence Minister said that shipbuilding could be moved to Portsmouth and that this would require substantial investment in Portsmouth. He didnt make any guarantees.

Look don't get me wrong. I am voting yes after all.

But don't go into this thing thinking everything will be just peachy. It won't.

piemonster - Member

No politics involved http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-mod-sinks-white-paper-plan-1-3213030

Looks like politics to me.

I have no illusions that the defence industry in Scotland will get gutted post independence, and tbh it's one of the most logical pro union arguments I've heard, but it still doesn't sway me, mostly due to my thoughts on the UK defence industry, I'm heavily biased against it.

It's going to be one of the biggest challenges any new Scottish government will face, ie seeing these workers right. I would completely understand their reasons for voting no.

Indeed piemonster. I suspect there are 2 reasons that the defence minister wasnt more explicit.
1 A political reason,outside of Scotland the coalition dont want to be seen offering such a hefty bribe to Scottish workers and to guarantee the work to portsmouth in the event of a yes vote would seem like just that. In Scotland the same thing would be seen as an attempt to threaten or bully us.
2 The cost of investing in Portsmouth and inevitable delay in completion of the ships would be a factor.

2 The cost of investing in Portsmouth and inevitable delay in completion of the ships would be a factor.

For sure, but bringing shipbuilding of the Royal Navy home to England after Scottish Independence is surely political gold dust that'd bring the sort of decision making into play that says to hell with the cost.

BAE and politicians go hand in hand together all to often.

Yes but for the coalition to announce that now would simultaneously be a big blow to the Scottish economy and a political disaster for bitter together
Edit added in "Scottish"

I love the way most of the Roman stuff on here is based on a tiny bit of historical fact and a huge amount of tendentious supposition.

bitter together

So much better if we swapped Bitter for Ale.

Keep hearing this bitter together tag, yet its the yes supporters who say the no's are the negative ones!

Born in Scotland (of Scottish ancestry) and lived here all my life.

Due to the glorious administrations fine upstanding treatment regards Trumpton Towers herebys, Wee Eck can go take a flying **** at the moon.

The writing is on the wall plain as day for all to see. Money talks and he'll bend over for any futret heeded neep who flashes a fat wallet. Best check in on yer grannie just in case.

Who ever you vote for a politician always gets in. Tossers the lot of them!

metalheart - Member
Born in Scotland (of Scottish ancestry) and lived here all my life.

Due to the glorious administrations fine upstanding treatment regards Trumpton Towers herebys, Wee Eck can go take a flying **** at the moon...

Do you really think the SNP will survive more than one election after independence?

I expect it to fly apart into its various political parts.

It's not the SNP we're voting for in the referendum, it's an opportunity to have a political system where the focus is on Scottish matters and not having them as an afterthought in Westminster.

It's not the SNP we're voting for in the referendum, it's an opportunity to have a political system where the focus is on Scottish matters and not having them as an afterthought in Westminster.

epicyclo - Member

Do you really think the SNP will survive more than one election after independence?

I expect it to fly apart into its various political parts.

I honestly don't know, the interesting thing about the last few years is all the pro-SNP but not pro-independance voters, the party certainly has a life outwith separatism (a rough look at the numbers suggests the No-voting SNP voters could support a party of their own!)